There you go again - deflecting. Who saw or didn't see what and where is nothing to do with it - I will make it as simple as I can for you
1/ Johnson set up the investigating committee
2/ Parliament OK'D the committee and its make
3/ The committee's - agreed by all parties to - INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON WHETHER JOHNSON LIED TO THE HOUSE.
Not parties not people going home - Johnson told the House on many occasions all the rules had been followed - later modified to he was repeatedly assured that they were. He gave evidence to that effect to the committee and when advisers and others gave their evidence NONE of them were prepared to perjure themselves for him and said they had never told him any such thing.
If you are gonna keep banging on about cake and what people may or may not have seen you just make yourself out to be ignorant or a WUM - he lied and when he tried to justify it the whole thing would not stand up in "court"
Not for the first time, and surely not the last, you’ve got the wrong end of the stick here and made another unnecessary intervention.
A few points before I depart for the day;
First, if you read my first post today again - properly this time - you will see that I don’t doubt that Johnson lied to and misled the house, or that he distorted or exaggerated the evidence on several issues. I’ve also stated why I believe the exact nature of the six gatherings investigated by the Committee is of central importance to the report’s findings. Again, if Johnson knew first hand that COVID rules and/or guidance were breached at the various gatherings, then he would have knowingly misled the House when later claiming that they were in fact compliant. This is why the first half of the report is dedicated to birthday cakes, number of attendees, so on and so forth. Where’s the deflection there?
Second, I would also add that I’ve come to this view after reading the report, something you clearly haven’t bothered to do given your ignorance of the evidence presented. My approach of wanting to actually read the report appeared - for whatever reason - to get you and others extremely animated last night. Extremely animated. According to the logic of this place, if that’s the right word (it isn’t), reading things for myself and trying to gain a fuller understanding of a complex matter makes me a twat and imbecile (not your words, I’m happy to report).
Further, if you read my second post again, you will see that the discussion does not alter my view that Johnson misled the house. It relates instead to a secondary issue, namely the controversy over some elements of the report and in particular the question of what Johnson should have been expected to see in relation to a particular event. Given that these issues will be discussed at length in the media over the next few days, and that they could set a precedent for future reports, I think that this is an issue which could be of interest to other people on the forum.
Finally, on a related theme, I think you should try to remember that other people should be allowed to have a discussion on the forum, particularly when that discussion isn’t actually referencing yourself, or being abusive to others. Not everything is an attempt to distort or distract - some people just like to have a discussion - but you seem intent on confronting and deterring this. I think it gets a bit tiresome after a while.
