[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[bitontheslide]

what honest person says "hand on heart"

It's all a nonsense anyway. The committee can only recommend sanctions, and then it goes to a vote in parliament, and there is no way the tories will vote for him to be expelled from the party

[joeysteele]

I have never liked Johnson from first becoming aware of him.
So it's no surprise to even myself that all he did yesterday was further confirm to me that he was deviously clouding the real facts and issues.
From the 2 things he is extremely adept at.
That is to deceive and lie.

He was well versed from what his lawyers with him had help him as to wording and best way to perform.

However he was, in my massively negative already view of him, being deceitful.
He was deliberately at times not addressing the valid points made in questioning and he just has this arrogant deceitful trait about him that he either will not or cannot admit to his own wrongdoing.

However this committee has to decide really on did he really deliberately mislead parliament or was he more ill advised.
So believed he was being true to parliament.

It depends heavily now on the evidence and testimony provided by all the others they have talked to and who have submitted their evidence to the committee.
He has been told to advise the committee on the name of at least one person Johnson claims advised him.
He refused to publicly mention them at the interview.
If he doesn't supply that name/s to the committee then that must surely put into question further was he dealing honestly with the committee.

Nothing he said yesterday changed my massively strong negative of him as to his deceit and lies.
I stand by my view he's nothing more than an odious creep.

I talked last night with a Con friend who likes Johnson.
He too helieves that Johnson misled parliament but he'd excuse it from the pressures of the time.
So thinks the committee should not punish him.
Maybe they possibly may reach that conclusion.

However again Johnson held back from correcting the record at times even at this committee interview.
Just more clouding the issue, throwing a few truths in and facts but always on the road he is expert in.
Of clouding serious problems and issues with deceit certainly and often blatant lies too.

[LeatherTrumpet]

SIR – Boris Johnson knew that the rules we were being asked to follow were
politically motivated and often not based on scientific advice. We know this
from the WhatsApp messages published in the Lockdown Files.

Is it therefore surprising that he and others in Downing Street found it
difficult to work out which rules they were meant to follow, and which were
there only to “frighten the pants off everyone”, as Matt Hancock, then the
health secretary, put it?

We now have the ridiculous waste of time and money by the Privileges
Committee trying to work out not whether we were misled about the need
for the rules in the first place, but whether the prime minister at the time –
famously not a man for details – was familiar enough with them to know if
they were being followed or not.

Julian Gall
Godalming, Surrey

[The Slim Reaper]

Arista and Boris have more of an on-off relationship than 16yr olds.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Arista and Boris have more of an on-off relationship than 16yr olds...

... with Boris Johnson?