Boris Johnson raises a glass at Lee Cain’s leaving party, surrounded by glasses and bottles of alcohol: he says he didn’t know it was a party at the time.
Boris Johnson wants us to believe he did not “intentionally or recklessly” mislead Parliament about the parties he attended in Downing Street while the UK was in Covid-19 lockdown. Why should we?
The inquiry into what happened has a threefold purpose. It intends to find out:
What Boris Johnson said to the House of Commons
Whether what he said was correct or whether it was misleading
How quickly and comprehensively any misleading statement to the House was corrected
We know he said no parties took place and that this was not true.
So the question is about how quick he was to correct his misleading statements.
He says he did this at the earliest opportunity, which was after Sue Grey’s report was published and a police investigation into the parties had ended (and he had been fined). He says he didn’t want to give a “half-baked account, before the facts had been fully and properly established”.
But he knew the facts, didn’t he – after having participated in what happened?
I’m listening to Politics Live while I’m writing this, and have just been reminded of his words at one such event – that it was “the least socially-distanced” event at the time. He knew the rules because he announced them. Is it credible for him to claim innocence?
This is what the inquiry will have to decide.
More booze on the table, and no social distancing: Boris Johnson reckons he didn’t realise this was a Christmas party at the time.
More sinister is Johnson’s attempt to impugn the motives of the Commons Privileges Committee, stating that he considers it to be “partisan” and not to have done all it could to ensure “fairness”.
This is nothing but a smear.
It makes him look like a guilty man, flailing, trying to find anything that could call a verdict against him into question.
In that sense, it seems highly ill-advised.
He doesn’t know what the inquiry’s decision will be. But now he has already turned public opinion against him.
Boris Johnson: his evidence to the Partygate inquiry might be quite short – after all, his inquisitors really have only to show him this image of himself at a party he said he never attended and ask him if he was there.
This is one to put in your diary:
Boris Johnson will give public evidence about whether he misled MPs over Partygate on [Wednesday] March 22, the Privileges Committee has confirmed.
The former prime minister will be questioned by the cross-party committee from 14:00 GMT in a televised session.
But Mr Johnson has rejected this and said he believes the process will “vindicate” him.
I’m looking forward to this one, very much!
In fact, I might have a ‘Partygate party’ and invite friends to watch it with me. Wanna come along?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Corruption? Richard Sharp (left) and Boris Johnson.
I can’t say I do.
Richard Sharp appeared before the Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee to explain his involvement in the arrangement of an alleged £800,000 loan for then-prime minister Boris Johnson, right before Johnson appointed him Chairman of the BBC.
According to the BBC News report,
BBC chairman Richard Sharp has denied that he helped arrange a loan for Boris Johnson when he was prime minister.
But the same report states that
Mr Sharp confirmed he had introduced his friend Sam Blyth to Cabinet Secretary Simon Case in late 2020, which was shortly before his appointment at the BBC.
Mr Sharp has previously said Mr Blyth had told him he wanted to provide financial assistance to Mr Johnson after reading about the then-PM’s money troubles in the media.
On Tuesday, Mr Sharp agreed with acting committee chairman Damian Green that he had “acted as a sort of introduction agency” between Mr Blyth and Mr Case.
It’s all a bit murky as to why this was necessary. Sam Blyth is said to be Boris Johnson’s cousin and well-known to him; the claim seems to be that Mr Sharp stepped in to provide a buffer between the two family members in order to bring Mr Blyth to the attention of civil servants.
Mr Sharp also said
“I did not provide and have not provided the former prime minister personal financial advice. I know nothing about his [financial] affairs, I never have done. I didn’t facilitate a loan.”
Really?
1mins in and Richard Sharp, Chairperson of the BBC, has already lied 🤥🤥🤥
Sharp said “I have never given/been asked any financial advice to #BloJo”…BUT internal memos w/in No10 show that advisors said to BJ “to stop asking Sharp for personal financial advice all the time!”😡 https://t.co/fDDQXGv9Bt
If he knew nothing about Johnson’s financial affairs, how did he know Johnson needed a loan?
Boris Johnson was "ding dang sure" that BBC chair Richard Sharp knows nothing about his personal finances.
