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.

None of this is true. The chairman is appointed by the leader of the party, Rishi Sunak. He alone has the power to fire him.

There is no committee formed. The prime minister asked his ethics advisor to investigate. Even this wasn’t actually required and he could have fired him without the report.

It doesn’t, the person your responding to doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

No one votes for the role the position is appointed by the leader of the party i.e. the Prime Minister. Hence how he was able to sack him. Boris Johnson didn’t appoint him to the role either, he previously appointed him to the role of Chancellor, ironically after Rishi Sunak resigned the role.