Thread by @AdamWagner1

My summary view of Johnson's evidence is the same as it was before he started: his case that the guidance allowed boozy non-socially distanced drinks events with no work being done is absurd and he's either lying that he thought it did or was reckless for asserting it.

I think his best outcome for the 1 and 8 December statements is he was reckless not lying when he made the statements to Parliament, because he consulted his press spads who were at the events rather than people who knew what the rules and guidance actually said.

I think he was hopeless on justifying not correcting the record in months that followed (even today!) because however much he might have foolishly/recklessly believed advisors who were at the parties at the time, he was later advised differently and should have asked more widely.

The most crushing question for him was "why no mitigation" at the drinks events. The fact that there wasn't blows a hole in his view of the guidance allowing non-socially distanced events where necessary, which was obviously aimed at small workplaces where people were doing work

I stand by what I said in #EmergencyState - if Johnson wants to know what rules and guidance actually were, perhaps someone could send to him!
Ultimately, Johnson thought No.10 was special, and didn't need to follow rules. No more complicated than that.
amazon.co.uk/Emergency-Stat…

The reason he could not correct the record at the end is because there is a logical fallacy in his argument.

If he accepted guidance wasn’t followed now he would be asked why. He would have to give reasons and those should have been obvious at the time or shortly afterwards.