Denis, I'm not going to argue with you on any of the issues you list in the last paragraph of your post, on which, as you can imagine, I profoundly disagree. But let me correct you on one important fact. Neither the Committee on Privileges, which concluded that Boris Johnson deliberately misled Parliament over "Partygate" lockdown gatherings, nor the Committee on Standards, which would consider the Standards Commissioner's report on Nigel Farage's failure to declare gifts, can remotely be described as a kangaroo court. The Privileges Committee typically consists of seven MPs reflecting the general balance of parties in the Commons, so that the majority of members in Johnson's case were Conservative MPs (Sir Bernard Jenkin, Sir Charles Walker, Andy Carter, and Alberto Costa). The Standards Committee also has four members from the largest party in the Commons (the Labour MPs Paula Barker, Gareth Snell, Gill Furniss and Michael Wheeler) but any unfairness of a dominant party view is mitigated by the presence of seven lay members appointed through a fair and open public recruitment process. "Kangaroo court" is just an attempt to divert attention from the seriousness of the accusations by undermining the committees and suggesting that they are not impartial. It is the defence of the scoundrel (a tag which fits Johnson and Farage equally well)!
Robert Fish ● 4h