'Hand On Heart, I Did Not Lie'

[Roobaba]

Boris Johnson challenged in hearing: Key moments - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-65043513

.. Lie or no lie?

[andy-hughes]

douglas - // Precedent in as much as he's a known teller of tales, a liar in plain English, so his previous actions can certainly be added to the heady brew. //

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation in which Mr Johnson finds himself.

In the same way that you cannot judge and condemn someone for what you think he may or may not have known, you cannot judge and condemn him on the basis that because he has lied in the past, that is proof that he is lying now.

It isn't.

[douglas9401]

"Enjoy your night"

[THECORBYLOON]

It demonstrates a pattern of behaviour and if anyone is swithering about him and the evidence provided, it would tend to count against him.

[andy-hughes]

Douglas - Knowing that yet again, I have comprehensively demolished what you amusingly think of as a point, I certainly will.

[andy-hughes]

Corby - That is a reasonable assessment, and as such, bears no relation to the logic-free piffle advanced by Douglas - again.

[Atheist]

Johnson seems to think that a history of lying can be used to assess someone's reliability. He used that argument in the committee hearing when commenting on Dominic Cummings.

[douglas9401]

Insufferable, self-satisfied prig.

Johnson, of course.

[andy-hughes]

douglas - // Insufferable, self-satisfied prig.

Johnson, of course. //

Of course, but i doubt he is on AB, you might need to e-mail that sentiment to his office, I'm sure he'll be thrilled to hear from you.

[gness]

If you do, Douglas you can add my name too. ;-)

[tomus42]

AH has summed up BJs defence quite nicely. No-one can prove he was lying because no-one can prove what was going on in his head at the time he was misleading the house.

We all know he was lying though, and continues to do so.

[andy-hughes]

tomus - // We all know he was lying though, and continues to do so. //

That may be, although personally I'd be wary of speaking as 'we', but that's a minor point.

I can only reiterate the most important aspect of law, that makes it the venerable institution that it is - it's not a matter of what you know, it's a matter of what you can prove.

And on that basis, Mr Johnson was, is, and remains, fireproof.

[Peter Pedant]

And on that basis, Mr Johnson was, is, and remains, fireproof.
jesus really?
then in that case, as Cicero once said - "bringus backus Boris!"
I think even the people of Rome "populus romanus" might sick that one up

[tomus42]

Fair point Andy. I'll replace 'we all' with 'Everyone except the extremely gullible'.

[Peter Pedant]

"I can only ..... aspect of law, ......... it's a matter of what you can prove."

nope - - non sequitur - even the slow coaches at the beeb have accepted that this is not a court of law is not a criminal process, it is a common committee and has a political aspect, courts dont have.

and they have their own rules
( coz if they had legal rules, they would be courts and they are not, see)

1689 and all that ( separation of powers)

naughty naughty lawyers looking for fat fees

[andy-hughes]

PP // ... this is not a court of law is not a criminal process, it is a common committee and has a political aspect, courts dont have. //

Nonetheless, the committee is going to have to satisfy itself that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the House, and whether that be within the constraints of the legal system, or the far more manoeuvrable boundaries of committee process, it remains impossible to do so with any semblance of proof, whatever its measure.

[THECORBYLOON]

As the level of proof is that used in a civil case, "on the balance of probability", how can you be sure it is impossible to prove guilt?

[tomus42]

I think the good news in all of this is that whatever the outcome of this enquiry, he's history, other than to to try and cause trouble from the back benches as all former PMs do.

[andy-hughes]

Corby - Because 'the balance of probability' is reached by an opinion only, and since Mr Johnson can quite rightly point to the simple fact that opinions on general, and for politicians entirely, are based entirely on what the politicians concerned stand to win or lose, based on the 'opinion' they offer, which will only ever be weighted to their advantage, which may or nay not align with the interests of the individual on which their 'opinion' is being requested.

That makes the committee nothing more than a kangaroo court, and it is to the advantage of justice as a concept, that they are unlikely to commit to anything that does not enhance their own ambitions alone, without damaging their colleagues in the process.

[THECORBYLOON]

ANDY, "it is to the advantage of justice as a concept, that they are unlikely to commit to anything that does not enhance their own ambitions alone, without damaging their colleagues in the process."

You've lost me there.

[andy-hughes]

No problem - I believe that the committee members will be so busy looking for a 'result' that does not first and most important, damage their own careers and ambitions, and secondly, but possibly important, not damage the careers and ambitions of anyone who could be helpful in the future, that they will hamstrung into not committing to anything, and fudging it, and letting it die a natural death.

Much like Mr Johnson's own political ambitions.

Although since has already been PM, I doubt he cares very much at all.