Here's Richard Sharp admitting he's known since September 2020 about Sam Blyth's intention to help Boris Johnson financially. pic.twitter.com/1ZjjjExrO8
"I did not arrange a loan" for Boris Johnson, says BBC Chairman Richard Sharp, who helped to arrange a loan for Boris Johnson. pic.twitter.com/LscCMHAj3l
Richard Sharp knew Boris Johnson had financial issues-so of course he knew about the PM's financial affairs-hence the introduction-why did we have a Prime Minister who needed to secure credit via a loan of £800,000 pounds-whether or not he used it something stinks here.
Richard Sharp (BBC Chair) introduced Sam Blyth (Boris Johnson's cousin) to Simon Case (senior civil servant) after Sam Blyth offered financial support to the Prime Minister-sounds like a broker to me?
And then there is the fact that this happened while Mr Sharp was applying for the job of BBC Chairman. This has also attracted round criticism:
How can a man with years of experience in the business world like Richard Sharp not realise that there would be a perceived conflict of interest when he applied to be chair of the BBC having been involved in facilitating that huge loan to Johnson. It simply isn‘t credible.
His evidence suggested that he did realise there would be a perceived conflict of interest; that’s why he said he told both Simon Case and Mr Blyth that he had to step back, after introducing them. But still…
Richard Sharp reveals he went to see Boris Johnson in No10 to discuss the BBC chairmanship before applying.
An opportunity not afforded to others during “open and fair” contest — and another detail not disclosed alongside involvement in talks about Johnson’s finances.
John Nicolson, the SNP MP who hotly grilled Mr Sharp at the committee meeting, had this to say:
After an hour Richard Sharp still doesn’t seem to understand why it was wrong for him to withhold the crucial information that he facilitated a huge loan for Boris Johnson – the man appointing him as BBC Chair. He just doesn’t seem to get it. And yet it’s so basic. @CommonsDCMS
“It leaves the impression so much of this is deeply ‘Establishment’; it’s pals appointing pals, donating money to pals.
“It rather leaves the impression that it is all a bit… ‘banana republic’ and cosy.”
Yes it does.
Here’s a video clip of the full confrontation between Mr Nicolson and Mr Sharp:
BBC staff are said to be furious about the shame Mr Sharp has brought down on the organisation.
So here’s the question:
Should he remain as BBC Chair or should he quit?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
This is more for information than any other reason.
Buy popcorn.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Satire? This image suggesting the Tories were lying about their Covid-19 strategy may be more accurate now than at the time it was made. Why is an inquiry into the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic being delayed? Is evidence being altered or destroyed before it becomes illegal to do so?
Families who lost loved ones in the Covid-19 crisis are preparing a court challenge against the Tory government, which they fear is delaying an inquiry into its handling of the pandemic.
Boris Johnson appointed Baroness Hallett to chair the inquiry in December 2021, and has said it would begin in spring this year. But spring is over and no terms of reference have been published nor setting-up-date specified.
Under the 2005 Inquiries Act, an inquiry “must not begin considering evidence before the setting up date” and once an inquiry is under way it is an offence under the Act to destroy or tamper with evidence.
So the longer the setting up date is delayed, the more evidence it is possible for … someone… to alter or destroy.
That’s the concern of the group Covid-19 bereaved families for justice, who are planning a judicial review into the failure.
Elkan Abrahamson, head of major inquiries at Broudie Jackson Canter, who is representing the group, said taking legal action is the “last thing” families want but they may be left with no choice. He said: “In the vast majority of inquiries a setting-up date is given within days or weeks of the chair being appointed, so this delay of over six months is both unprecedented and totally inexplicable.
“The consequences are extremely serious, as it only becomes a criminal offence to destroy or tamper with evidence after the inquiry’s start date. By failing to give one, the Prime Minister is opening the door to key evidence being destroyed.”
Not only that, but a delay like this means it will take longer, and be more difficult, to learn lessons from the pandemic and the government’s failures in handling it.
Perhaps most to the point, though, is this: Boris Johnson has claimed that he needs to stay on as prime minister to “get on” with tackling the issues that matter most to people – but instead he is delaying a vital inquiry.
He can’t say it’s because he had to deal with the challenges to his own leadership because he has already told us he considers them to have been nothing more than a time-wasting sideshow; he should have been handling the issues that matter – not diverting time and energy to his own self-preservation.
All the government has been able to say is that the inquiry’s terms of reference will be published shortly. Nothing has been said about the setting-up date.
So, what’s really going on here? And do we need a judicial review to establish what’s really going on at the heart of our government?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Boozy Johnson: this is not an image of him at the Downing Street garden party on May 20, 2020 (it was actually taken in 2019) but it serves to suggest his behaviour there quite adequately.
