Did Johnson lie to Parliament?

I’ve no doubt whatsoever but

It’s real tricky for the HOC tho - his defence is very clever.

He say misled the house on the basis of the advice he was given.
So, it was in good faith and what he honestly believed to be true.

There is no way anyone can categorically say that was a lie.

Remember, despite everything circa 24% (from memory) of the UK population still do not think he is a liar.

If this goes against him there will be an outcry from supporters. Mail, Express and Telegraph (interestingly , not The Times) who will claim ‘witch hunt and unfair’.
He will always be able to claim no one can fairly challenge his belief.

Also worth noting he brought Sunak into this with his written submission and has also said he will vote against the new NI bill.
 
I’ve no doubt whatsoever but

It’s real tricky for the HOC tho - his defence is very clever.

He say misled the house on the basis of the advice he was given.
So, it was in good faith and what he honestly believed to be true.

There is no way anyone can categorically say that was a lie.

Remember, despite everything circa 24% (from memory) of the UK population still do not think he is a liar.

If this goes against him there will be an outcry from supporters. Mail, Express and Telegraph (interestingly , not The Times) who will claim ‘witch hunt and unfair’.
He will always be able to claim no one can fairly challenge his belief.

Also worth noting he brought Sunak into this with his written submission and has also said he will vote against the new NI bill.
It's not really tricky is it? I don't think his defence is even that clever, more holes in it than a slice of swiss cheese.

The fact it's the best his lawyers can up with says everything. If they don't find he's lied to parliament they're essentially giving a pass to every MP to lie with impunity and just rely on the "nobody told me" defence if challenged.

As for the 24% who don't think he's a liar. We certainly shouldn't be pandering to morons.
 
t’s real tricky for the HOC tho - his defence is very clever.

He’s wasted a quarter of a million pounds on a ridiculous defence that offers no new evidence whatsoever.

Nothing remotely clever about it.

The committee will almost certainly find him guilty and recommend sanctions. The big question then will be whether those sanctions are actually applied as that part is not up to the committee.
 
I’ve no doubt whatsoever but

It’s real tricky for the HOC tho - his defence is very clever.

He say misled the house on the basis of the advice he was given.
So, it was in good faith and what he honestly believed to be true.

There is no way anyone can categorically say that was a lie.

Remember, despite everything circa 24% (from memory) of the UK population still do not think he is a liar.

If this goes against him there will be an outcry from supporters. Mail, Express and Telegraph (interestingly , not The Times) who will claim ‘witch hunt and unfair’.
He will always be able to claim no one can fairly challenge his belief.

Also worth noting he brought Sunak into this with his written submission and has also said he will vote against the new NI bill.
I think his version of what happened was the only semi-credible one avaliable to him.

Its a matter of fact that he stated inaccuracies, claiming he didn't is guaranteeing findings against him.

So the issue becomes why he said what he said, not whether he did.

The most interesting thing is the lack of detail in his statement ie who told him, when, in what context and where was he when the breaches took place.

The committee was always going to find against him., or not, based on these details, but what he's done is provided a platform for plausible deniablity after the findings have been published, which many people will no doubt swallow whole
 
I still cannot comprehend how normal people in the North of England "quite like Boris". The man is an entitled lying bar steward who only ever does what is best for him.

Of course he lied to Parliament. Just like he lied about Northern Ireland, about Brexit and when he was a so called Journalist.
 
A single salient fact is being missed here. Let's assume for a minute the committee cannot punch holes in his defence that he was told no rules were broken, which is unlikely. He did not come to parliament at the earliest opportunity to correct the record. Both offences are punishable by suspension.

As for parliament voting on the suspension.. Sunak has already said it will be a free vote. Some tories will abstain, some will vote against any suspension but it won't be enough.

The only way Johnson comes out of this as a standing mp is if the suspension is nine days or less.
 
The biggest issue has to be that he was Prime Minister and leader of the country, he was ultimately the head of the cabinet and key decision maker.

Is he really trying to suggest that he was, after telling the nation the rules, night after night after night, that as leader, he can not make a judgement from his own eyes? Can he not read a room, see booze, nibbles, people standing in close proximity indoors and not be able to make a determination on his own and he has to rely on the judgement of others to advise him? He is either a liar (✔️), completley thick and therefore unfit for office (✔️) or both (✔️).

If he is found not guilty, then the committee and its membership is unfit for office and likely corrupt. If he is found guilty and then subsequently given a less than 10 day ban, it will be due to the tories putting self preservation before honesty and integrity in public office, and the highest position in government no less, rather than doing the right thing, upholding the nations interest for the good of the nation, the people they purport to represent and democracy itself will be seen as nothing more than a sham. Faith in British respect, integrity and honesty will have yet another nail hammered in its coffin.
 
Back
Top