Mr Johnson wrote to the inquiry claiming that he was not the one to blame for the redactions (1), and that the order “may directly and/or indirectly suggest that I have failed to provide documents to the inquiry”.
He added: “Any such suggestion or implication would be unfair and untrue.”
Writing in a letter dated 24 May, he asked for at least a 48-hour delay to the publication of the order, so he could seek legal advice.
He also revealed that he is currently changing his legal team.
The inquiry did not grant this delay and published the order the same day - although they released the letter from Mr Johnson alongside their announcement.
BJ tries to bluff and bluster his way out again - procrastination, prevarication and obfuscation …
(1) Who was then and in whose interest were the redactions …
It is amazing how Johnson carries a baggage of problems and scandals with him and is inept enough to let one fall out every so often. Ages ago when he was still PM I noted on a thread in this forum that even if he survived whatever current set of problems he’d created at that time, it did not matter as him being Johnson could be relied on to soon be the centre of another scandal. This latest revelations should be no surprise. The man is walking series of catastrophies. Kind of the opposite to Midas.
I think I read somewhere some empty speculation that the anti-Sunak brigade in the tory party were aiming to submit enough letters of no confidence in Sunak that they could achieve their dream of getting Johnson back. Funny how that damp squib of a rebellion has all gone quiet now. Even these MP’s might be wondering if Johnson is less of a buoyancy aid and more of a sea mine waiting to go off at the worst possible moment.
It may have gone quiet to you but not to those that want Sunak and Hunt out - which is every conservative that doesn’t support the social democrat version they have in place now.
Rumour has it that Johnson has enough in his WhatsApp diaries to sink Sunak which is why the cabinet are trying to hang on to them.
I’m not a fan of Johnson by any means but Sunak was rejected by the membership and ended up being handed the job by his cronies. Truss never got a chance, but as time proves, she was absolutely right in her policies its just it didn’t wash with the WEF drones, EU fanatics and Globalists that have infested the Conservative Party.
Nothing I would rather see than Sunak being stuffed good and proper. The thing is, despite all the history on Johnson, he would still win an election for the Tories, thats why the left are panicking because they know his hat will go in the ring as soon as the summer recess is over and Sunak is booted.
He now has two weeks to respond to a “warning letter” sent by the committee. The letter details the criticisms it intends to make of Mr Johnson, along with any evidence which supports them, the BBC understands.
The letter will also inform Mr Johnson of any proposed penalties that the committee will suggest for MPs to approve. MPs would be asked to endorse the findings, via a vote in the House of Commons.
Mr Johnson now has two weeks to reply. His response will be considered by the committee before it finalises its report - this is expected to happen by the end of June.
A spokesperson for the committee said it was “proceeding in accordance with its previously published procedure. Under that procedure, if the committee decides to criticise Mr Johnson, it will not come to a final conclusion until it has taken into account any further submissions from Mr Johnson.”
No doubt BJ has passed the letter on to his legal team for them to produce an appropriate reply …
Johnson’s allies have been wargaming how to avoid him being forced out of parliament by a negative finding by the privileges committee but public opinion appears to be against him.
More than two-thirds of people (68%) believe he should resign as an MP if found to have intentionally misled parliament, according to a new survey by YouGov.
The poll found that 56% think he lied about breaching lockdown rules and it was right for him to be held accountable, while a further 29% believe he lied but that the issue should be moved on from.
Just 5% believe that Johnson did not lie and there was nothing to hold him accountable for, in a survey of 2,071 adults conducted on 6 and 7 June.
Despite friends of Johnson, such as the former culture secretary Nadine Dorries, trying to paint the inquiry as a “witch-hunt”, 60% of Britons thought the inquiry was fair compared with 21% who said it was unfair.
Gosh, was I right? Yup. Were some others on this forum so very wrong? Yup. The problem is always that stupid adulation means that you can’t see the lying toad for the lying toad that he is. Yes, btw, I am gloating.
With more than 220,000 Covid deaths to date, the Guardian plots the UK death toll against dates on which the staff parties are alleged to have occurred, as well as other alleged breaches of lockdown rules and Johnson’s comments on the gatherings.
Apparently faced with the prolonged humiliation of a Commons vote on a Privileges Committee recommendation of suspension, possibly leading to a recall petition in his constituency and a potential by-election, Johnson has instead chosen an accelerated departure. He has quit while protesting his innocence and berating the system which determined his guilt, but without subjecting himself to the judgment of either his fellow MPs or his constituents.
