Thinking about this in terms of pleading a case, what the current government is essentially doing is “non admission”: refusing to make a positive or negative case on the core factual issue (“was there a party in No 10 on 19/12/20?”).
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1466539208378626049
However, non-admission isn’t sustainable in litigation if the person taking that line holds all the relevant evidence and is in a position to know whether the allegation is true or false.
As is the case here: the minister’s complaint about “rumour” doesn’t (and can’t) land because the government knows the facts and is able to confirm or refute the rumour.
(It is beyond dispute that if there was anything that could be described as a party then the rules were broken: which is why the hapless minister forced to sustain this line is reduced to referring to “an event”.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
