A very large, honking whopper was told during Boris Johnson‘s inquisition by the Commons Privileges Committee… and it didn’t come from the former Prime Minister.
In her opening remarks, Chairman Harriet Harman pompously declared: ‘We have yet to come to our conclusion.’
But everyone pretends that the panel determines whether Mr Johnson lied to Parliament Party gate perhaps seemed to slip away impartially as the minutes passed.
Having already taken away most of the guarantees usually given to the defendant, not least the presumption of innocence, it was as if their intention during three hours of taking evidence was not just to knock him down, but to crush him .
Mr Johnson has already admitted and apologized for inadvertently misleading the House of Commons about his knowledge of parties breaking lockdown in number 10.
Any pretense that the panel that determined whether Mr Johnson had lied to Parliament about Partygate could be remotely impartial seemed to vanish over the minutes.
He accepts his claim that gatherings that adhered to Covid rules and guidelines “at all times” were wrong, but insists his statements are made in “good faith”.
He accepts his claim that gatherings that adhered to Covid rules and guidelines “at all times” were wrong, but insists his statements are made in “good faith”.
This investigation should reveal whether he gave them intentionally or recklessly (whatever that means).
But in ten months of collecting forensic evidence, this kangaroo court has not found a shred of evidence that he did.
In the end, the seven MPs who put him to the test pathetically resorted to the McCarthyistic claim that the ex-PM ‘must have known rules were being broken’. If this had been a court, the case would have been dismissed on the face of it. But that is not it. Unfortunately, it is British democracy in action.
Like a bunch of second-rate witch finders, the committee questioned Mr Johnson’s claim that he had relied on officials’ assurances that several rule-breaking gatherings had been allowed.
But why wouldn’t he? He was trying to guide the country through a deadly pandemic. Is it really asking too much of his advisors to interpret rules and maintain discipline? That’s what they’re for.
In her opening address, chairman Harriet Harman stated stiltedly: ‘We have yet to come to our conclusion.’
Some might argue that if the former prime minister was confused by his own lockdown rules, how could he expect the rest of the population to decipher them? Indeed, thousands were ruthlessly punished and undeterred by technicalities.
When Boris is found guilty, as expected, his political career is at stake. He could make it through a by-election — and lose his seat. So Tory MPs voting on a sanction need to maintain a sense of perspective.
Britain faces myriad problems, from the cost of living to war in Ukraine. The last thing we need are endless discussions about Partygate. The country has moved on – it’s time the Commons did too.
Sinister secrecy
Do police chiefs have their heads in the sand or are they just imbeciles?
In a week where the Met Police has been blown up for catastrophic deficiencies, the College of Policing is planning to tone down the intelligence forces to be released to the media.
Pictured: Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley
New guidelines would make it easier for troops to keep secret the names of suspects charged with crimes – or even people who handed out extrajudicial punishments such as fines.
This is not just a sinister attack on public interest journalism. It would make it harder to secure convictions as other victims or witnesses don’t know how to come forward with incriminating evidence.
And it means the police can arrest people without scrutiny — or cover up criminals in their ranks. This sinister move towards secret justice must be stopped.
Sir Keir Starmer has vowed to block the Tory plans to remove the lifetime limit on tax-free retirement savings.
But the lucrative pension he earned as Director of Public Prosecutions enjoys full tax exemptions that he would deny to other employees. The Labor leader claims to be a politician with integrity. Long experience tells us that he is, in fact, a serial hypocrite.