Thread by @ShepherdWales

So I’ve started reading the report from the privileges committee.

It’s a severe case of moving the goal posts from lying about parties to being reckless about social distancing

I’m going to create a thread as I go through it so it will take time 🧵 1/?

#borisjohnson #partygate

Firstly the link to the report:
#PrivilegesCommittee

committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/…

1. To intend to mislead is to lie

To inadvertently mislead is to report what you think is true but later find out that it wasn’t

That’s what the ministerial code distinguishes between

What’s this addition of reckless? How are they defining that in action?

There has been media report that intention has been removed and it has

Lord Pannick says it has

Chris Bryant has tweeted that it has

So they include ‘reckless’ (meaning what exactly) to get round that

Intention is still not being investigated.

Why?? See next tweet 😱

Because they state here that they aren’t assessing whether @BorisJohnson broke the ministerial code 😱

I thought that was the whole point of this committee!!!

If intent was included then they would be assessing the exPM against the code

They aren’t, which speaks volumes

So then we get to the nitty gritty

They go onto say that they are using Met conclusions & #SueGray as evidence but they aren’t re investigating events:fair enough

BUT

Johnson was asked specifically about parties in the HoC & yet they are looking at every gathering…

That received fines regardless of whether Boris received a fine at the time he was present or not or even IF he was not present at all but just passing through

Incidentally in the TVdoc one witness said ‘parties’ were on a Friday night specifically because the PM wasn’t there

That’s as far as I have got so far but my initial thoughts are:

1. They’ve moved the goalposts&the ministerial code in order to ensure a sanction

2. Every hospital/school in the U.K. broke social distancing rules at some point in the pandemic

3. Starmer’s curry broke SD rules

Interestingly they aren’t divulging that Lord Pannick (Boris Johnson’s barrister - him of Gina Millar Art50 fame) has told them this committee would be thrown out of a court of law and ruled unlawful

So I’ve now done a thread containing a comparison between what the #PrivilegesCommittee states the events were and what #SueGray stated they were with BJs involvement

I’ll leave you to decide whether the PC is giving a true reflection so far or not

Read the 🧵 👇

The next thread will be what Boris actually said(the crux of what he is being accused of as being misleading)and the question he was actually asked-which the #PrivilegesCommittee appears to not lend as much emphasis too but which is actually crucial

I keep being interrupted 🤭👇

So the final part of my reading of the #PrivilegesCommittee initial report to @BorisJohnson

It has confirmed to me that this is not a fair, reasonable process and I can see why Lord Pannick and others take the view that it would be unlawful in a court of law

#SueGray

So the final part of my reading of the #PrivilegesCommittee initial report to @BorisJohnson

It has confirmed to me that this is not a fair, reasonable process and I can see why Lord Pannick and others take the view that it would be unlawful in a court of law

#SueGray
🧵👇final

Addendum: some significant but not directly related to the #PrivilegesCommittee

Brand pushed a narrative that was misleading in his podcast and tainted public opinion further
👇

My thoughts on the #SueGray report in light of the recent revelations of her political leanings 🧵👇

.@jfoster2019

Thanks for the retweet

The full thread is here:

🧵👇

Additional thoughts on the #SueGray initial report and my reasoning as to why I think it prejudiced all what followed and continues to prejudice public opinion re partygate against @BorisJohnson and let’s the civil service off the hook
🧵👇