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
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? Image
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 😱 Image
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 Image
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 ImageImage
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 ImageImage
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 🤭👇 Image
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
🧵👇

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Baa Ram Ewe 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🐑🐷🦃🚜

Baa Ram Ewe 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🐑🐷🦃🚜 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ShepherdWales

Jun 29, 2023
I’ve just read the ‘special report’ from the #PrivilegesCommittee

You can read it yourself here.

Thankfully this one is relatively short



I have a few issues with it… 🧐🧵👇committees.parliament.uk/publications/4…
Firstly: their fourth report stated it was specifically authorised to look at @BorisJohnson and no one else

So where is their mandate from the house to criticise multiple MPs/Lords and even @ConsPost ??

Their mandate was also limited to what was said in the House and yet this… https://t.co/Ha5gTwCCTntwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
They have used this footnote to explain their mandate but surely ‘privilege’ is limited to proceedings in the house? Outside of the house the law applies and if they feel they have been libelled/ slandered /intimidated then they should use the law?

Is this another case of… https://t.co/H8BTNrWt1Atwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Read 19 tweets
Jun 18, 2023
🧵#PrivilegesCommitteeReport

After reading the full 110 pages my overriding conclusion is that the Privileges Committee Report into whether Boris Johnson intentionally misled Parliament is a confused word salad of conjecture, contradiction and is rather misleading in and of… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
The basic conclusion of the Privilege Committee investigation is that they find Boris Johnson intentionally misled the house and, in so doing, is found in contempt of the house
Their initial ‘warning’ to BJ was that they were going to recommend a sanction of suspension that would be long enough to cause a recall petition in his constituency

Events then moved very quickly they increased their recommendations to 90 days&removal of his parliamentary pass
Read 26 tweets
Mar 9, 2023
Here is @RishiSunak telling the HoC that he did not attend any parties

Yes he was asked about a specific event but that doesn’t matter to the #privilegescommittee hearing for @BorisJohnson

One rule for one and another for another??

That sounds fair 🙄

independent.co.uk/tv/news/rishi-…
An exact carbon copy and I have yet to find any link of Sunak correcting the record at all

Did he?

He may’ve done but…🤷‍♀️
A carbon copy of the #PrivilegesCommittee question to @BorisJohnson from Catherine West MP

I have searched Hansard and can find no reference to @RishiSunak correcting the house OR even apologising

@Conservatives MPs what do you do now?

Refer @RishiSunak or scrap the PC?
Read 7 tweets
Mar 7, 2023
Oh my word!!! 😱😱😱😱😱

Suddenly everything is starting to make sense…

👀😱👇 #SueGrayGate

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1… Image
Couple that with this:

And you start to understand how we got to where we are now! 😱👀😱👇

#SueGrayGate

For once I’m ‘threadless’

Where to begin…??? 😱👀🫣
Guess who was invited in to HoC to speak at the Committee on standards on December 8th 2020(a year to the date of Allegra Stratton video) to discuss MPs code of conduct&the Ministerial code: whether and how the system should change?
👀👇

Take a look
committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1…
Read 6 tweets
Mar 6, 2023
Did #SueGray gather the evidence and report the facts of gatherings in Downing Street or did she set the narrative and set the wheels in motion to oust a democratically elected PM? 🧵👇

Was she motivated by her politics or did she simply report the facts?
There were parties - no one is denying that but was her first report prejudicial and was it even necessary?

Imo there are two main aspects of her first report that I find troubling

(FTR the second report I have no issue with- the damage was already done imo by the first)
1. Timings - as I have set out in a previous thread

Why did she publish that first report?

What motivated her?

Previous 🧵👇
Read 16 tweets
Mar 4, 2023
Now we get onto what @BorisJohnson said in the HoC that could be held to be ‘misleading’

Worth noting that what he was actually asked is as important as what he then said in response

When you’re asked a specific question you answer that question

#SueGray #PrivilegesCommittee
Dec1st 2020 from PC 👇

Boris Johnson said:

‘…all guidance was followed completely in no 10’

As per the #PrivilegesCommittee initial report

But

Let’s look at what he was actually asked…
.@Keir_Starmer asked:

‘As millions of people were locked down last year was a Christmas Party thrown in Downing Street for dozens of people on December the 18th?’

That’s specific

So let’s look at Dec 18th again

➡️He wasn’t there. It was the Allegra video 👀
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(