The easy answer to the question in the headline is: no, he should have known his parties broke the law.
I say “his” parties because they were parties at 10 Downing Street, his home and place of work, taking place directly under his nose and that he attended in many instances. They were part of a “party culture” created during his watch.
And I say he should have known they broke the law because he announced to all of us what the law was – and it didn’t allow for social gatherings in a work setting, by the way. Furthermore, evidence in the Sue Gray report shows that his aides certainly did know that these events were legally questionable because they took steps to prevent the press from finding out about them.
Let’s discuss the party in the Downing Street garden on the evening of May 20, 2020 when Covid-19 regulations stated that “participating in a gathering of more than two persons in public was prohibited except where the gathering was ‘essential for work purposes'”, but had been amended to allow “meetings outdoors for exercise or recreation with one person from another household”.
Clearly an after-hours drinks event in the garden of 10 Downing Street, with more than 200 people invited to socialise with each other – even if socially-distanced – would have been a flagrant breach of these regulations.
It would have been a gathering of more than two persons in public that was not essential for work purposes, and it would have been a meeting outdoors between multiple people from more than one other household.
This did not stop Boris Johnson’s principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds, from advertising it by email, while other officials requested that tables be put out by the “Internal Events” team – which This Writer would have thought clearly marks this out as an illegal social occasion.
Alcohol was available at the event – both supplied by officials and also via a request for attendees to “Bring your own booze!”
In total, around 200 staff were invited although it is believed attendance was around 40 – still a massive breach of the regulations at the time.
Here’s the punchline: those arranging the event – including Reynolds – knew it was against the rules because they went to lengths to hide it from members of the media who attended a press conference just before it was due to take place.
According to the Gray Report, a Number 10 special advisor sent this message to Reynolds:
Just to flag that the press conference will probably be finishing around that time, so helpful if people can be mindful of that as speakers and cameras are leaving, not walking around waving bottles of wine etc”.
Martin Reynolds replied:
“Will do my best!….”
The report continues:
A No 10 Director declined the invitation and told the investigation that they had raised with either Martin Reynolds or his office that it was not a good idea.
Lee Cain, the then No 10 Director of Communications (a special adviser), also
received the invitation. In response, he emailed Martin Reynolds, No 10 official (1),
and Dominic Cummings at 14.35 on 20 May 2020 stating: “I’m sure it will be fine –
and I applaud the gesture – but a 200 odd person invitation for drinks in the garden
of no 10 is somewhat of a comms risk in the current environment.” Lee Cain says
he subsequently spoke to Martin Reynolds and advised him that the event should
be cancelled. Martin Reynolds does not recall any such conversation. In addition,
Dominic Cummings has also said that he too raised concerns, in writing. We have
not found any documentary evidence of this.
Referring to the event itself, it is clear that – once again – Boris Johnson attended and participated fully:
The Prime Minister attended at approximately 18.00 for around 30 minutes to thank staff before returning to his office with Martin Reynolds for a meeting at 18.30.
So he was there with Martin Reynolds, who knew it was an illegal gathering. He should have known himself that it was an illegal gathering, being the government representative who had explained the rules to the rest of us. But he not only allowed it to happen but attended and spent 30 minutes with the 40 staff there.
The excuse that he only stopped by to thank staff for their work during the Covid crisis doesn’t make sense because it does not take 30 minutes to make a brief speech of thanks. It seems clear that Johnson was himself socialising with staff, adding his own household to all the others that should not have been mixing at that time, according to the rules that he had put in place.
How strange that the Metropolitan Police who investigated this event, and must have known that it was an illegal party attended by the prime minister, chose not to fine him for this flagrant law-breaking! How convenient for them that their Acting Commissioner was able to dismiss this omission simply by declaring that, as far as he was concerned, all the decisions were above-board!
Reynolds, who subsequently had a meeting with Johnson inside 10 Downing Street, sent a WhatsApp message to a special advisor later in the evening, which appears to be about a story in the press:
[Martin Reynolds] [19:36] “Best of luck – a complete non story but better than them focusing on our drinks (which we seem to have got away with).”
In the light of all this evidence, it is not credible for Boris Johnson to claim that he had not fallen foul of rules in the Ministerial Code because he had not broken the law on purpose.
He should have known himself that the event broke his rules because he was the one who laid them down for us all.
