There are two possibilities.
(a) Johnson is a serial liar who this time was held to account and judged by a cross party committee to have lied to mislead parliament and the country
(b) Johnson is a jolly decent chap but a cabal of anti-Johnson elitists have been conducted a witch hunt.
And opt for (b). Strewth.
Those are your words, not mine.
I have not written anything remotely like that.
This is a highly politicised enquiry designed to remove Johnson from politics for life.
Compare this to Blair lying about weapons of mass destruction.
There’s your answer
1 Like
Late additions:
The report revealed that on 18 May, the government provided the Privileges Committee with “new evidence relating to 16 gatherings at Number 10 and Chequers” without any prior notice.
An accompanying statement from the government had said: "As part of their work preparing Boris Johnson’s witness statement for the COVID Inquiry (due to be filed on 29 May), the counsel team supporting Mr Johnson identified a number of diary entries as potentially problematic.
“These entries […] are based on an assessment by Government Legal Department as to events/activities which could reasonably be considered to constitute breaches of COVID Regulations.”
BJ kept those quiet … 
Let’s hope so. The man is not suited for low office let alone any ministerial position.
Now go ahead and highlight some other random politician that you think should have been held to account. Go as far back in history as you want. Why limit yourself the British PMs? Go global. I’m sure we will not notice that its all whataboutery.
1 Like
He was an elected prime minister by the public.
You have a real problem with truth, facts and reality.
I know few take your endless cut&paste posts seriously or remember any of your posts for long. But I’d have thought you would recall what you wrote just the day before (so I’m here to help your poor memory: posted 18 hours ago “Oh I do love the way that somebody who has left the country, tries to tell people who still live here what’s going on in our country.”). But then again maybe you find your own comments instantly forgettable. Or maybe you willed yourself to forget this one as it is such a patently daft idea that I’d no access to the very same info that everyone in the UK has. But those were your words.
2 Likes
Bair is hardly a random politician, unless of course you don’t know what he did.
It will be interesting to see how the votes go in the HoC if they vote on Boris being banned from Parliament for life.
Will be also interesting to see if Starmer has anything to say.
You come out with so much rubbish that I didn’t know what you were going on about. I thought you were talking about Boris being out of the country not you. Why didn’t you say that instead of confusing it in a post that you were discussing Boris, how am I supposed to know what you’re going on about.
When giving evidence to the committee in March, Mr Johnson staunchly denied misleading Parliament on purpose, in a stormy session.
But in its lengthy report, which runs to 106 pages, the committee concluded that Mr Johnson’s “personal knowledge of breaches”, combined with “his repeated failures pro-actively to investigate” them, amounted to “a deliberate closing of his mind” to the facts.
The committee concluded that officials did not advise Mr Johnson that social-distancing guidelines had been followed at all times, despite him repeatedly making the claim in the House of Commons.
In key evidence, one of Mr Johnson’s most senior officials, Martin Reynolds, said he advised the former prime minister against making the claim, questioning “whether it was realistic to argue that all guidance had been followed at all times”.
“Someone who is repeatedly reckless and continues to deny that which is patent is a person whose conduct is sufficient to demonstrate intent,” the committee said.
The committee’s report said “some of Mr Johnson’s denials and explanations were so disingenuous that they were by their very nature deliberate attempts to mislead” MPs.
Mr Johnson was also found to have breached confidentiality requirements when he criticised the committee’s findings in his fiery resignation statement last week.
“Mr Johnson’s conduct in making this statement is in itself a very serious contempt,” the report said.
The committee said the 90-day sanction was recommended because of repeated contempt, including:
- Deliberately misleading the House of Commons
- Deliberately misleading the committee
- Breaching confidence
- Impugning the committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the House
- Being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee
Dishonourable discharge for BJ … 
Well that’s the impression you give. I don’t like any politician misleading, but they all do it, so why just call Boris out for doing it. I suppose when Starmer gets in, it will be alright for him to mislead the electorate to having got in.
BJ may have deliberately misled the HoC but he lies to everyone else - he’s an habitual prevaricator … 
And so was Corbyn and Blair and now Starmer. And so as not to be political, I’ll add Cameron and Major into the mix too.
I can only be responsible for what I write - if someone else ascribes a very different meaning to what I have actually written and makes wild suppositions, then they are responsible for those ideas, not me! - what have I written that could lead a reasonable person to suppose I am suggesting it will be alright for Starmer or any other MP to mislead the electorate?
Why I only call Boris out in this thread is because this thread is about Boris!
To clarify -
In a Thread about an Inquiry into Johnson misleading Parliament while he was in Government as PM, I consider criticisms against policy flip-flopping of one of the opposition parties to be a distracting irrelevance.
By the same token, if I was posting in a Thread criticising Keir Starmer as the Opposition Leader for flip-flopping over Labour Party policy, I would consider criticism of Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak as a distracting irrelevance.
You can put as many words in my mouth and make as many wild suppositions as you like but I won’t be drawn into giving my opinion on what X or Y did wrong when the case under discussion is about Z.
It is a common distraction technique which I’ve seen used many times before.
1 Like
But only BJ has a well-documented record, now several thousand pages long, including his lie, regarding the prorogation of the UK Parliament, to H.M. the Queen.
In 2019, Johnson was accused of lying to the Queen over the advice he gave her on suspending parliament for five weeks. The power to suspend, or prorogue, parliament lies with the Queen, who conventionally acts on the advice of the prime minister.
The supreme court ultimately ruled the prorogation unlawful – and Johnson was faced with accusations of lying to the Queen. Asked whether he had lied to the monarch about his reasons for the suspension, he replied: “Absolutely not.”
We may discover more when it is debated in the Commons next Monday
“What will happen next?”
“Following publication of the committee’s final report, the leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt, has stated that the committee’s findings will be subject to a debate and vote in the House of Commons on 19 June 2023. This will allow MPs to express their view on the committee’s findings, though the text of the specific motion that the government will table has not yet been published.”
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explai…gation-boris-johnson
1 Like
The man is incapable of telling the truth.
He has no morals when it comes to his public and private life lying and cheating.
Shameful.
2 Likes
Not long to wait, then … 
Separately, the Privileges Committee has stated that it plans to produce a special committee report on the issues raised by what it called “a sustained attempt, seemingly co-ordinated, to undermine the Committee’s credibility and, more worryingly, that of those Members serving on it.” The timetable for this is not yet clear.
I’m pleased about that - BJ thinks that he is more than mortal man - the public should continue to learn otherwise … 