Corruption? Richard Sharp (left) and Boris Johnson.
A Parliamentary committee has reached a damning conclusion about BBC Chairman Richard Sharp, who helped facilitate a very large loan to Boris Johnson while he was applying to Johnson for his current job.
The Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee said Mr Sharp committed serious errors of judgement in his conduct. It clearly seems to have created a serious conflict of interest, if not outright corruption – arranging financial help for the person to whom he was applying for a job.
On the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, the Minister for Development and Africa, Andrew Mitchell, said Mr Sharp’s future as chairman was a matter for the BBC.
This is not true.
His was a government appointment – he was given the job by then-prime minister Boris Johnson (that’s why there was a conflict of interest) and only the government can remove him from office (although he may still resign of his own accord).
Watch Mitchell dump himself in the mire and try to talk himself out of it – and then enjoy the reactions of panellists on the show, including John Nicholson, the SNP MP who grilled Mr Sharp hotly at the DCMS committee session.
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!
Sunak’s words were clear, and implied clearly that he had seen information showing that a record number of dwellings had been built.
But no such information exists – or it would have been handed to Full Fact.
He lied.
Deliberately misleading Parliament in such a way is a serious breach of the Ministerial Code.
Boris Johnson is currently facing an investigation of claims that he lied to Parliament, that could lead to him being stripped of his job as an MP.
Sunak’s transgression is not quite as bad – but it is clear that he should be recalled to the Commons to set the record straight and apologise for trying to mislead us all.
And his claims of honesty and integrity now lie in tatters.
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!
Here’s something that happened after the end of the last Parliamentary session, but that should be raised in the new one.
More than 20,000 people died in care homes because of decisions made by Boris Johnson’s ministers (notably then-Health Secretary Matt Hancock).
Johnson made a statement in Parliament that ministers were not aware of asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19 at the time they were ordering that care home residents in hospital should be sent back. The evidence shows it was false.
Shadow health secretary Wes Streeting claimed this was not true, highlighting a point of order raised by Labour’s Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow leader of the House of Commons.
Speaking to MPs on Thursday, Ms Debbonaire claimed the government was provided with evidence at the beginning of 2020 that pointed to that asymptomatic transmission of the Covid virus.
“On 28 January 2020, advice from Sage on asymptomatic transmission included that ‘early indications imply some is occurring,’” she said. On 24 February, the Lancet published a paper finding that infected individuals can be infectious before they become symptomatic.
“On 13 March, Patrick Vallance told the Today programme that ‘it’s quite likely that there is some degree of asymptomatic transmission’. Yet it wasn’t until 15 April that the government’s guidance was changed to require patients were tested before being discharged to care homes.”
Ms Debbonaire said Johnson might have “inadvertently” misled the House of Commons, but This Writer disagrees.
Either he was briefed on asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19, or he deliberately chose to miss the briefings at one or several of the COBRA meetings that he skipped (due to laziness?) in early 2020. In any case, the responsibility to know the facts fell on Johnson.
Therefore, if he told the Commons that ministers didn’t know about asymptomatic transmission, he was deliberately choosing to mislead MPs. He should be challenged and he should resign.
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!
Patel: did she deliberately mislead members of the House of Lords last autumn and is the Home Office trying to cover up for her now?
This is odd.
The BBC is reporting that Priti Patel has abandoned her plan to turn back migrant boats crossing the English Channel, ahead of a court challenge.
But The Guardian has already told us that this policy never existed at all.
It certainly seems true that the High Court was going to hear a legal challenge by the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), and the NGOs Care4Calais, Channel Rescue and Freedom From Torture on May 3.
But it also seems true that the court had already refused the Home Office permission for public interest immunity against publishing the details of its alleged pushback policy – and those details, once brought into the light, showed that there was never any plan to turn back asylum seekers.
The Home Office comment that “there are extremely limited circumstances when you can safely turn boats back in the English Channel” therefore rings true.
But the Graun also said that Patel had assured a House of Lords committee that turning boats full of asylum-seekers away from the UK was “absolutely still policy”, last autumn.
The claim that the policy has only now been dropped has muddied the issue.
So it seems to This Writer that the Home Office needs to publish the policy that was written into the Nationality and Borders Bill at the time she spoke those words, to allow us to establish whether she lied to Parliament then and an attempt is being made to deceive us now.
