Thread by @GeorgePeretzQC

Helpful analysis here.

https://twitter.com/inkspringed/status/1485562262660300802

But it’s also important to look at Johnson’s claim on 1.12.21. Regardless of what he knew/understood when he went into the garden on 20.5.20, is it credible that *after* that event, he still believed that guidance had been completely followed in No 10?

Is it also credible that - months after the party on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral - he still knew so little about it (or other similar events) that he genuinely believed on 1.12.21 that “guidance was followed completely”?

Or is his defence that he only meant to claim that guidance was completely followed *on 18 December*?

But that is not what he said - and such a defence looks nitpicking at best - and remember that the critical question is whether the statement was misleading - so “technically accurate but misleading” doesn’t help.

Or is his defence that he genuinely thought that all these events complied with guidance? But if the press reports are even roughly accurate it’s hard to see how that could be a credible position for him to take.

Sue Gray’s report is unlikely to contain findings on those issues directly. It will be for Tory MPs to decide if her findings leave any serious room for Johnson to defend what he told Parliament as being anything other than knowingly misleading.

And if they conclude that they don’t leave him any such room, their duty is to remove him, if he refuses to go of his own accord.