Did Johnson lie to Parliament?

We will have to disagree then
I’m really not sure how you can categorically state that if someone says they believed something ……they are lying.

You can disagree with someone for sure (and I do) but their beleif will always be there belief
Ref belief in God et al
you can't and that rather than facts are the entirity of his defence. But on the balance of probabilities and credulity then he's lying and tripling down to save his own skin. That's before you get into the semantics of some of his answers and body language.
 
Surely, the most obvious mitigation against Covid to all these events was to simply not have them. Bit frustrating that this wasn't put to Johnson.
 
you can't and that rather than facts are the entirity of his defence. But on the balance of probabilities and credulity then he's lying and tripling down to save his own skin. That's before you get into the semantics of some of his answers and body language.

I’m agreeing with you by the way

Just saying that from his point of view, whatever the outcome, he will be able to say ‘I honestly believed in what I was told’ and he can stand by that forever.
So
He keeps his integrity
He will be believed by a good chunk of the electorate(a la Trump)
He will sail off into the night making millions a year

And….we will kid ourselves that because he got caught out and maybe even lost his seat, its a great victory
 
I’m agreeing with you by the way

Just saying that from his point of view, whatever the outcome, he will be able to say ‘I honestly believed in what I was told’ and he can stand by that forever.
So
He keeps his integrity
He will be believed by a good chunk of the electorate(a la Trump)
He will sail off into the night making millions a year

And….we will kid ourselves that because he got caught out and maybe even lost his seat, its a great victory
If he keeps his integrity, then the bar can't have been set very high.
 
It's not relevant to the enquiry. It only matters whether Johnson lied to parliament, not whether there were parties or gatherings that broke the law or guidance.

Yes it is, his defence that these events were essential for work is central too his entire defence that he believed he never misled the house.

He believes that all mitigations that were possible, happened which it clearly never and he should've been pressed further on that.
 
Yes it is, his defence that these events were essential for work is central too his entire defence.
It's not relevant. They are not investigating what should have happened. They are investigating whether Johnson lied about what actually happened in parliament.
 
It's not relevant. They are not investigating what should have happened. They are investigating whether Johnson lied about what actually happened in parliament.

To be pedantic….
I think
He is saying this is about his belief on the legality of what happened

Overall it is whether he knowingly misled parliament
 
It's not relevant. They are not investigating what should have happened. They are investigating whether Johnson lied about what actually happened in parliament.

His belief is that all mitigations that were possible, took place, therefore what he said never misled parliament. The ultimate mitigation was not to have them at all, asking him if he considered not having them is very important in my opinion.

The second part is that they are not just looking at if he lied, it's also how quickly Johnson could've corrected the record or if he "recklessly" misled the house.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top