I have struggled to make sense of the claims issued by Boris Johnson overnight that, in his opinion, show that he is innocent of misleading parliament about parties at No 10 during lock downs.
His claim appears to be in two parts. The first part is that the committee only thinks there were parties because Sue Gray told them this was the case and provided the only evidence that there were parties, and she is unreliable because she has now joined Labour.
This ignores three facts. The first is that the Committee trying him says they did not use her report. The second is that no one has suggested she was talking to Labour about a job when she reported. The third, and most important is that she was asked to report because there was prima facie evidence in existence that parties took place before she reported and that was why she was asked to investigate. That evidence was not invalidated, as Johnson implies, because she reviewed it. The claim is, then, utterly inconsequential. The Committee has already said so.
Second, Johnson says no one ever told him he was attending parties so it never occurred to him that he was so he could not have misled Parliament because he did not think he was. This might be called the insanity offence. That is because it assumes he did not know the law, even though he made it, and unlike everyone else who had personal responsibility fir complying with it he was only required to do so if an official told him he was at risk of breaking it and if they did not he was innocent. That, politely, is insane. It suggests he thinks he is a stage removed from responsibility when he very clearly was not. The law said he was't. As he claimed at Eton, the logic is that rules apply to everyone but him.
After this the defence assumes he does not know what a party is when attending one. That is also a plea to insanity. He apparently does not share the sanity (in the sense of common understanding) of other people, apparently, so it need not apply to him.
Then this claim requires that we believe that when it was pointed out that he might have attended an illegal party he did not think it appropriate to reconsider his opinion. He therefore could maintain his innocence even when others had suggested that unlikely to be credible. That is also insane. It requires that we believe he is unable to reflect on his actions after they have taken place, unlike everyone else.
What is the chance that Johnson believes any of this? I am sure he has persuaded himself of it, so I suspect that he does. In that case the question before the Committee is not whether he thought he misled the House, but whether a reasonable person might have thought he had done so.
It's not a legally novel thing to have to consider. A person appears before a court every sitting day in this country having entirely persuaded themselves that they did not commit a crime of which they are accused. They will swear blind they did not. A jury is tasked with appraising the evidence that they did, and not their unevidenced claim that they did not. That is what the Committee will have to do.
I admit my bias: I think Johnson lied throughout this and many other episodes and has, at best, a loose relationship with reality. I think he did mislead the House, on several occasions. I cannot see how anyone could think otherwise.
More worrying though is the fact that he is not alone in denying responsibility for decision making. Johnson made this into an art form, but it is commonplace. Time and again ministers need to decide on an issue and instead refer the matter to a third party when they already have the power to take action. The inability to accept responsibility is chronic in government. I suspect Labour will be no better at it if they get into office. Cowardly politicians seek office so that they might then evade the responsibility that comes with the post. Johnson's claim that he could only know an event was a party if an official told him it was is just an extreme example of that mindset. In parliament alone this might resonate.
Will the Committee find Johnson guilty? Without corruption being in play I cannot see how they can avoid doing so. The evidence appears strong. The defence is absurd.
Will the whole House then take action? I also think that likely: Sunak has every reason to want him gone. He is a nuisance he would well be rid of. Ignore everything else: that is enough.
I hope that happens. We can do without Johnson and his ilk.
What do you think?
Did Boris Johnson mislead to House of Commons over parties at 10 Downing Street?
- Yes (99%, 964 Votes)
- No (1%, 6 Votes)
- I don’t have an opinion, but show me the answers anyway (0%, 4 Votes)
Total Voters: 974
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
We just have to ask ourselves, if it had been a member of the public in a similar situation, would they have gotten away with it?
A man who requires to be told by someone else that he is participating in a party before he will believe it, also believes that is evidence demonstrating he is fit to be PM.
This is what the Conservative Party serves up, time after time as Government material. It is as of we were living in the eighteenth century and the country was littered in the representatives of rotten boroughs. We endure this dross because FPTP can’t fix the problem; only proportional representation, with a system that ensures ‘Party’ does not control the second or alternative vote will fix this mad anomaly that leaves us all the prisoner of Party.
Let us rehearse some plausible alternative scenarios if anyone had been foolish enough to tell Johnson he was attending a party. Why would Johnson believe him or her? Why would he need to? Johnson could claim the only reason anyone would think there was a party is because this person said so, and would be providing the only evidence that there was a party, and that peron was unreliable. After all, that is what he is saying about Sue Gray, a respected civil servant.
The man is pathological liar and always has been. Sonia Purnell’s biography “Just Boris” is all anyone needs to read (enough of it is readable on Google Books to get the gist).
The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.
There are seven MPs on the committee, four of them Conservatives. I imagine the newspapers who have journalists with Suella Braverman in Rwanda, are already preparing lines of attack on them.
They have apparently been inundated with Tory emails
But I cannot see Sunak and CCHQ wanting Johnson to win
Ahh, I see Johnson himself has voted here…………
Ahh, I see Johnson himself has voted here…………
5 times!
🙂
This is very concerning isn’t it?
I understand that he has been chosen once again to represent Uxbridge – which I thought had much more sense. But looks can always be deceptive.
Johnson is an odd character in all of this? I agree that he may be a liability now but – I have my doubts about how damaged he is.
In a nutshell – you know what it is? It is my lack of trust in other voter’s judgement – that’s the source of my worries.
I was interested to see reports that BJ’s evidence would be long and detailed. As a Chartered Accountant (now retired) one of my concerns was writing responses on behalf of the defense for convicted criminals who now faced claims under the Proceeds of Crime Act for the repayment of any ill-gotten gains. The job of the defense in these situations is really just to knock holes in the other side’s argument. So the longer the argument, the more chances there are to knock holes.
I know, some politicians don’t know when to shut up.
Are we not supposed to be paying for his defence, over £200,000, I believe?
Does that make us insane?
It makes those who permitted that payment insane
I see Lord Pannick is defending Johnson. Apparently he lost his first case. Hope he loses this one.
Why are we paying for Pannick to defend a liar? He actually took Johnson to court against Gina Miller, and got a judgment saying that Johnson had given unlawful advice to the Queen!
Pannick is very clearly motivated by one thing. It is not justice. It is money.
Worth bearing in mind that the guidance did not mention the word party. It stated that people could not gather for matters unrelated to work.
These were illegal gatherings and unless they were diaried, minuted and attended by only those necessary then he hasn’t got a leg to stand on .
True. Party was considered hard to define. But wer all know what one is. Food, drink, often alcoholic, chatter, non-work orientated etc etc
Why is it that in reading his defence I’m reminded of the story of the Emperor’s new clothes?