'Hand On Heart, I Did Not Lie'

[Roobaba]

Boris Johnson challenged in hearing: Key moments - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-65043513

.. Lie or no lie?

[ClareTG0ld]

// ‘ it's already common ground that Parliament *was* misled’

Common ground? Amongst whom? //

Amongst Johnson for a start. From his written statement:

"4. So I accept that the House of Commons was misled by my statements that the Rules and Guidance had been followed completely at No."

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/119498/default/
10."

[naomi24]

//in June 2022 the Committee unanimously approved Harman as Chair.//

That doesn't make it right. It's a strange irony that here he is accused of dishonesty and brought before a committee that appointed a chairperson they knew to be prejudiced against him. They should hang their heads in shame.

[ClareTG0ld]

You'd be presumably hard-pressed to find any MPs who didn't, by now, have a fixed opinion of Johnson in one way or another. Conversely, I'm sure you'd agree that having a Committee stacked with Johnson's outspoken allies would be just as biased.

The majority of the Committee is Conservative, anyway, so even if Harman's bias affected her position, then it still comes down to the opinions of those four.

[Peter Pedant]

Does a, "kangaroo court" not tend to find guilt regardless

yeah you have impromptu hearings, and if the fella is acquitted you wouldnt use the phrase ' kanga ct' you would say he explained himself to his superiors
BUT
these are not court proceeding CBL - arent meant to be, werent billed as such, and dont behave like one
If it doesnt look like a pig then it may not be one.
There is no ppoint is saying that they all have to look like pigs

not everything has to be squeezed into - the rule is "it must be a proper legal process? " ( police investigation isnt for example) ( small employers are recognised in the employment courts as obviously unable to split investigation, hearing and decision by different people)

[Peter Pedant]

It's a strange irony etc
can we get back to - Did Boris lie?
and not wonder if the ctee hearing things are carmie infiltrators etc

No? - well this must be AB then

[Peter Pedant]

brought before a committee that appointed a chairperson they knew to be prejudiced

this was a charactreristic of the Trump admin and I .... dont recollect screams of protest over the point

times change - - tempora mutantur...

[naomi24]

Yes, PP, this is AB. You say something like that every day - and not just once. I can't imagine why you haven't got the hang of it yet.

Clare, //You'd be presumably hard-pressed to find any MPs who didn't, by now, have a fixed opinion of Johnson in one way or another.//

Probably - but selecting someone who has gone public with her adverse opinions is another ball game altogether. Principle is clearly thin on the ground. I can understand why you have no objection to that though.

[ClareTG0ld]

I think the principle is that you should separate your role on the Committee from your personal views. There is nothing, to my mind, that sending a tweet achieves to undermine this. It is true that Chris Bryant recused himself for, essentially, similar reasons, and in that sense perhaps Harman could have followed suit; but, given that the Committee as a whole agreed that she should be chair, and given that anyway Johnson's supporters would do doubt have found some other reason to object to any other Chair, it feels more like an excuse to undermine the work of the Committee because it suits some to protect Johnson, than a genuine concern.

As I've outlined, there are multiple objective questions that can be reasonably asked and assessed. I'm sure you'll read the report, when it is published, carefully to assess the soundness of the conclusions reached.

[naomi24]

//It is true that Chris Bryant recused himself for, essentially, similar reasons, and in that sense perhaps Harman could have followed suit//

There's no doubt she should have followed suit.

//feels more like an excuse//

Plenty of those flying around.

[ClareTG0ld]

Still, as I say, the Committee is unanimously satisfied that Harman is capable of chairing its work. Incidentally, so too is the House, since the motion to add her to the Committee passed without vote on June 14th.

It would, granted, be highly unusual to raise objections in the House, but it was open for MPs to do so, and they didn't. All of this fuss about Kangaroo Courts, and Harman in particular, is a transparent attempt to discredit the Committee's work before it's completed.

[naomi24]

Clare, //Still, as I say, the Committee is unanimously satisfied that Harman is capable of chairing its work. Incidentally, so too is the House, since the motion to add her to the Committee passed without vote on June 14th. //

Boris isn't the only one whose honesty could be called into question.

//All of this fuss about Kangaroo Courts, and Harman in particular, is a transparent attempt to discredit the Committee's work before it's completed. //

Its work was discredited before it got off the ground. Like it or not a Committee that cannot be said to be entirely impartial in its decisions is a kangaroo court.

[bednobs]

I wonder what will happen re the opinion of bias should the committe find in BJ's favour?

[naomi24]

It's not an 'opinion' of bias, bednobs. It's a fact. Harriet Harman has taken to social media and accused him of lying. If her opinion is over-ridden by the rest of the committee then so be it - but the simple fact is, having done what she's done, she shouldn't be in that chair at all.

[Zacs-Master]

‘ Common ground? Amongst whom? //

Amongst Johnson for a start.’

That doesn’t even make sense. Amongst Johnson? Well, Erm, yep I suppose he would be inclined to support himself.

[Atheist]

Zacs; the point about Johnson was that he admitted misleading the House. Clare replied to someone who asked who were all these people who believed that Johnson had misled, and Clare said, for a start there was Johnson himself.

[naomi24]

Clare didn’t answer the question. Common ground is shared. It isn’t the domain of a solitary person. The response given is nonsense.

[ClareTG0ld]

I didn't realise I would have to spell out that Johnson accepted that he misled the House, and therefore the Committee also has.

The only questions remaining surround ZM's (2), (3) above, ie the extent to which this fact that the House was misled matters; and, as Johnson's entire defence rests on, the extent to which he "wittingly" misled the House (or, as the Committee's report put it, that it was "reckless").

It's obviously common ground amongst all relevant parties that the House was misled, when Johnson told it that "all rules and guidance were followed at all times".

[tomus42]

Oh dear, poor old Boris.

I did not lie. I genuinely did not understand the rules I explained to everyone else and told them to follow, including the poor old queen who had to sit on her own at her husband's funeral.

Don't worry Boris fans. I'm sure your hero will be OK.

[Peter Pedant]

I can't imagine why you haven't got the hang of it yet.
er
because - every day something different.
see above
foo who said he had misled parliament? ( as a crushing one liner)
Boris did - in his evidence

something as er perky as that, has to be AB, I am sure you wd agree

[Peter Pedant]

I didn't realise I would have to spell out to Abers that Johnson accepted that he misled the House,

I was kinda surprised, but AB is special. oh and thanks ClareG for persisting - with long well reasoned answers - gold star for your fridge

has anyone had a change of heart yet ?