Did Johnson lie to Parliament?

Semantics maybe, but don't know about "extremely" intelligent. He famously struggles with detail. Admittedly a lot of that is down to his laziness, but the genuinely extremely intelligent people I know, or who have worked with, understand detail without having to try. They get it first time. It's easy for them and it wouldn't matter if they were lazy or not.

Johnson doesn't. He's bright enough, but extremely smart/intelligent? I just don't buy it. He's very cunning though, which is a bit different.
to be cunning takes an intelligence and quick wittedness too. Sociopaths are wired differently, they apply their intelligence in a different way to you or I
 
Whenever I see someone interviewing, or in this case questioning him, I always feel like they’re being far too easy on him. Almost as if they’re afraid to poke the bear, whoever or whatever that bear might be.
 
My take (and I didn't watch all of it) was that he was "assured that the statements he was making were correct" but he can't remember who told him they were correct.

About as credible and as me telling my teacher "one of the other boys told me it was alright not to do my homework but I can't remember which one said that"

If you still have any credence in the utterances of Johnson I have some magic beans that you might be interested in...
7fgphj.jpg

Its worse than that - we now know he got the advice from the 2 people he appointed to try and keep him out of trouble.
The 2 were ex Daily Mail journalists and one of them had his doubts.

Neither is a lawyer or senior civil servant who would have been better placed.
It’s almost as if he asked 2 ‘yes men’ so he could use this as defence in future.
He wouldn’t do that would he………
 
Last edited:
Today's front pages on BBC News. Have a good look at the advert at the top of the front page of the Metro.

Whoever came up with that is a genius.


Only The Mail and Exoress come out fighting for Johnson today on their front pages.

Weirdly - neither of those front page pics are featured on the BBC website today.
 
Its worse than that - we now know he got the advice from the 2 people he appointed to try and keep him out of trouble.
The 2 were ex Daily Mail journalists and one of them had his doubts.

Neither is a lawyer or senior civil servant who would have been better placed.
It’s almost as if he asked 2 ‘yes men’ so he could use this as defence in future.
He wouldn’t do that would he………
The reality of course is he didn’t ask them at the time, he asked them to create plausible deniability when the story broke
 
Johnson is toast after that evidential hearing. I got the impression his sole aim was to blow some smoke at mirrors in an attempt to justify his actions to some.

There is no way the committe don't find him guilty, and this was clearly demonstrated by the chair when she asked Johnson at the end of he wanted to now take the opportunity to correct the record. As clear an indication as you could get that she, at least, thinks he is guilty. It's the equivelant of the judge at the end of a trial asking the accused if he wants to change his plea, with a nod and a wink.

On the subject of whom he asked for assurances, they were 2 political appointees who's job it was to manage downing street media relations. It doesn't wash and again he was questioned as to why he didn't make this clear in parliament.

They roasted him and he is done.
 
Johnson is toast after that evidential hearing. I got the impression his sole aim was to blow some smoke at mirrors in an attempt to justify his actions to some.

There is no way the committe don't find him guilty, and this was clearly demonstrated by the chair when she asked Johnson at the end of he wanted to now take the opportunity to correct the record. As clear an indication as you could get that she, at least, thinks he is guilty. It's the equivelant of the judge at the end of a trial asking the accused if he wants to change his plea, with a nod and a wink.

On the subject of whom he asked for assurances, they were 2 political appointees who's job it was to manage downing street media relations. It doesn't wash and again he was questioned as to why he didn't make this clear in parliament.

They roasted him and he is done.
I hope you are right but I jsut don't have any faith in the system anymore. There will be a way out of this for him, you just know it. The nation has fallen quite sharply in the corruption perceptions index and for good reason.
 
As James O'Brien pointed out on LBC, pretty much everything Johnson said in his defence mirrored the contents of a poem called the Narcissist's prayer (except probably the last line of the poem).

That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

– the Narcissist
 
There was a caller on the James Obrien show on Thursday who was a police detective and shw was in court with a defendent for an unspecified crime. The prosecution used a phsycologist as an expert witness. After his testimony, the police officer asked the witness about whether the defendent believed the lies he was telling. The answer gives some insight into how Johnson thinks. The phsycologist said that objective truth doesn't factor in to their thinking. The only thing that matters is their own truth and how that effects them.

I found this very interesting. As a sub-note she also said that whilst interviewing him, she couldn't shut him up, he was, rather than exercising his right to silence, talking over the interrogating officers. Does this remind anyone of Johnsons questioning?
 
Back
Top