Comments by "Iazzaboyce" (@Iazzaboyce) on "Boris could have done better - he behaved badly" video.

But, it's not 'the government' that need be satisfied on the perception of impartiality in a trial with obvious political implications - it's the accused and the average person in the street. This was not merely a 'perception' of impartiality, this was a series of public statements that, showed Harman to be unequivocally partial. The head judge on this committee stated on several occasions she believed Boris was guilty, before she heard any of the hearing evidence. There's no escaping the absolute reality that, this situation constitutes 'judicial prejudice' and is the very definition of a 'kangaroo court'.
1
@johnryan7932 I'll try to help you: So, when prior (before) to the hearing HH stated 'they broke the rules' this created an appearance (looks like) she had already decided they had broken the rules and was not impartial (fair) when listening to BJ's evidence (reasons) he believed the rules had been adhered to (not broken)... Hope this helps.
1
@johnryan7932 How did 'The Tories vote about 300 to 1 that BoJo did break the rules' ?
1
@johnryan7932 But you said 'Tories' those 354 MPs that voted to support the committee were mostly not Tories, most Tory MPs did not vote...
1
@johnryan7932 I think 7, but that doesn't make your comment right - does it?
1
@johnryan7932 Obviously, I thought you meant how many Tory MPs voted against the committee. Still wondering where you got '300-1 Tories voted that Boris broke the rules' from???
1
@johnryan7932 OK, but to abstain is to neither support nor oppose.
1