Can you please explain to me, what the predetermined outcome and penalties of this investigation are?
I know what they might be, if he is found to have intentionally misled Parliament.
Investigation into whether BJ misled Parliament is fundamentally flawed says QC
- Thread starter blup
- Start date
I know what they might be, if he is found to have intentionally misled Parliament.
You've made the same mistake as the option there.
He isn't being investigated for intentionally misleading parliament. He's being investigated for misleading parliament.
One aspect that he's being investigated is his failure to correct the record as quickly as possible as required. If he made an honest mistake and forgot he saw blatant violations of the COVID laws then he will as still obliged to tell parliament he'd got it wrong when me made his statements as soon as he realised that.
So it really comes down to their view on what constitutes a party - i'm sure we've been here before earlier this year. Clearly, de Piffle doesn't think an event held in Downing St. where tables are laden with food, suitcases of booze are brought in to keep the workers going though a long night of diligent dancing on the tables constitutes a party otherwise he would've remembered it as such and replied according to the context of the question.
It reflects the make up of Parliament.
The Privileges Committee has seven members (including the chair). Conservative MPs are in a majority on the committee, with four MPs. There are two Labour MPs (one of whom currently chairs the committee), and one SNP MP. The balance of the committee reflects the broader balance of parties in the House of Commons as a whole.
No, it depends whether the covid rules were broken.
Mr Johnson said the rules were followed "at all times”
there are photos of him, with glass in hand at an event that did not comply with the rules.
it’s a slum dunk, Johnson lied. He misled parliament.
So it’s not a kangaroo court.
it’s not biased Labour MPs.
in fact it’s Tory MP that know full well Johnson the liar, lied
It must be painful for supporters of the notorious liar, dishonest Johnson, to know that somebody is having an investigation to see if he is a liar.
The vast majority of us already know he is
Even his supporters know it, though a few think there is something to be gained by denying it.
yougov.co.uk
yougov.co.uk
When somebody tries to waffle on Johnson's behalf, you can see something of their character.
What sort of person supports a man who has lied to his employers, his voters, to the nation, to Parliament, and to the Queen?
The vast majority of us already know he is
Even his supporters know it, though a few think there is something to be gained by denying it.
Eight in 10 Britons say Boris Johnson lied about lockdown parties | YouGov
Voters are not convinced that the prime minister has been honest in his response to ‘partygate’
yougov.co.uk
Boris Johnson trustworthiness
Thinking about Boris Johnson, do you think he...Is trustworthy or untrustworthy?
yougov.co.uk
When somebody tries to waffle on Johnson's behalf, you can see something of their character.
What sort of person supports a man who has lied to his employers, his voters, to the nation, to Parliament, and to the Queen?
I was and am aware of the difference, and I know that it is not a deciding factor in his guilt. I was just echoing the language in the press.
Many of us knew it before he threw his hat in the ring as contender for leadership of the Tory party.
If Tory MPs and supporters claim they did not know, they must either be blatant liars themselves or thick as dung.
In one report I heard one of the "findings" was that it might discourage MP's from "speaking" in case they inadvertently mislead the house. "Speaking" as in parliament style. It's a save Boris extension pure and simple but questionable if it will achieve anything. Whitewash and prevent any future similar problems. Not being misleading should be a core feature of democracy. We get more than enough obscuration anyway but there has to be limits. Actually I don't think Boris's problems just relate to partygate. Honesty isn't one of his features. 
An analyst pointed out that Truss is out of the same mould and gave examples of why.
Then we have MP's coerced by threatening their budgets. Rapidly whitewashed.
Khan is having problems from the same faction behind the above. The fact is that the MET is under special measures. It seems he hasn't followed procedures that were achieving nothing anyway. He threatened the lady who resigned by saying if you don't resign I will announce that I have no confidence in you. That seemed to be pretty clear anyway so how accurate is that piece of info?
An analyst pointed out that Truss is out of the same mould and gave examples of why.Then we have MP's coerced by threatening their budgets. Rapidly whitewashed.
Khan is having problems from the same faction behind the above. The fact is that the MET is under special measures. It seems he hasn't followed procedures that were achieving nothing anyway. He threatened the lady who resigned by saying if you don't resign I will announce that I have no confidence in you. That seemed to be pretty clear anyway so how accurate is that piece of info?
Both.
For weeks now supporters of Boris Johnson have been loudly claiming that he is the victim of a show trial in respect of charges that he misled the House of Commons over 'Partygate' last December.
