News0 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.
In spite of the constant impotent gnashing of teeth on here, and in the wider world, it's going to be impossible to prove that Mr Johnson did not act in good faith when following the advice he confirms he was given.
You can't mind-read and prove that someone did or did not know something at a specific time in the past.
All Mr Johnson has to do is continue to maintain his position - that he believed the information he was given to be correct, and he cannot be blamed for subsequent infomrtion proving it to be incorrect.
You can't try and condemn someone on the basis of 20/20 hindsight, that is not how the legal process operates.
The media, MP's, and the great and good will have to accept that it's not a matter of what they 'know', it's a matter of what they can prove, and that is clearly going to be impossible.
We will go through the motions, Mr Johnson will be condemned as a liar or a fool, he will not care one jot, and we can all return to normal.
You can't mind-read and prove that someone did or did not know something at a specific time in the past.
All Mr Johnson has to do is continue to maintain his position - that he believed the information he was given to be correct, and he cannot be blamed for subsequent infomrtion proving it to be incorrect.
You can't try and condemn someone on the basis of 20/20 hindsight, that is not how the legal process operates.
The media, MP's, and the great and good will have to accept that it's not a matter of what they 'know', it's a matter of what they can prove, and that is clearly going to be impossible.
We will go through the motions, Mr Johnson will be condemned as a liar or a fool, he will not care one jot, and we can all return to normal.
He claimed in parliament that he had been repeatedly assured that the gatherings he attended were in line with the rules and guidance.... he wasn't assured anything of the kind
he was asked in parliament whether or not there was a party on 13 November of the previous year and he categorically said "no".... but there was one and he was at it
his insistence that these events were essential for work is pathetic... it is obvious that he doesn't really believe it. He's been caught out lying and not for the first time... unfortunately it is a serious matter to do that to the house of commons however much boris may believe rules do not apply to him
he really is a dreadful politician and should stick to what he's good at
he was asked in parliament whether or not there was a party on 13 November of the previous year and he categorically said "no".... but there was one and he was at it
his insistence that these events were essential for work is pathetic... it is obvious that he doesn't really believe it. He's been caught out lying and not for the first time... unfortunately it is a serious matter to do that to the house of commons however much boris may believe rules do not apply to him
he really is a dreadful politician and should stick to what he's good at
douglas - // "You can't try and condemn someone on the basis of 20/20 hindsight, that is not how the legal process operates"
Precedent? //
How can there be a precedent for something that does not, and cannot exist?
I think you are rushing in to pick a fight without thinking through what your strategy is going to be - again.
Precedent? //
How can there be a precedent for something that does not, and cannot exist?
I think you are rushing in to pick a fight without thinking through what your strategy is going to be - again.
