Crosswords0 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.
Andy-h: // The committee is going to have to satisfy itself that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the House... it remains impossible to do so with any semblance of proof, whatever its measure. ... 'the balance of probability' is reached by an opinion only, ...
That makes the committee nothing more than a kangaroo court //
It's important to point out that this is wrong.
Firstly, as already stressed, the Privileges Committee isn't required to satisfy itself to any strict legal standard, be that "beyond reasonable doubt", or "on the balance of probability", although it would presumably be in their interests to demonstrate that they did meet at least the second test.
Secondly, this characterisation as a Kangaroo Court is obviously in Johnson's interest: you might have seen in his oral statements that he said that he would judge the committee impartial if it cleared him, and was ambiguous on what conclusions it would reach if it found that he had "wittingly misled the House". But an impartial committee is entitled to reach whatever conclusions are reasonably consistent with the evidence, not the conclusion that favours Johnson.
Thirdly, earlier you've said that the judgement can in effect only be based on whether or not Johnson himself knew that he was lying; that what matters is in his heart or mind. This is also not true. Although, as I've said already (as did others), this isn't a legal court, the relevant test would be one of reasonable belief. It's not enough that the belief is genuinely held: would *somebody else*, themselves of sound mind, be reasonably able to reach that same belief?
That's why a lot of the discussion in the session on Wednesday focused on whether Johnson had adequately consulted his advisors before stating that he had been "reassured"; that's why Johnson continually referred to the multiple leaving drinks events as "essential for work purposes"; and that's also why there was focus on whether the events which breached the "two metres" social distancing restrictions in the guidance had instead met the "one metre with mitigating measures" alternative.
Each of these questions, at least partly, is subject to an objective test:
1a. Asking other special advisors may not be enough reassurance when they themselves would hardly wish to self-incriminate, if you also had open to you the option of asking for detailed legal advice from an impartial lawyer;
1b. Further, the statement given to the house was that Johnson had been "reassured that the rules and guidance were followed at all times". However, Johnson has conceded that, prior to saying this, one of his advisors, Martin Reynolds (his then-PPS), specifically did *not* say that the guidance had been followed "at all times", and indeed advised Johnson not to say as much in that exact wording.
2. Describing events that were about morale, rather than productivity, as "essential for work purposes" is problematic when you consider that most social events, which would also improve morale, were banned under the guidance. Although Johnson stated in oral questions that he would have suggested, in one of the regular Covid conferences, these were permissible under the guidance if asked about it at the time, he did not in fact do so. Instead, argmost people at the time will have understood that retirement-centred social events did not fit the spirit of the guidance.
3. The mitigations were clearly understood to be measures to replace social distancing, such as screens or masks or the like. On one occasion these screens were referred to, but notably that they were in the adjacent room to where the event was taking place.
All of this means that it is surely open to the Committee to find that, while Johnson may well have sincerely believed that he was telling the truth, he was also wrong to do so, and in particular that it would be unreasonable to have done so.
That makes the committee nothing more than a kangaroo court //
It's important to point out that this is wrong.
Firstly, as already stressed, the Privileges Committee isn't required to satisfy itself to any strict legal standard, be that "beyond reasonable doubt", or "on the balance of probability", although it would presumably be in their interests to demonstrate that they did meet at least the second test.
Secondly, this characterisation as a Kangaroo Court is obviously in Johnson's interest: you might have seen in his oral statements that he said that he would judge the committee impartial if it cleared him, and was ambiguous on what conclusions it would reach if it found that he had "wittingly misled the House". But an impartial committee is entitled to reach whatever conclusions are reasonably consistent with the evidence, not the conclusion that favours Johnson.
Thirdly, earlier you've said that the judgement can in effect only be based on whether or not Johnson himself knew that he was lying; that what matters is in his heart or mind. This is also not true. Although, as I've said already (as did others), this isn't a legal court, the relevant test would be one of reasonable belief. It's not enough that the belief is genuinely held: would *somebody else*, themselves of sound mind, be reasonably able to reach that same belief?
That's why a lot of the discussion in the session on Wednesday focused on whether Johnson had adequately consulted his advisors before stating that he had been "reassured"; that's why Johnson continually referred to the multiple leaving drinks events as "essential for work purposes"; and that's also why there was focus on whether the events which breached the "two metres" social distancing restrictions in the guidance had instead met the "one metre with mitigating measures" alternative.
Each of these questions, at least partly, is subject to an objective test:
1a. Asking other special advisors may not be enough reassurance when they themselves would hardly wish to self-incriminate, if you also had open to you the option of asking for detailed legal advice from an impartial lawyer;
1b. Further, the statement given to the house was that Johnson had been "reassured that the rules and guidance were followed at all times". However, Johnson has conceded that, prior to saying this, one of his advisors, Martin Reynolds (his then-PPS), specifically did *not* say that the guidance had been followed "at all times", and indeed advised Johnson not to say as much in that exact wording.
2. Describing events that were about morale, rather than productivity, as "essential for work purposes" is problematic when you consider that most social events, which would also improve morale, were banned under the guidance. Although Johnson stated in oral questions that he would have suggested, in one of the regular Covid conferences, these were permissible under the guidance if asked about it at the time, he did not in fact do so. Instead, argmost people at the time will have understood that retirement-centred social events did not fit the spirit of the guidance.
3. The mitigations were clearly understood to be measures to replace social distancing, such as screens or masks or the like. On one occasion these screens were referred to, but notably that they were in the adjacent room to where the event was taking place.