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!
Recused: Chris Bryant can’t chair the Commons Privileges committee while it examines Boris Johnson’s behaviour because he has already called the prime minister a “proven liar”.
The House of Commons Privileges Committee – that will decide whether Boris Johnson deliberately lied to MPs about Partygate – could be temporarily replaced with an entirely new membership for the job.
Committee chairman Chris Bryant has already recused himself because he has publicly accused Johnson of being a “proven liar”.
The Labour Party must now appoint a new chair, and is said to be looking for a ‘grandee’ to take Bryant’s place.
And there are concerns that that three of the four Tories on the committee – Laura Farris, Alberto Costa and Andy Carter – are on the Government payroll as ministerial aides.
It is entirely possible to replace the whole committee in order to ensure fair process – as happened for the Parliamentary inquiry into Tory former Cabinet Minister Damian Green.
The process may be slightly disrupted if, as is being reported, seven Conservative MPs defect to Labour over Johnson’s Partygate criminality and alleged dishonesty (Dehenna Davison is the only possible defector to have been named).
Obviously they could not be nominated onto the committee but defections would make it harder for the Tories to find candidates.
Liar: it seems clear that Priti Patel deliberately misled Lords into believing that asylum-seekers caught trying to cross the English Channel would be turned away, and tried to keep the policy stating otherwise secret.
Home Secretary Priti Patel has been accused of deliberately misleading Parliament and the public into believing that her Nationality and Borders Bill includes a plan to turn migrant boats away from the UK.
In fact, previously-unpublished clauses of the Bill explicitly state that pushbacks will not be applied against asylum-seekers.
The details came to light after the pushbacks policy was challenged by the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), and the NGOs Care4Calais, Channel Rescue and Freedom From Torture.
The Home Office had applied to the High Court for public interest immunity against publishing the details – a mechanism used over sensitive issues such as organised crime, terrorism or national security. But judges said disclosure did not “give rise to a real risk of serious harm to the public interest”.
Patel gave evidence to the House of Lords’ justice and home affairs committee last autumn in which she said turning boats full of asylum-seekers away from the UK was “absolutely still policy”.
Now it has been revealed that a key part of the previously-unpublished policy states that anyone in a dinghy who indicates they wish to claim asylum in the UK should not be pushed back but instead escorted to UK shores. Almost everyone who uses this method to reach the UK is an asylum seeker according to the Home Office’s own data.
So she lied to Parliament.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t there currently a huge row over whether Boris Johnson should be ejected from his job as a member of the government because he’s believed to have deliberately lied to Parliament?
So, shouldn’t Patel also face the same penalty?
In fact, it seems to This Writer that she should be summarily ejected; this is an open-and-shut case.
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 (right) preparing to ask questions at a quiz during one of the many lockdown-busting Downing Street Christmas parties. He has said he was not aware that these events broke the rules he laid down for the rest of us.
Boris Johnson’s continued tenure as prime minister may be in danger after MPs voted to launch an inquiry into whether he deliberately misled them about his attendance at lockdown-busting Downing Street parties.
No actual vote was taken because – after all the bluster that the Conservatives would not allow an investigation to take place, in the end, no objection was voiced to the motion and it went through “on the nod”.
This signifies a huge about-turn in the attitude of Conservative MPs.
Johnson’s Tory government had indicated that it would submit an amendment to Labour’s motion for an inquiry, seeking to delay the vote.
But this was withdrawn. Perhaps ministers had realised that backbenchers were being influenced by the public mood against their prime minister, and thought it would be better to let them express their feelings in a single vote, rather than two.
Conservatives certainly showed no reticence about expressing themselves during the debate.
It seems they were not prepared to defend Johnson, believing that it would reflect badly on them, allowing voters to accuse them of covering up their prime minister’s criminality and dishonesty.
William Wragg, Conservative MP and Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, said few Conservatives can “truly enjoy” being an MP at the moment, and it is “utterly depressing” to be asked to “defend the indefensible”. He would vote for an investigation into Johnson’s behaviour.
Former Brexit Minister Steve Baker said he had wanted to forgive Johnson after the prime minister made an apology to MPs on Tuesday – but “that spirit of earnest willingness to forgive lasted about 90 seconds” into a meeting Boris Johnson held with his backbenchers later the same day.
