42 Day Deals - Bribery?
I was having a chat last night with someone in my County Council Division last night. It started off as a ward matter but moved onto discuss politics in general and, in particular, David Davis and the 42 Day debate.
I talked with him about some of the speculation that is flying around about deals having been done guaranteeing certain seats, offering Chairmanships of committees and the like. His first response was that these are not deals, they are bribery. On reflection, I think he is right.
A deal would involve compromising on the content of the bill (some of which did happen and is legitimate) or, arguably bartering between the content of the 42 days bill and another one, but offering someone a Chairmanship of committee (for which they will more than likely be paid) is something different.
I would be interested to know, if this were proven, what the legal position would be?
I talked with him about some of the speculation that is flying around about deals having been done guaranteeing certain seats, offering Chairmanships of committees and the like. His first response was that these are not deals, they are bribery. On reflection, I think he is right.
A deal would involve compromising on the content of the bill (some of which did happen and is legitimate) or, arguably bartering between the content of the 42 days bill and another one, but offering someone a Chairmanship of committee (for which they will more than likely be paid) is something different.
I would be interested to know, if this were proven, what the legal position would be?
Labels: 42 days
posted by Martin Curtis at 9:21 AM
1 Comments:
The same thought occurred to me. I had a look at some of the legislation on this and it looked to me as if what went on (allegedly) at Westminster was indeed bribery. Of course there would never be any evidence though.
Post a Comment
<< Home