All of this means that it is surely open to the Committee to find that, while Johnson may well have sincerely believed that he was telling the truth, he was also wrong to do so, and in particular that it would be unreasonable to have done so.
ClareT, the specific terms of the motion passed by the Commons authorising the committee’s inquiry, the committee is investigating whether:
1. The Commons was misled
2. If the Commons was misled, whether that constituted a contempt of parliament (in other words, whether the functioning of the Commons was impeded by this)
3. If the Commons was misled, how serious was the potential contempt
There is no question which addresses your scenario.
1. The Commons was misled
2. If the Commons was misled, whether that constituted a contempt of parliament (in other words, whether the functioning of the Commons was impeded by this)
3. If the Commons was misled, how serious was the potential contempt
There is no question which addresses your scenario.
CLARE, the standard of proof used is, "on the balance of probabilities".
'What is the standard of proof that the Committee will be considering during the inquiry?
'The standard of proof the Committee will apply when deciding on factual issues will be “on the balance of probabilities”. The Committee will therefore decide on the basis of the evidence it receives whether the allegations have been proved “on the balance of probabilities”. This is in accord with the past practice of the Committee.'
https:/
'What is the standard of proof that the Committee will be considering during the inquiry?
'The standard of proof the Committee will apply when deciding on factual issues will be “on the balance of probabilities”. The Committee will therefore decide on the basis of the evidence it receives whether the allegations have been proved “on the balance of probabilities”. This is in accord with the past practice of the Committee.'
https:/
If (!) it is found that Johnson did mislead parliament, and whether this actually constituted a contempt the committee will recommend what kind of sanction He faces, reporting its findings and recommendations to the House of Commons. All MPs will then vote to ratify or disagree with their conclusions and any recommended sanctions, so we the general public will probably never know the results, unless they with draw the whip.
This from June 2022.
//Harriet Harman is under pressure to withdraw from a Commons inquiry into Boris Johnson after it emerged that she had accused him of misleading Parliament two months ago.//
https:/
The woman should never have been allowed to sit in judgement of him.
//Harriet Harman is under pressure to withdraw from a Commons inquiry into Boris Johnson after it emerged that she had accused him of misleading Parliament two months ago.//
https:/
The woman should never have been allowed to sit in judgement of him.
In answer to ZM, while the question may not be expressed in such terms, it's already common ground that Parliament *was* misled, at least in fact -- Johnson said the rules were followed at all times, but they were not -- so already that would leave only (2) and (3). But Johnson's written submissions and oral questions were entirely based on arguing that he was not "wittingly" misleading the House, so it's evident that he, at least, thinks his defence stands entirely on this point.
This is no doubt because, as the Committee said in its report (quoting from the same source as Corbyloon) https:/
"If a statement was misleading, we will consider whether that was inadvertent, reckless or intentional."
Likewise, the question of whether he misled the house also requires to evaluate whether Johnson was correct to say that he had been "reassured", so the point in my earlier post still stands here. Again, quoting from the Committee:
" We will consider why he said he had been given repeated assurances when the evidence is that the assertion that all rules were followed was taken primarily from... a special adviser appointed by Mr Johnson, as a response to a media enquiry about specific gatherings rather than having been a general assurance as to
the fact that no guidance or rules were broken in No. 10."
This is no doubt because, as the Committee said in its report (quoting from the same source as Corbyloon) https:/
"If a statement was misleading, we will consider whether that was inadvertent, reckless or intentional."
Likewise, the question of whether he misled the house also requires to evaluate whether Johnson was correct to say that he had been "reassured", so the point in my earlier post still stands here. Again, quoting from the Committee:
" We will consider why he said he had been given repeated assurances when the evidence is that the assertion that all rules were followed was taken primarily from... a special adviser appointed by Mr Johnson, as a response to a media enquiry about specific gatherings rather than having been a general assurance as to
the fact that no guidance or rules were broken in No. 10."
In summary, anyway, my point is that Johnson's defence cannot merely revolve around the fact that he believed he was correct. All of the objective tests I laid out *do* follow from the Committee's lines of investigation, and can in any event be inferred from both Johnson's written and oral statements, and the questions put to him. He may have genuinely believed the statement to be correct, but if he had not in fact been adequately reassured, and if his belief that these events followed the guidance cannot be found to be reasonable, then he would have not just misled, but "wittingly misled", the House.
Points (2) and (3) in ZM's comment seem to follow more or less automatically.
Points (2) and (3) in ZM's comment seem to follow more or less automatically.
See also Erskine May:
"Standing Order No 122B(8)(f) provides that no Member may be a candidate for the Chair of the Committee on Standards unless their party is that of the Official Opposition."
Technically, that's the Standards Committee rather than the Privileges Committee, but in fact the two have the same membership of MPs. In the article below, it notes that it was briefly possible for Sir Bernard Jenkin to have been chair, but in June 2022 the Committee unanimously approved Harman as Chair.
https:/
"Standing Order No 122B(8)(f) provides that no Member may be a candidate for the Chair of the Committee on Standards unless their party is that of the Official Opposition."
Technically, that's the Standards Committee rather than the Privileges Committee, but in fact the two have the same membership of MPs. In the article below, it notes that it was briefly possible for Sir Bernard Jenkin to have been chair, but in June 2022 the Committee unanimously approved Harman as Chair.
https:/
An attack on the Committee has been launched after the hearing had started and things don't look as good as was hoped for Johnson. When things don't look too good, then hands start to wander towards hilts and the gentle slide of steel against steel is used to make the Committee members nervous. It's politics.
Latest Posts
Is The Home Secretary Really That...
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
