I didn’t say there wasn’t a report, just that it wasn’t required. It wasn’t, the prime minister is perfectly entitled to sack him without one. Enough information was available to publicly to confirm he’d broken the ministerial code. You said that you need a report to fire the party chairman, you don’t.

You’re the one making semantic arguments. Suggesting that asking someone to do something which is part of their job cannot be sensibly described as forming a committee.

I note you’ve ignored the points I made about the relationship between the leader and chairman of the party. Can I assume you accept that this is correct and you just don’t want to admit it?

Edit: and they’ve blocked me.