Is The Home Secretary Really That...
News1 min ago
'Hand On Heart, I Did Not Lie'
Boris Johnson challenged in hearing: Key moments - BBC News
https:/
.. Lie or no lie?
https:/
.. Lie or no lie?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Roobaba. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As ever I am still waiting for an example of a Boris porkie.
he admitted it for chrissakes - Boris the Liar " I admit ( that ever lie of the week he was caught out in) and hand on heart I am truly sorry I misled....."
The rest is just window dressing
oh - - what?
wrong kind of lie - yeah, OK so he didnt lie like you define it. Got it. fank-oo
he admitted it for chrissakes - Boris the Liar " I admit ( that ever lie of the week he was caught out in) and hand on heart I am truly sorry I misled....."
The rest is just window dressing
oh - - what?
wrong kind of lie - yeah, OK so he didnt lie like you define it. Got it. fank-oo
TTT @ 09.34 ..."As ever I am still waiting for an example of a Boris Porkie",,,,,Here's one for you TTT.
.....When he was MOL and he gave Jennifer Arcuri,
£126,000 of tax payers money supposedly for sponsorship and grants when it was really hush money ....Because he was having an affair with her....Wonder if he is still paying her....
.....When he was MOL and he gave Jennifer Arcuri,
£126,000 of tax payers money supposedly for sponsorship and grants when it was really hush money ....Because he was having an affair with her....Wonder if he is still paying her....
and if you do ( johnson etc)
you get
https:/
I thought he had been dismissed
( O god sir Beer doing his Crown-summing-up-damning speech on this - 12 23 Beeb)
dismissed for dishnesty no less than SIX times
or - - - is that ( hand on my heart) a lie?
you get
https:/
I thought he had been dismissed
( O god sir Beer doing his Crown-summing-up-damning speech on this - 12 23 Beeb)
dismissed for dishnesty no less than SIX times
or - - - is that ( hand on my heart) a lie?
This situation speaks to the interesting concept - speaking the truth, as you believe it to be true.
I always use the same example -
If you ask someone who believes the earth is flat, if they believe that they earth is flat, they will say that yes, they believe the earth is flat.
Now science, and centuries of experience, proves beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the world is not flat, so the statement is not true.
So is the flat-earther telling a lie?
No, because he believes that what he says is the truth, and therefore he is not telling a lie.
What he says is categorically not true, but because he believes it to be true, he is speaking the truth as he understands it.
It is therefore possible for Mr Johnson to say something that has been proven not to be true, but if he believed at the time that it was true then he is not lying.
This will be the thrust of his defence, and in all reasonableness, it will be very very difficult to prove that he knew what he was saying at the time was untrue, which would make him the liar that so many people accuse him of being.
I believe that at the end of this procedure, the inability to prove that Mr Johnson has knowingly lied to the House, will see him walk away unscathed, and history shows that his skin is more than thick enough to shrug off this situation, and leave his detractors fuming with impotent rage, while he continues to act exactly as he pleases.
I always use the same example -
If you ask someone who believes the earth is flat, if they believe that they earth is flat, they will say that yes, they believe the earth is flat.
Now science, and centuries of experience, proves beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the world is not flat, so the statement is not true.
So is the flat-earther telling a lie?
No, because he believes that what he says is the truth, and therefore he is not telling a lie.
What he says is categorically not true, but because he believes it to be true, he is speaking the truth as he understands it.
It is therefore possible for Mr Johnson to say something that has been proven not to be true, but if he believed at the time that it was true then he is not lying.
This will be the thrust of his defence, and in all reasonableness, it will be very very difficult to prove that he knew what he was saying at the time was untrue, which would make him the liar that so many people accuse him of being.
I believe that at the end of this procedure, the inability to prove that Mr Johnson has knowingly lied to the House, will see him walk away unscathed, and history shows that his skin is more than thick enough to shrug off this situation, and leave his detractors fuming with impotent rage, while he continues to act exactly as he pleases.
While that [Andy at 12.32] is a fair point, there are limits to how far sincerity can go as a defence. In this case, for example, one important aspect of Johnson's statement was that he had been "reassured" that the rules and guidance were followed at all times. To what extent did he take reasonable steps to ensure that these "reassurances" were on firm footing? Since, for example, it was a question of legal interpretation, then asking a lawyer (or multiple lawyers) might have been fine. On the other hand, he seems to have asked mainly other attendees, or political advisors, or senior Civil Servants, rather than legal experts. But "I believed it was OK because one of the other people breaking the rules said it was fine," is -- it could be argued -- not sufficient to stand before the House and claim that you had been "reassured" that nothing had gone on.
This definitely becomes technical, though, and for that matter as more time passes the public anger will have continued to subside. So, when the report comes out and it's inevitably not all that clear-cut, I do suspect that you're right that Johnson will broadly come out with his public reputation relatively unchanged. We already "know he lied", or we already don't care one way or another, and a relatively minor aspect of that behaviour in the grand scheme of things is going to change nobody's opinion of the man.
This definitely becomes technical, though, and for that matter as more time passes the public anger will have continued to subside. So, when the report comes out and it's inevitably not all that clear-cut, I do suspect that you're right that Johnson will broadly come out with his public reputation relatively unchanged. We already "know he lied", or we already don't care one way or another, and a relatively minor aspect of that behaviour in the grand scheme of things is going to change nobody's opinion of the man.
