Body & Soul0 min ago
Boris Admits He Misled Mp's
53 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MargoTester. 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.I think the problem here is that advice was all over the place and 'changing by the hour' OG, so what he seems to be saying is that "I believed it when I said it but info has s come to light later showing my presumption to be incorrect" I could be wrong of course.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and so are people who know what someone else believes!
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and so are people who know what someone else believes!
The issue is not whether he misled Parliament but whether it was deliberate or reckless and that is what he denies.
no actually it isnt. Boris and his hordes and hangers on have tried to make it the issue
the proceedings are not lawful ( warble the lawyers,in my opinion) in the hope of fat fullsome fees....
BUT - 1689 Bill of RIghts, there was separation of powers. There is no pt is saying that IF you then say, "ooh yes and it has to be lawful, too" - - because the law is one of the things it is separate from
I am sure all the big shot QCs know this but have unintentionally forgotten to keep us up to date, all in the best parsible taste and not recklessly
( not too complex for AB to say the House is independent of the legal system i nnit?)
no actually it isnt. Boris and his hordes and hangers on have tried to make it the issue
the proceedings are not lawful ( warble the lawyers,in my opinion) in the hope of fat fullsome fees....
BUT - 1689 Bill of RIghts, there was separation of powers. There is no pt is saying that IF you then say, "ooh yes and it has to be lawful, too" - - because the law is one of the things it is separate from
I am sure all the big shot QCs know this but have unintentionally forgotten to keep us up to date, all in the best parsible taste and not recklessly
( not too complex for AB to say the House is independent of the legal system i nnit?)
Of course he misled MPs.
He said social distancing was adhered to at all times.
The Police found otherwise and fined 83 people.
He was in attendance at several of the gatherings but he was unaware that he was breaking the rules. So he told parliament that no rules were broken. Only problem is, his Government wrote the rules. To say he didn’t understand them is some admission. His defence of ignorance is embarrassing. They were his rules, he should have known them.
He said social distancing was adhered to at all times.
The Police found otherwise and fined 83 people.
He was in attendance at several of the gatherings but he was unaware that he was breaking the rules. So he told parliament that no rules were broken. Only problem is, his Government wrote the rules. To say he didn’t understand them is some admission. His defence of ignorance is embarrassing. They were his rules, he should have known them.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.