Johnson

Did'nt see the committee  hearing  on the live stream, just on the evening news.

I would like to know other forum members views of how they feel how convincing he was?

Clearly experienced  politicians  like Harriet Harman, and Bernard Jenkin, are neither ging to be cowed by Johnson's bluster or fooled .

Their job is clear.They are not deciding whether  or not there were illegal gatherings in no 10, during lockdown.Everyone knows law breaking was rampant in Downing st.

The committee 's Job is to judge whether his denialswere the result  of innocent  misapprehension ,  about the lockdiwn busting that went on in No 10,or whether he told deliberate  lies to MP's.

The verdict the committee is  leaving towards, seems clear from its interim report, published,  a fortnight ago.

Evidence  has been gathered  independently of the Sue Gray enquiry, and many witnesses  statements have already  been given 

The evidence  concluded  that it would have been obvious  to Johnson , that the law was being flouted inside no 10, especially  as he himself was present at rule -busting parties! 

Witness  testimonials him telling one packed gathering, inside the building,  which took place when lock down restrictions  were very strict,  that it was "probably  the most socially  undistanced  gathering  in the UK right now."

Johnson has of course  argued that these were genuine work events

, and within the rules.

The judgement  will hinge on the wording,  and whether they feel Johnson has "recklessly " mis-led MP's , or has "knowingly  mis-led Parliament. 

What is clear,is that the foundations  of democracy is destroyed, if ministers think they can deliberately  get  away  with  misleading MP's.

When those in power think they can deceive with impunity,  it becomes impossible  for Parliament  to do its job.

That is hideously corrosive for democracy, and public  faith in it.

This is why it is so essential that the penalties  for lying  to Parliament,  must  be steep., particularly when the perpetrator has lied,and on a grave issue,from the highest office in the land. 

If there was a by election  in Uxbridge  and South  Ruislip ATM, forecasts  suggest  he would pose by a hefty margin. 

Humiliation  complete! 

In any case, his arguments were:

1. He did not know or have any control over what was going on in Downing St.

2. The gatherings (and breaking the restrictions) were 100% work events.

3. It was an essential part of his job to attend leaving dos.

4. Leaving drinks were actually fine under the restrictions; it was down to individual employers to decide.

5. No advisor ever told him any events broke restrictions.

During the enquiry my assessment is:

1. He is trying to play ignorance and incompetence. Goes against taking "full responsibility". He also was very happy to drop other names into the mix, Sunak in particular.

2. The committee revealed this to be a lie: his wife and interior designer were at an event. 

3. Many of us could not do all aspects of our jobs, he did not justify why he was an exception to this. 

4. I do not recall this at all and this is another lie.

5. There is evidence of his advisors implying they are well-aware restrictions were broken. It is hard to think they did not tell him their opinions so my view is this was another lie. There may well be no direct evidence he was told, however, which is what he is relying on.

His continued comment was at all times he "believed" he was being honest in the HoC yet it was only subsequent revelations that revealed these statements to be incorrect. So, at first glance this seems hard to challenge... But of course we do not rely upon unchallengeable personal beliefs as any form of evidence. But what will the committee do? There is no smoking gun so he will likely escape the most severe punishment. Yet he has in fact lied to them, presented himself as incompetent and unable to accept any responsibility where they observed the advisors he quoted were clearly not reliable plus undermined the committee itself: none of which go in his favour. Two Tories, Jenkin and de Costa seemed unimpressed, which may tilt the balance, and I think reckless behaviour can be justified. At the very least, Johnson has presented clear evidence that he did not have enough information to make the statements he did. Even if he tries to blame his advisors for this prepared line in the HoC, the fact he himself was at numerous gatherings severely undermines his ignorance plea, meaning I do think negligence is the minimum finding. As to what punishment this would occur in the intricacies of politics, I am unsure, but it will be interesting to see. 

As usual an exexcellent  assessment by the Dr. Thanks!

The key statement here is" negligence is the minimum  finding", due to the evidence the evidence  the Dr has indicated,  plus all the witnesses  statements gathered  by the Privileges  Committee,  which are contrary  to Johnson's  own statements.

Preston thinks he's finished,  but he can go on making,millions at speaking events  and continue denying  he ever fund anything  wrong.

The worry  for me is that some of the public in his constituency  STILL back him , despite  everything! Proves that public opinion jn UK cannot be trusted,  whatever polls tell us now.

Greasy Sunakk still fancy his chances at the polls !

Let's hope there will be a by-election and a unity candidate in Uxbridge very soon. Also hope in the long term to see written constitutions for our nations which includes an unequivocal legal basis by which politicians can be held to account when they lie in parliament. At the moment, the system is too wishy washy. Am I right in saying that the PM is the ultimate arbiter or is that just ministers? I know that Plaid Cymru proposed a Bill to make lying in Parliament a legal offence.

He was talking utter garbage....layed out his argument that it was ludicrous to " convict him of anything other than ignorance.  He is so far up his own @rse it was gringy......watched it all and in the last 30 mins he was losing it ......for me it was all about people in this country not being able to say goodbye to family that had died or were dying while he and his extremely hard working partying Number 10 DESERVED a drink and a get together and eff the Country.

I'm not allowed to drink wine or spirits in work...instant dismissal....anyone else on here during working hours have a tipple ???

I was on night shift in Trostre the night we won the 2005 Grand Slam. I'd had a couple of pints watching the game and was worrying a bit about turning up to work. Needn't have worried in the slightest. All the pulpits were stacked with slabs of lager 

Not an everyday occurence mind you