Thread by @ShepherdWales

🧵#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

They are correct in their finding that Boris Johnson misled the house

Boris doesn’t dispute that he unintentionally misled the house and he corrected the record on the 25th May 2022 on the day that Sue Gray published her final report

It’s at this point that the subtleties begin

There are five main points of concern

1.They felt he should have corrected the record every time there was a new revelation after the investigation had been set up

I am not sure Sue Gray or the Met would have appreciated him doing that tbh.

1 cont. They claim he had a ‘closed mind’ to the truth and did ‘double down’ on his statement in PMQs on the 1st December

I will demonstrate that this is not the case through Hansard evidence

2. They are finding events unlawful (not necessary for work) that the Metropolitan Police found were lawful (necessary for work) at the time of BJs attendance and ruling that Boris must have known they were unlawful when even the Met have concluded they weren’t at that time

3. They feel that he intentionally misled the house when he corrected the record 25th May 2022 because he stated RIGHTLY (according to the MetPolice) that the events at the time he attended them (aside from 19th June) were deemed within the rules

4. They are taking statements / what’s app etc from civil servants& Spads etc after the fact where they are doubting the legality of the birthday(eg)&using them to say that those were their thoughts at the time and at the start of #partygate when Boris is accused of misleading.

5. Lastly the referral motion specifically mentions that it is concerned with legality of events but the whole report seems focused on guidance

They ignore Dominic Cummings’ testimony that No10 was being used as an experiment for fast testing (LFTs) from the summer of 2020

5 cont:

This is significant because when they came into use nationwide they replaced much of the social distancing guidelines&explains why the guidance was being followed even if social distancing was not perfect.

5 cont:

The aim of the guidance (and laws) was to limit spread&
testing
testing
testing was the key part of that strategy and enabled us after July 19th 2021 to open up the country fully.

5 cont: The fact the general public at large didn’t have access to it until summer 2021 meant his public assertions were obviously different to what needed to be done in places where fast testing was available.

The committee feel that he could have&should have corrected the record earlier than 25th May 2022 as more and more potentially unlawful gatherings were being revealed by the media.

I have always,&still do argue that officially correcting the record during an ongoing investigation&then during a police investigation would be prejudicial to those investigations especially when all you know is media reports&not the full facts

What if you correct the record and find your correction is inaccurate once Sue Gray or the Met gave their findings?? No where in the report is this explored as a possibility.

The committee rejects this reasoning though&I can’t actually find a valid explanation for why, other than it ‘must have been obvious’.

Why would it have been obvious when he was being specifically asked about an event that he wasn’t at& no evidence has been produced to show that he did know about it?

They have based their assertion that he must have known by assuming that at precisely 9.58pm ( I kid you not!) when walking to his flat he must have seen an illegal gathering

How can they use such an assumption as definitive proof of anything, especially when accounts differ?

Sue Gray also made a point of stating in her first report (31.01.21) that she wasn’t going to divulge the information that she held,so how was BJ supposed to honestly state what happened at events he wasn’t at or after he’d left, based on what he was hearing through grape vines?

It seems the committee wanted him to correct the record or seek more assurances during the week between PMQs on the 1st Dec&PMQs on the 8th Dec

They feel that he didn’t do this but that he

‘…double down on the answers he had given earlier’

&‘Closed his mind to the truth.’

So let’s assess whether he did ‘double down’ and have a ‘closed mind’ to the truth as they allege

During the week of the 1st -7th December 2021 there were no new media revelations to discredit what he had been told by those at the 20th December 2021 Christmas party

13th Nov Lee Cain leaving event, at the time Boris attended it, he did not feel that the rules and guidance were broken&there is no actual evidence to say that he knew what had occurred after he left

These were the 2 events questioned in the house, during PMQs on the 8th Dec 21

On the evening of the 7th December 2021 the Allegra Stratton video surfaced in the media

At this point The Prime Minister significantly changes tack demonstrating that his mind certainly isn’t closed to the possibility of wrong doing

Let’s take a look at what he said on Dec 1st 21&his opening statement in the house on the 8th Dec21& see how his stance changes:
PMQ Dec 1st 21-Hansard in response to a specific question about specific event(20th Dec20)that he has consistently maintained that he didn’t know about

PMQs Dec 8th21- Opening statement less than 24 hrs post the Allegra Stratton video being released

His opening statement to the house is telling the house that he has asked the…

.... Cont...