The John Bercow report

Read it here. A truly extraordinary read, produced under the chairmanship of a retired Court of Appeal judge: the word "spittle" appears 7 times in the report, which is more than "Macbeth" (once) or "mercurial" (twice), but the same as the number of occurrences of the "f-word" or its variants. 

Below the break I have given some substantial extracts.

From the introductory section: "It is for historians to judge whether the respondent was a successful reforming Speaker of the House of Commons. However, there was no need to act as a bully in order to achieve that aim. A great office can be filled forcefully and effectively without descending to such behaviour. The findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which we have upheld, show that the respondent has been a serial bully. Like many bullies, he had those whom he favoured and those whom he made victims. These three complainants were victims. His evidence in the investigations, the findings of the Commissioner, and his submissions to us, show also that the respondent has been a serial liar. His behaviour fell very far below that which the public has a right to expect from any Member of Parliament. The respondent’s conduct was so serious that, had he still been a Member of Parliament, we would have determined that he should be expelled by resolution of the House. As it is, we recommend that he should never be permitted a pass to the Parliamentary estate." (Emphasis added.)

On the selection of the Speaker's Chaplain: "The complainant’s account is that initially the respondent was told that he could not have an active role in the recruitment process of his chaplain. He was disappointed by this, telling the complainant ‘you fucking fix it that I’m on that panel.’ When that proved impossible, the respondent stipulated that he wanted to meet all of the candidates, which he did after some negotiation. That sequence of events is in its essence confirmed by the evidence of external witnesses. Once the respondent had met the candidates, he fixed upon one whom he wished to be appointed. The candidate was a woman of colour. From that point the respondent set out to ensure that she was selected. [There was then a row.] Before this [row] was resolved by a compromise involving an alteration of the pattern into which previous chaplains had been recruited, this complainant was required to tell the respondent who the selection panel proposed to appoint. The complainant made detailed notes about the respondent’s reaction. He described it as being ‘furious beyond the normal reaction’ with the respondent swearing at the complainant, thumping the table and waving his arms, with spittle coming from his mouth." 

On mimicry: "The Commissioner did not, however, rely, as the investigator did, on general evidence of the respondent’s behaviour. In our view she could have done so. We take mimicry as an example. In this specific complaint the complainant alleges that the respondent mimicked him to his face and deliberately sneered at him by way of mocking caricature. ...  A senior Member of the House of Lords gave evidence that in meetings the respondent would often mimic the complainant to the witness when he was criticising him and calling him useless (which the witness found surprising and insulting). A senior MP said that the respondent would mimic the complainant in a dismissive and demeaning way when responding to his advice. This witness said that his treatment of the complainant was belittling and inappropriate. Another witness, a clerk, was ‘acutely embarrassed’ when the respondent mimicked the complainant to his face at meetings in front of others, deliberately demeaning him. (And remarkably, in his interviews with the investigator in this investigation, the respondent chose to imitate the complainant’s voice and words on at least 20 occasions.)" (Emphasis added.)

One thing I find especially surprising is Bercow's apparent conduct in the course of investigation: to continue to mimic people who accuse you of, among other matters, mimicking them in an offensive way, and to lie to the investigators (rather than, say, to make a show of apologising for "differences of views strongly expressed in the heat of the moment") displays such a, well, unusual mindset that one wonders quite what is going on.