I’m not sure that is true
Investigation into whether BJ misled Parliament is fundamentally flawed says QC
- Thread starter blup
- Start date
I think they are going head on for both those but the point remains a precedent could be set that means ministers are automatically in contempt if they inadvertently mislead parliament regardless of whether they correct the record.
Blup
The chair thought the matter wouldn't be referred to his committee so launched an attack on BJ; when parliament voted to refer it, he had to stand down.
Blup
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2016
- Messages
- 6,194
- Reaction score
- 1,167
- Country
The rules currently are that the “offender” must correct the record at the earliest possibility.
Boris did not correct the record
i don’t believe that there is any risk that a genuine mistaken statement, if corrected, would be affected by the investigation.
The system is designed to stop ministered lying as policy.
Not to punish use, accidentally, of outdated figures etc.
So long as the mistake is acknowledged
Boris did not correct the record
i don’t believe that there is any risk that a genuine mistaken statement, if corrected, would be affected by the investigation.
The system is designed to stop ministered lying as policy.
Not to punish use, accidentally, of outdated figures etc.
So long as the mistake is acknowledged
No, that's absolutely not right.
The rules say they have to correct parliament at the earliest opportunity. If Boris didn't do that then he is bang out of line.
Apart from Harriet Harman, the new chair who tweeted in April that BJ had misled the House.
That's not really in doubt is it. Boris said there were no parties or deviations from COVID regulations. How many fines were there?
If BJ 'intentionally' misleing is without doubt, why the need for an enquiry. If there is to be an enquiry it must be unbiased. The Chaiman having already delivered a guilty verdict via twitter suggests she might slightly biased.
That's not what you said Harriet Harman said.
That's not what the terms of reference require. Intent isn't the only basis. This has been repeated enough times you know this.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 7,069
- Reaction score
- 1,187
- Country
Does any of this really matter even a teeny bit, now??
Because the privileges committee is beyond the control of Johnson.
unlike the Sue Gray enquiry
If found guilty Johnson would lose his seat and there would be a bye election.
Fair enough. but BJ's defence will be that he did inform parliament at the earliest opportunity, i.e. when the FPN's were issued. Until then he genuinely believed the guidance and rules hadn't been broken.
I believe she tweeted that he appeared to have mislead parliament, but was then unanimously elected to chair committee
Yes, because the public perception of LT will be influenced by how she reacts to the inevitable recommendation to parliament that BJ has been in contempt, possibly triggering a by election.
Blup