“[It was] an orgy of adulation, a great festival of bombast, and I cannot bear these things… This level of transgression, this level of demand for forgiveness requires more than an apology drawing a line under it and moving on in the way the prime minister sought to do in his interviews.”
He said both Johnson and his advisers “need to understand this is a permanent stone in his shoe” and those who want to forgive him “want to see permanent contrition”.
Baker went on to tell the story of a constituent who didn’t get to see his wife of 50 years in a care home before she died, because of lockdown rules. “What am I to say to that man? I could say… you and I are Christian men and forgiveness is hard. [But] I don’t want to forgive him. I do not want to forgive our prime minister.”
He added that, if he was in any other job, Johnson would be “long gone”.
“Having watched the contrition… it only lasted as long as it took to get out of the headmaster’s study, and that’s not good enough for me, and that’s not good enough for my voters. I have to say now the possibility [of forgiveness] has gone… and for not obeying the letter and the spirit, the prime minister now should be long gone.
“The prime minister should just know the gig’s up.”
Conservative MP Peter Aldous said “this situation is completely unprecedented” – and the Privileges Committee should be invited to investigate.
Conservative Andrew Mangnall, MP for Totnes, said he still has a letter of no confidence in the prime minister with Sir Graham Brady of the 1922 Committee: “Every day that I see issues and rules broken in this place only reaffirms my belief that we have to stand up in this place and make it clear that dishonesty, inaction and misleading of the house cannot be tolerated, from anyone.”
He said he forgave Johnson for making mistakes – “but not for misleading the house as I see it”. He welcomed the motion and said he looked forward to the findings pf the Privileges Committee.
The investigation, by the Commons Privileges Committee, will not take place until the last fixed penalty notices are delivered by the Metropolitan Police and Sue Gray, who ran a Cabinet Office inquiry into the matter, is allowed to deliver her own final report.
Once all the information from the police and Ms Gray has become public knowledge, the committee of MPs – most of them Conservative – will decide Johnson’s fate.
If today’s performance is any yardstick, it isn’t looking good.
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!
Insult added to injury: Boris Johnson’s planned response to bereaved families who stuck to the lockdown rules that he chose to break.
On Thursday, April 21, MPs will vote on a Labour motion for an inquiry to be held into whether Boris Johnson deliberately misled them when he said no lockdown-busting parties happened in Downing Street, despite having attended (and, allegedly, planned) at least one.
The BBC is reporting that the result is a foregone conclusion because Johnson is whipping Tory MPs to support him, even if they don’t think he deserves it. He’s that corrupt.
All This Writer can say is, I hope those Tory MPs take a step back and think about what the revelations about Johnson’s party attendance mean for people who lost loved ones to Covid-19 during his lockdown – and were banned by law from being with them at the end; a law that Johnson wilfully broke:
Bereaved families have said Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak “took us all for mugs” and should “be gone tonight” after the pair were fined for breaking Covid lockdown rules.
Lobby Akinnola, spokesperson for Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, said there was “simply no way” the prime minister and chancellor could continue in post.
He said: “After everything that’s happened it’s still unbelievably painful to know the prime minister was partying and breaking his own lockdown rules while we were unable to be at our loved ones’ sides in their dying moments, or in miserable funerals with only a handful of people because we were following the rules.
“The fact that the prime minister and his chancellor then lied about it, and would have continued to do so if the police hadn’t intervened, is truly shameless.
“They broke the law. But even worse, they took us all for mugs.”
“Their dishonesty has caused untold hurt to the bereaved.
“Not only that, but they have lost all credibility with the wider public, which could cost lives if new variants mean restrictions are needed in the future.”
This is true; I have spoken with many people since the fines were handed out and, in the now-unlikely event of another lockdown being ordered by the wretched Johnson, none of them have any intention of observing it.
The outrage about this betrayal is not about to go away.
Johnson made a law that caused huge anguish among those who abided by it – then decided that he wasn’t going to let it spoil his good times and broke it willy-nilly. Then he lied about it – repeatedly.
I have no doubt that he would still be hypocritically claiming that he didn’t break the law if the Metropolitan Police had not reversed its original decision not to investigate his crime.
