Thread by @SomersetWasBlue

I’ve read all 106 pages of the #PrivilegesCommittee Report and looked up extracts they’ve referred to, at source in Hansard etc., to get context. Their findings hinge on 4 occasions where they say Boris deliberately mislead HoC. To get to this conclusion they spend 55 pages…1/

..going over all the events relating to #Partygate to say, in essence, that Boris must have known he was deliberately misleading (‘lying’ in common parlance) HoC on those 4 occasions. I prefer to look directly at detail of those 4 occasions and consider whether their case.. 2/

..is proven. In doing so, it seems to me that Boris rightly gave specific answers to the specific questions he was asked in HoC - there was no obligation for him to do anything else, however much the C’ttee seems to think he should have done. Taking them in turn….3/

1 Dec 21. Starmer asked if a Xmas party was held on 18 Dec 20 (which Boris did not attend). Boris said all guidance was followed at No10- because that is what he had been advised and had no reason or personal knowledge to indicate otherwise….4/

…at that time. 8Dec 21. Boris made statement about the Stratten video which referenced the party on 18 Dec 20, expressing his anger, repeating his understanding that no party(sic) had taken place and no rules broken and stating that an investigation by Chase would take place…5/

…..Chase later recused himself and Gray took over the widened investigation. Also on 8 Dec 21 West asked if there had been a party (sic) on 13 Nov 20. Boris had attended this event briefly (Cain farewell) but replied ‘No’(because he did not consider it a party) and ….6/

…that he was sure the rules had been followed. 12 Jan 22. Boris was asked about the ‘garden party’ on 20 May 20. Boris replied that he had considered this as being within the rules/guidance for a work event. ….7/

25 May 22. Following publication of Sue Gray’s final report, Boris acknowledged that he had inadvertently mislead HoC but repeated that he truly believed, and had been advised, that the events he had knowledge of or had attended (however briefly) had taken place within rules ../8

…whereas investigation he had commissioned had shown they were not. In sum, Cttee did not accept Boris’ explanation and claimed that he must have known otherwise and that therefore he was guilty of deliberately misleading HoC 4 times and that constituted serious contempt../9

So, the whole thing comes down to whether you accept Boris’ defence that on those 4 occasions he did not ‘knowingly’ or ‘deliberately’ mislead in response to the questions he was asked about specific events, or whether you believe that …/10

..the Cttee has shown -on balance of probabilities -itself a lower bar of ‘proof’ than in a criminal case -that he knew that he was ‘lying’. Personally, I don’t believe that Cttee has shown this at all and that Boris’ statements at the time they were made were in good faith ../11

…as he says. I accept that my very abbreviated interpretation of 106 pages may be inaccurate/incomplete and you should read the whole report yourself and make your own judgement….you really should. /END