The strength of the executive in the UK system is often criticised by those who worry about the government’s ability to ride roughshod over parliament. It is true that a government with a majority can almost always get its way in the House of Commons. But the existence and powers of the Privileges Committee represent a crucial bulwark against any individual who seeks to prevent the legislature fulfilling its constitutional role. And the committee’s most recent inquiry demonstrates that not even a prime minister can disregard the principle that the legislature must be told the truth.
Indeed, the words of a prime minister before the House of Commons are even more important than those uttered by anyone else. And if the Commons was impotent to enforce that principle, then its ability to perform its constitutional role of holding the government to account would be fundamentally undermined. Friends in the US report having watched in astonishment, and envy, at the sight of a former premier compelled to appear and be held to account for their behaviour in office by a committee of senior legislators. That such a process can have real consequences even for a former prime minister – as Johnson has discovered – is essential to its effectiveness.
Few people had heard of the Privileges Committee before it began its investigation into Johnson. But in a post-truth world, the value of a mechanism which enables a small group of parliamentarians to enforce the principle that politicians must tell the truth is of exceptional value to our democracy.
Good article. It would have been better if it addressed the lies in Johnson’s resignation statement about the committee being “a kangaroo court” - in fact the committee, with a majority of Tory MP’s, makes recommendations based on its findings. The house of commons votes on whether action is taken. In this statement Johnson lies again saying any statement he made to the house “I was saying what I believed sincerely to be true”. He wouldn’t know sincere if he bumped into it. He is so delusional that he is saying that he believes his own lies to be the truth.
I’d also note that the privileges committee was only investigated the possibility that Johnson lied to parliament. All his other lies were not subject to any review or checks.
The panel of MPs examining claims that Boris Johnson lied to parliament over “partygate” is meeting to conclude its inquiry - and is poised to deliver a damning verdict.
It has been suggested that - before Mr Johnson’s shock resignation as an MP - the committee had been discussing a 20-day suspension, triggering a recall petition and potential by-election.
He cannot be suspended now he has resigned, but he could be refused a parliamentary pass offered to former MPs, a sanction imposed on former speaker John Bercow after a bullying report.
In a report expected to be hard-hitting, the committee is believed to have found that Mr Johnson not only made recklessly inaccurate statements in the Commons but also deliberately lied to MPs.
In addition, the committee is expected to rule that during his appearance before it in March, Mr Johnson made further inaccurate claims under oath, making him guilty of contempt of parliament.
Another factor affecting the outcome was the evidence handed to the committee and to police by the COVID inquiry last month about claims of rule-breaking at Chequers, which was denied by Mr Johnson when he appeared before the committee.
Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over parties in Downing Street during the pandemic, the Privileges Committee is expected to say in its report on Wednesday.
The committee has rejected the former prime minister’s defence that senior officials advised him Covid rules and guidance had been followed in No 10, according to The Times.
One of Mr Johnson’s key aides at the time reportedly advised him to remove a claim from a statement to the Commons that “all guidance had been followed at all times” during Downing St functions.
Mr Johnson removed the line from his opening statement but repeated its assertion during a subsequent debate – something the committee reportedly views as evidence that MPs were deliberately misled.
Johnson said the draft report he had seen was “riddled with inaccuracies and reeks of prejudice”, adding it was clear the committee was “determined to use the proceedings against me to drive me out of Parliament”.
“They have still not produced a shred of evidence that I knowingly or recklessly misled the Commons,” he said, insisting “I did not lie”.
Under the published process, Mr Johnson was entitled to respond to the committee up to 14 days after receiving its draft findings, which were sent last week.
Boris Johnson has urged the privileges committee to publish its report on whether he lied to MPs over partygate and “let the world judge their nonsense”.
In a new statement on Tuesday evening, the former prime minister said: “The privileges committee should publish their report and let the world judge their nonsense. They have no excuse for delay. Their absurdly unfair rules do not even allow any criticism of their findings. I have made my views clear to the committee in writing - and will do so more widely when they finally publish.”
Once a select committee report is signed off, a large logistical operation gets under way to print copies and plan for its release.
Government insiders and committee sources said they wanted to ensure the report was published by about 10:30am on Thursday, when the Commons leader, Penny Mordaunt, will make a statement about business for the week.
It is up to her to announce the timing of a vote on the report, given MPs have to accept a report in order for it to formally come into effect.
The vote is likely to be held next Monday as Downing Street hopes to get the issue over with as quickly as possible, given the row over Partygate has dragged on for 18 months.