If he is saved in Thursday’s vote by Tory MPs who choose to ignore the will of the people on this matter, then they will have proved that they are truly unfit to govern.
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!
We’ve seen this tactic time and time again from the fakes who pretend there’s a huge rise of anti-Semitism in the UK – particularly focused on the Labour Party.
They take a line from an article or message, out of context, and present it as proof of a campaign of hatred.
So here’s Simon Maginn’s Twitter message: “Attention Jew-hate scammers: you try it on here, you will be confronted and you will lose, publicly. There are more and more of us all the time, we are informed, we are organised, and we are coming for you. Things have changed.”
Perhaps it’s not the most diplomatic message. But then, Mr Maginn has been accused, threatened and otherwise abused by these hate-filled manipulators for a long time, now. After a while, it tends to wear away one’s willingness to use neutral language.
But people who considered themselves to be addressed by his message – in other words, people who deliberately lie that anti-Semitism is more widespread in the UK’s left-wing politics than is actually the case – cut the message down and reported it to the police.
The words they reported?
“We are coming for you.”
Out of context. Misrepresentative. Misleading.
Mr Maginn duly received a call from a member of Sussex Police, labouring under the belief that he was dealing with an offence under the Malicious Communications Act, and was subjected to a “words of advice” sermon.
He has complained to Chief Constable Jo Shiner – and has publicised his complaint on – where else? – Twitter’
It is wholly inappropriate for police to take a side in a political campaign. Police have no legitimate interest in lawful political campaigning, and have no right to attempt to prevent it taking place.
I think you need to take this seriously. #ItWasAScam
All any Sussex Police officer had to do was read the tweet and understand what it meant. They could then explain to the complainants that, they might not like it, it might make them angry, but it was perfectly lawful, was not abusive or insulting or threatening, did not mention ‘Jews’ at any point, and was obviously a reference to a long-running political campaign on Twitter, #ItWasAScam, and not a ‘threat’ of an angry mob attacking Jews.
We see ‘evidence’ that is plainly wrenched out of context and wholly misleading, we see a histrionic over-reaction to a perfectly innocent event, we see a fraudulent accusation of antisemitism, we see an immediate and furious demand for action, and we see that action take place.
The scam, in miniature, over just a few hours.
They screamed loud enough, and they got heard. That’s how the scam has operated from the outset, and that’s how it’s continuing to operate.
Personally, I’d like to know what Sussex Police are doing about the people who contacted them to misdirect their attention to an innocent man with a lie.
No innocent people were threatened by Mr Maginn’s tweet, and those guilty of spreading vile lies about innocent people were only under threat of having their lies exposed.
For that, these liars called the police and wasted officers’ valuable time.
Has any action been taken to reprimand them?
.@CCJoShiner@sussex_police Having read the circumstances of this interview, it seems clear that police time was wasted on a matter that was not an offence.
What action has been taken to reprimand the people responsible for this attempt to pervert justice? https://t.co/51SJU9C6cd
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: either he had just said something wrong, or he burped (too much alcohol at a ‘work meeting’, was it)?
At last the UK’s lying prime minister admits having “inadvertently” misled Parliament in a speech in the House of Commons.
We may draw two conclusions from this: firstly, it’s a genuine mistake, and secondly, it doesn’t have any bearing on Johnson himself.
And of course we’re right:
Boris Johnson has admitted that he “misspoke” after he told MPs that the Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich was “already facing sanctions”.
Downing Street said the prime minister would correct the parliamentary record after he mistakenly included the Chelsea FC owner as one of those hit by the government’s retaliatory measures against Russian interests.
The prime minister said out sanctions against five Russian banks and three wealthy Russian individuals in response to Vladimir Putin’s military incursion into Ukraine, but Mr Abramovich was not on the list.
Challenged by Labour MP Margaret Hodge on why Mr Abramovich and others had not be targeted, Mr Johnson said “Abramovich is already facing sanctions” – sparking claims he had misled the House.
Of course the real question should be – as was put by a friend of This Writer on Facebook earlier: Only five small banks and three individuals? Is this a token act to give all other Russian investors in the UK time to get their money into the Cayman Islands, the Virgin Islands, or some other tax haven?
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.
