dear oh dear oh dear.
this strikes me as the petulance of a condemned man.
i'm afraid Lords Graydon and Johns et al have displayed a naivety only demonstrable by people who have been sheltered from the real world for the majority of their careers. These people have (and in some cases continue to do so) acted as judge, jury and executioner in many cases. The majority of these cases are only capable of being examined at Judicial Review. If DLS (discount laughable serfs) opine the case is questionable they settle, ergo there is no investigation into an invalid decision. Consequently the net result is a mindset which dictates that one is above question, examination and ultimately above the law(unwarrantable arrogance).
Their Lord ex Airships have demonstrated a monumental error in judgement (IMHO). The house of lords is the highest court in the land. The law lords, in order to be appointed, must have displayed an almost unmatched knowledge of the law (unsurprisingly), and be of the utmost integrity and impartiality. if the law lords decide a point of law in a case before them, then their judgement passes into law as precedent...I think you get the picture.
The house of lords are fundamentally aware of the stature and importance of the law lords. The fact that they (airships)consider themselves capable of taking the law lords on, on what is essentially a point of law (discharge of burden of proof) is laughable.
I can only hope that the rest of the house view the event as a serious attempt at circumventing due process, and that it was a blatant attempt to destroy the credibility of the committee before it had the opportunity to publish its findings.
Furthermore, in attempting this act of cronyism Graydon and johns et al have demonstrated they are unsuitable to remain as members of the house, as they have no fundamental understanding of what is required of a peer, and how to conduct oneself as such.
I'll get your coats.