Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Baa Ram Ewe 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🐑🐷🦃🚜 Profile picture
@ShepherdWales
Mar 4, 2023 • 7 tweets • 5 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
So now they get into the actual substance taking each event that received fines for anyone at anytime

I am going to simply put their description for each event alongside what #SueGray said Boris’ presence and involvement was

May 20th 2020-BYO Email
No fine for Boris

PC/SG 👇
19th June 2020

The one @BorisJohnson and @RishiSunak got fined for

PC/SG 👇
13th November

#SueGray concluded that Boris attended this until about 8pm when he went to his flat where some advisors were already having a meeting

No fine for Boris

His presence was deemed ‘necessary for work’ &it therefore was not a party then

PC/SG 👇
27th November
No fine for Boris, limited attendance to give a speech

Note: 4/5 deep (PC) but 15-20 people (SG)

Also the Paul Brand Podcast quote differs (party (PB) not gathering (PC)

PC/SG 👇
18th December

Note: Boris Johnson didn’t attend. No evidence that he knew of it.

This was the Allegra video that kicked everything off and on the back of which the party questions were asked
PC/SG 👇
14th January
No fine for Boris
PC/SG
The text then goes onto what Boris said that they feel might have misled parliament

A 🧵 👇

• • •

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

Baa Ram Ewe 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🐑🐷🦃🚜 Profile picture
Apr 27
Has Keir Starmer misled the House over the Mandelson Affair and should Labour MPs refer him to the Privileges Committee?

Answer to both is YES and I will produce a thread of the key moments where I believe the Prime Minister has misled the house - it would be up to the PC to determine whether intentionally or not.

Mislead No 1 ⬇️
Mislead No 1

AT PMQs on Wednesday 4th February 2026 Kemi Badenoch asked:

'Can the Prime Minister tell us: did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?'

Keir Starmer responds:

'Yes, it did. As a result, various questions were put to him'

At The Security Vetting Debate on Monday 20th April, Keir Starmer was asked directly about the above answer, he said:

'...in answer to a question of hers, I make it very clear that I had not seen the security vetting file. I did not know that UKSV—[Interruption.] The question asked was about vetting. I knew about the due diligence, which is why I put before the House what I knew about the due diligence in relation to Epstein. I told the House what the due diligence had said. I did not tell it what security vetting had said, because I had not seen the file in relation to that.'

He later confirmed the above again in the same debate:

'I was aware of what was in the due diligence—I have dealt with that—but I was not aware of the issues that were dealt with in the security vetting, nor the recommendation of UKSV.'

Following a further question by Sir Desmond Swayne, Starmer confirmed that he was referring to the Due Diligence report when answering Kemi Badenoch's question on 4th February.

Sir Desmond Swayne:

"On 4 February, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister:

“did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with… Jeffrey Epstein?”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]

The Prime Minister replied, “Yes, it did.” What on earth was it that the Prime Minister received and was talking about that my right hon. Friend referred to as the official security vetting? He said that he had received it."

The Prime Minister replied:

"The due diligence report."

Keir Starmer therefore mislead the house and the LOTO to think that he had seen the 'official security vetting' when he was in fact answering a question about the Official Security Vetting with information about the Due Diligence report.

This then brings us onto intent.

Did Starmer know the difference between the Due Diligence and the Official Security vetting?

The answer is - Yes.
He said , in the same debate:

Rebecca Smith MP asked the question:

"I wonder whether the Prime Minister knew the difference between the due diligence information from the Cabinet Office and the security vetting that had not taken place when he appointed Peter Mandelson on 18 December."

The Prime Minister:

"I did know the difference"

Keir Starmer knew he was being asked a question about the Official Security Vetting and chose to answer with regard to the Due Diligence Report which misled the house to believe that Starmer had seen the Official Security Vetting.Image
Image
Image
Image
Mislead no 2:

"That was a routine meeting..."

Downing Street is currently claiming that the meeting with Palantir that Mandelson arranged for Starmer was not a meeting and that's why no minutes exist.

Starmer has referred to it as a meeting so he has either misled the house or he needs to provide the minutes taken at the meeting.

One or the other - both can't be right.Image
Read 9 tweets
Baa Ram Ewe 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🐑🐷🦃🚜 Profile picture
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
Baa Ram Ewe 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🐑🐷🦃🚜 Profile picture
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
Baa Ram Ewe 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🐑🐷🦃🚜 Profile picture
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
Baa Ram Ewe 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🐑🐷🦃🚜 Profile picture
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
Baa Ram Ewe 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🐑🐷🦃🚜 Profile picture
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

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!

Send Email!

:(