He appeared to deny that there had been a party in Downing Street on November 13, 2020, and moreover stated that 'the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times'.
I confess that, like many people, I have suspected that the Prime Minister may have been guilty of misleading the House of Commons, either intentionally or unintentionally.
But at the same time, also like other fair-minded people, I have had strong reservations about the neutrality and fairness of the seven MPs on the Commons committee of privileges who are looking into the matter.
The written advice by Lord Pannick, QC, commissioned by Downing Street and revealed yesterday by the Mail, is therefore nothing less than a sensation.
Lord Pannick is about as far from being a Tory patsy as it is possible to be.
As one of the country's most eminent lawyers, he was at the forefront of attempts to challenge the legality of Brexit.
In his advice he has been assisted by another barrister, Jason Pobjoy, whose record also suggests that he is no friend of the Government.
The advice makes no judgment as to whether Mr Johnson did mislead the Commons.
Not having heard the evidence, Lord Pannick can't possibly know. But he is unequivocal in his opinion that 'the approach taken by the committee is fundamentally flawed in a number of important respects'.
According to the opinion, Mr Johnson is being denied proper justice by the committee of privileges in six important areas.
For example, he has not been told the exact case against him. He, or his counsel, are not allowed to cross-examine witnesses. The identity of these witnesses may not even be disclosed.
Worst of all, 'the committee has failed to understand that to prove contempt against Mr Johnson it is necessary to establish that he intended [Lord Pannick's italics] to mislead the House'.
In effect, the committee has determined that, even though it may have no proof of a deliberate deception on the Prime Minister's part, the suspicion that one took place is all that is necessary to convict him.
The penalty in that eventuality would be severe. He could be suspended from the House of Commons, and forced to face a by-election in his Uxbridge constituency, which in the circumstances he might well lose. His political disgrace would have been accomplished.
Aren't these denials of natural justice proof that the process against Mr Johnson amounts to nothing less than a show trial?
Of course, being a lawyer, Lord Pannick does not employ such words, but his report could hardly be more devastating.
In a sense, it changes nothing because it is only an opinion, albeit produced by one of the Bar's most brilliant minds, who is as well informed as any man alive about proper parliamentary procedure.
There is little question that if the committee, aided by Labour and other opposition parties, attempts to kick Lord Pannick's conclusions into the long grass, there will be an uproar – and not just among Mr Johnson's supporters.
For I repeat that this advice is in no sense an exculpation of Boris Johnson. It is about the process to which he is being subjected, which it judges to be fundamentally unfair. That is a very grave charge.
In Lord Pannick's view, Mr Johnson is not the only potential victim. He warns that the committee's investigation as presently envisaged would have a wider 'chilling effect' on ministers if they could be punished for inadvertently making a mistake when addressing the House. In other words, our democratic procedures are at stake.
I believe that this opinion confirms what many of us have suspected – that this is a politically-motivated witch-hunt in which Mr Johnson won't be afforded the rudiments of natural justice by a collection of MPs who have largely declared themselves to be his enemies.
The chairman of the committee, Labour MP Harriet Harman, tweeted in April that the Prime Minister had 'misled' the House, and she also shared a blog by former Labour press secretary Alastair Campbell which claimed the PM 'broke [his] own emergency laws', 'lied repeatedly' and 'trashed the ministerial code'.
As for the four Tory MPs on the committee, in varying degrees they have also made clear their critical feelings about Mr Johnson.
The prejudices of the other Labour MP on the panel, and those of the single SNP member, are not hard to fathom.
This is a political stitch-up – and I believe that the evidence is there, in Lord Pannick's opinion. Rules have been bent, and natural justice is being denied, all in the cause of ruining Boris Johnson, and destroying his reputation.
Whatever we may think of him, doesn't he deserve better than the rough justice of a kangaroo court? Doesn't the country? Thank God for the cool, fair, unbiased mind of Lord Pannick. We must listen to him.
For example, he has not been told the exact case against him. He, or his counsel, are not allowed to cross-examine witnesses. The identity of these witnesses may not even be disclosed.
Whatever you say Skippy.
This is exactly what happens in parliamentary investigations. Why is he special?
Anyway, if the committee find he has been contemptuous of parliament then any punishment will be voted on by parliament. There's still a Tory majority there to protect him from unfair treatment.
Boris lied about the parties but claims it wasn't intentional? A three year old child is more convincing than our Bozza.