His principal private secretary certainly knew that the event broke Johnson’s own rules, and attended the event with Johnson. Considering the contents of his electronic correspondence, it seems extremely unlikely that he did not mention to Johnson that the event was illegal.
Also, if the event was not against the rules, why was everybody involved so tight-lipped about it, to the point of hiding it from the media?
And this is just one of many such parties.
It doesn’t matter what Johnson says – the evidence exposes him as a liar.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Boris Johnson and Vladimir Putin: I’ve probably got another image that better-illustrates Putin’s “I own you” attitude to Johnson but I don’t know where I’ve put it.
Remember when Tony Blair dragged the UK into a war in the Middle East on the basis of a dossier filled with claims that turned out to be completely untrue?
A million innocent civilians died but all the politicians involved hoped – rightly, it seems – that nobody in the UK would care very much.
Now, Boris Johnson is trying to drag us into hostilities with Russia – with Russia, of all places! – because he reckons Vladimir Putin is about to launch a huge war in Europe for no very good reason.
Are we really going to accept that, just because the BBC doesn’t have the nous to fact-check it?
“Russia plans biggest war in Europe since 1945” is the new “We’re 45 minutes away from an Iraqi WMD attack”. Both propositions fully supported and pushed by the BBC 24/7 with every breath they’ve got.
Evidence suggests Russia is planning “the biggest war in Europe since 1945”, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said.
What evidence?
Intelligence suggests Russia intends to launch an invasion that will encircle Ukrainian capital Kyiv, Mr Johnson said.
What intelligence?
We’re being asked to take it all on trust. And our trust in “evidence” and “intelligence” from western governments that want a war to distract us all from the diabolical cesspits into which they have pitched us… should be nonexistant.
So Johnson is now traipsing around Europe, trying to get one of the grown-up national governments to agree with him:
So today Boris Johnson travelled to Germany in the European Union – a Union that he dragged us out of – to preach to other countries about the importance of unity in the face of Russian aggression. #JohnsonOut26
No luck so far: German premier Olaf Scholz isn’t swallowing it and the only agreement he’s had from Emmanuel Macron is that the next few days with be “crucial for diplomacy”.
That’s thin gruel.
It doesn’t help that Johnson has made a claim that he’ll put a stop to Russian influence – financial and otherwise – in the UK.
But he has been responsible for inviting those Russians into the heart of UK politics, as This Site has mentioned many times in the past.
So Johnson has made himself a laughing-stock:
Boris Johnson has pledged to clean up so called "dirty" Russian money in Britain, so lets look forward to him releasing the Russia report, publishing all the Russian donors to the Tory party and removing the odd peerage.
The Conservative party and its MPs and associations should hand back all the money they took. It is the only way to show that their days of turning a blind eye to kleptocratic loot are over. https://t.co/oPVSDTi4pQ
BREAKING: Boris Johnson warns he will sanction individuals linked to the Russian state if Russia invades Ukraine. However, it remains unclear whether the Russian billionaires who donate to the Tory party will be exempt x
Nobody believes that Boris Johnson will sling the Russians out of the UK political scene. They pay him too much not to.
It’s money that keeps him in power.
And money and power are the only things that interest Boris Johnson. Don’t you agree?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
True to type: here’s a pictorial representative of Boris Johnson reading the evidence against him. Or writing his questionnaire on Downing Street parties, having read the evidence. But not both because that wasn’t allowed (as though it made a difference)!
It turns out the Metropolitan Police – who sent out questionnaires that carry the same legal status as an interview under caution in a criminal investigation – were the wrong people to ask.
It seems Sue Gray – the civil servant employed by Boris Johnson to investigate whether parties happened in Downing Street while the rest of the UK was banned from socialising under Covid-19 lockdown – has been giving Johnson and her colleagues access to all the information she has.
Isn’t that perverting the course of justice?
I’ll put you out of your misery: yes it is. It interferes with a police criminal investigation by providing information to suspects that will allow them to work out a defence that may not be true. Anything that prevents police from getting to the truth is perverting the course of justice.
So Sue Gray should be arrested and charged.
I’m willing to bet that she won’t.
Here’s the evidence of what she has done:
Boris Johnson is being allowed to read evidence gathered about him by the inquiry into the No 10 parties before answering police questions, a leaked letter reveals.
Sue Gray has granted permission to everyone under investigation – all Downing Street staff and the prime minister – limited access to notes taken about them by her inquiry.
The letter, seen by ITV News, says she is allowing the access “as an exceptional measure”, pointing to the “particular circumstances surrounding this set of events”.
