Sue Gray report

Is that before they are pushed?
I'm not up to date with the news.

Two more special advisors have resigned.

Lincsclass. If you chose to vote Tory, to vote for cuddly Boris to "get Brexit done" then at least have the good grace to take responsibility for the shit show you have landed us all with.

I remember an LBC programme with James O'Brien about the nominations for PM. One caller said he would vote for Johnson. " Why?" said James. "Because he has charisma"!
That's part of the problem. The great British public.in general, isn't interested in politics and doesn't know , or care, how it works.
Until it hits our pockets.

Yep- especially as they had been warned, again and again, and some more- that he was totally unsuitable and a habitual liar only interested in number one.

Are Tory voters responsible for this man being PM?

Errr....

GillT57

It was said on Peston last night that MPs were being inundated by letters of complaint from constituents, and not from 'the usual suspects', but from 'churchwardens' ie the backbone of the local Conservative community. Most decent people don't think child abuse a fair subject to use as a weapon to save your sorry arse, and this has brought back to mind Johnson's disgusting comment about investigating historical child abuse which he described as 'spaffing money up the all'. For those not familiar with the word, 'spaffing' is a vulgar word for male ejaculation. It would be difficult to think of a more inappropriate word to use. Still happy with him, all you Johnson supporters? Still glad you voted for him?

So Conservative voters are responsible for his actions and words, is that what your saying, how dare you. Are Labour voters responsible for the millions killed after the PM they voted took this country into an illegal war.

Thanks petera. I actually emailed Lindsay Hoyle MP but I’ve been told that I should have emailed the Speakers office so I’m going to resend my complaint.

Johnson’s head of policy Munira Mizra
has resigned this afternoon as a result of his remarks about Savile. Her resignation letter has been published and it makes for interesting reading.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/03/boris-johnsons-policy-chief-quits-over-pms-scurrilous-savile-remark

I have had a long reply from the Speaker's secretary. He says he can't check the veracity of statements made in the House, but that he is very unhappy about it.

I still think that he now people have told him the truth and the facts, he should NOW insist that Johnson retracts and apologises.

It was said on Peston last night that MPs were being inundated by letters of complaint from constituents, and not from 'the usual suspects', but from 'churchwardens' ie the backbone of the local Conservative community. Most decent people don't think child abuse a fair subject to use as a weapon to save your sorry arse, and this has brought back to mind Johnson's disgusting comment about investigating historical child abuse which he described as 'spaffing money up the all'. For those not familiar with the word, 'spaffing' is a vulgar word for male ejaculation. It would be difficult to think of a more inappropriate word to use. Still happy with him, all you Johnson supporters? Still glad you voted for him?

Johnson has backed down on the Saville slur, admitting that Keir Starmer was not personally responsible for any decisions taken not to prosecute the horrific Jimmy Saville! It is good to see the pressure from appalled Tories has an impact. Will he now have the courtesy to say this in the House of Commons? It has had the impact he wanted - and created a lot of doubt in people's minds! Well done Daily Mail - not!

Thank you for sharing that Petera.

Reply from the Speaker:

Mr Speaker asked me to thank you for your email and to respond on his behalf.

Mr Speaker has asked me to explain that he is not responsible for Members’ contributions and would not seek to intervene unless something is said that is, in parliamentary terms, disorderly.

Nothing occurred on Monday that was, in technical terms, disorderly. That being said, Mr Speaker feels that allegations such as these should not be made lightly - especially in view of the guidance in Erskine May – the definitive guide to parliamentary procedure – about good temper and moderation being the characteristics of parliamentary debate.

Mr Speaker was far from satisfied that these comments were appropriate or helpful on this occasion, even if they did not fall outside the rules. He would like to see more compassionate and reasonable politics in the House of Commons, and these sorts of comments only enflame opinions and create discord.

However, it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the accuracy or veracity of Members’ contributions, so long as the contents of their words remain orderly. Mr Speaker can only operate within the powers afforded to him by the House and it would not be appropriate for him to play the role of fact checker during, or subsequent to, debates.

If a Member feels that a Minister has been deliberately misleading, as opposed to inadvertently mistaken, they could table a substantive motion criticising the conduct of that Minister and seek to initiate debates on the detail of the Government policy in question, as well as tabling questions to pursue statements made at the dispatch box.

Members are not otherwise allowed to accuse each other of lying unless debating a substantive motion directly addressing the point. Erskine May says that this is to “preserve the character of parliamentary debate” and that “expressions when used in respect of other Members which are regarded with particular seriousness, generally leading to prompt intervention from the Chair and often a requirement on the Member to withdraw the words, include the imputation of false or unavowed motives; the misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation; and charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood.” (paragraph 21.24)

The Speaker takes all comments from members of the public very seriously and would like to reassure you that one of his principal concerns is to ensure that the highest standards of debate are maintained in the House of Commons. He always does his utmost to encourage Members to conduct themselves in a dignified and productive manner in the Chamber, and to remind them of the views of the public on this matter. He is aware that there is much to be done in this regard and will continue to press for improvements.

I hope that the above information is helpful. Thank you for taking the time to write and please accept our best wishes.

Kind regards,

Josh Ryder
Assistant to the Speaker’s Secretary

All these lies he doesn't need to tell. This is a tactic I recognise from people who are trying to create a bizarre world of lies and half truths with the aim of bamboozling honest, straightforward people into losing touch with reality.

Once reality and decency become blurred then everyone becomes confused and credulous and anything, good or bad, is possible.

MayBee70

The daft thing is, and the same applies to many of his lies, is that he didn’t need to have said it. It’s as if he can’t help himself.

It's worse than that. It was planned. He's refused to retract and has even repeated it. They know it will stick with some of the more ... err ... uninformed members of the public.

The daft thing is, and the same applies to many of his lies, is that he didn’t need to have said it. It’s as if he can’t help himself.

Galaxy

I saw Gove interviewed on it yesterday and he was saying the same thing re Saville just in a less direct fashion than Johnson. Its beyond words.

Every single time it is brought up in an interview the interviewee should be invited to repeat what Johnson said without the protection of parliamentary privilege. They will never do it of course.

It’s a measure of how bad this is that the drug-taking slur has almost been forgotten.

Home? Him.

I saw Gove interviewed on it yesterday and he was saying the same thing re Saville just in a less direct fashion than Johnson. Its beyond words.

You are so right. I gasped when I heard home say that.

The slur on Starmer seems to be backfiring. Many Tory mp’s aren’t impressed. The DM reports it was discussed in Downing Street and Johnson advised by colleagues and lawyers not to use it.
Starmer and Nazis Afzal made positive contributions to the way the CPS works. This slur by Johnson is beneath contempt.

ah but have you seen how Nadine looks at him? Better adoring eyes I have rarely seen ;)

GillT57

Iam64

Thanks CvD66
It’s shocking that Johnson sank to the low of perpetuating the far right slur on Starmer.

Even more shocking when despite extensive press and tv reports refuting Johnson's allegations, people on GN still repeat it. Shame on you

I couldn't agree more. Only the blinkered haven't realised the depths to which Johnson will stoop. I'm appalled than anybody should mindlessly repeat what he said, when it's been shown time and time again that Starmer was not involved in the decision not to prosecute Savile.

Iam64

Thanks CvD66
It’s shocking that Johnson sank to the low of perpetuating the far right slur on Starmer.

Even more shocking when despite extensive press and tv reports refuting Johnson's allegations, people on GN still repeat it. Shame on you