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
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
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
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
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
🧵👇
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?
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
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?
👀👇
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