It means Johnson will have been able (if necessary) to fabricate a story that accommodates the evidence held by police – meaning they would be deprived of the opportunity to question any discrepancies between his story and the evidence, that may have arisen had he not seen it in advance.
If you’re struggling to understand the implications, this is equivalent to providing students with a full set of correct answers to all the questions they are likely to be asked in an examination.
And what are the “particular circumstances surrounding this set of events” that mean Downing Street staff and Johnson himself merit VIP treatment, anyway?
So much for British justice. I look forward to hearing how far the rest of us get when interviewed about a criminal offence, after we demand to see the evidence against us in light of the “particular circumstances”.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
What they want erased: Downing Street staff are being ordered to erase information on their mobile phones relating to the alleged Downing Street lockdown-busting parties. Note that this image from the May 2020 event shows Boris Johnson sitting next to the organiser, Martin Reynolds, with a bottle of wine on the table. And he says he didn’t realise it was a party?
This is damning: it seems staff at 10 Downing Street have been ordered to clear their mobile phones of any information that could suggest lockdown parties were held there. This is a criminal offence.
According to the Independent,
Two sources claim a senior member of staff told them it would be a “good idea” to remove any messages implying they had attended or were even aware of anything that could “look like a party”.
It’s on Twitter too:
"I was told to clean up my phone just in case I had to hand it in to the investigation" – Downing Street Source
If you were at that party and you’ve been told to clean up your devices, you’ve been asked to commit a criminal offence that comes with jail time. Enjoy your evening.
Boris Johnson claimed he had changed his phone altogether in order to avoid responsibility for failing to pass on WhatsApp messages about the refurbishment of his Downing Street flat. Was that a criminal offence?
And Lord Bethell, the Tory then-minister responsible for awarding Covid-19-related contracts that bypassed the normal procurement system, replaced his mobile phone before it could be searched for information relevant to £85m of deals that are subject to a legal challenge. An offence?
If so, then this former minister and Prime Minister should be subject to prosecution.
Ah, but they’re members of Parliament and therefore above the law, aren’t they?
Downing Street staff aren’t. They should think very carefully before erasing anything from their phones.
In fact, they should probably take their phones to the police.
Experts can easily restore erased material anyway.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Christopher Chope: he once blocked a Bill to prevent photographers from “upskirting” – taking photographs of women’s underwear by pointing cameras up their skirts. That’s the kind of support Boris Johnson has.
The lies – all right, let’s call them falsehoods – are getting blatant now.
Take a look at the following clip of Christopher Chope, the filibuster king, discussing Labour leader Keir Starmer’s demands for Boris Johnson to resign, after Johnson admitted attending a party in the garden of 10 Downing Street on May 20, 2020:
Oh, really?
Let’s see what Starmer was saying:
So: “The Prime Minister pretended that he had been assured that there were no parties.” Let’s check that.
‘I have been repeatedly assured that there were no parties, and that no covid rules were broken. That was what I have been repeatedly assured’
The PM to the House of Commons on December 8, 2021.
That’ll be from Hansard, then – the official record of Parliamentary proceedings. Yes, here it is:
“I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken.”
We know now that it was a pretence because he has admitted actually attending one. The claim that he thought it was a “work event” doesn’t hold true because he admitted realising what it was – that is his stated reason for leaving it.
“Then the video landed, blowing the Prime Minister’s first defence out of the water, so then he pretended he was sickened and furious about the parties.”
This will be the video of Allegra Stratton laughing while trying to work out what to say about the Downing Street Christmas party in December 2020.
In response, Johnson said: “I understand and share the anger up and down the country at seeing Number 10 staff seeming to make light of lockdown measures… I was also furious to see that clip.”
Getting back to Starmer, yesterday: “Now it turns out he was at the parties all along.”
And we know this is true of one party, because Johnson has admitted it.
The evidence was all there, for everybody to see, hear or read.
But Christopher Chope chose to deny it for what I’m sure Boris Johnson himself would call “political” reasons (as he referred many times to criticisms of his attendance at the party, during Prime Minister’s Questions on January 12).
I’m surprised the people of Christchurch don’t expect better work from their MP.
I note also that Chope’s fellow Tory backbencher Peter Bone has a Private Members’ Bill coming to the Commons soon, to abolish the BBC licence fee. I look forward to hearing Chope filibuster it out of existence, as he has many other such Bills in the recent past.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
