£220,000 of taxpayers money and rising!

Agreed.

Why are the public paying? - if I needed a legal team to defend me on charges brought, I would either have to pay it myself or seek legal aid.

Agree. Johnson never seems to pay for anything himself! He manages to get others to pay school fees pay for his wedding pay for his holidays he is a taker/user. Morals and integrity have been a Johnson deficit.

Oldbat1

Agree. Johnson never seems to pay for anything himself! He manages to get others to pay school fees pay for his wedding pay for his holidays he is a taker/user. Morals and integrity have been a Johnson deficit.

Please try to listen to the latest The Rest is Politics in which Alastair Campbell, at the very end of the podcast, asks Rory Stewart if he has ever seen Boris Johnson pay for anything. The answer was a categorical ‘NO’.

He never pays for anything but still cant manage his money.

Luckygirl, I don’t think there is legal aid anymore.
Certainly not for Average Joe.

So, if he is found guilty, which he surely should be, will there be an application for costs? I also would like to know what the £800k loan was for. He really is a freeloader. Of course, his supporters will say there is absolutely no reason to worry about a PM/Foreign Secretary who seems to be always in debt, and has friends who are ex KGB agents. It is like the 1960s spy cases all over again.

MayBee70 thanks for that. Will have a listen. I also listen to podcasts Newscast and The News Readers.

Should be News Agents sorry!

Luckygirl3

Why are the public paying? - if I needed a legal team to defend me on charges brought, I would either have to pay it myself or seek legal aid.

Yes, why?

I find it very annoying that Johnson's legal costs re the HofC investigation are to be paid by the taxpayer given his general behaviour in office and his reputed earnings and loans but I understand that proceedings of any kind against a former Minister relating to his or her period of office are a normal charge on the public finances. If you look back I am sure legal actions against Ministers arising from their in office decisions, good or bad, were defended by the public purse. Therefore I think the taxpayer has to grin and bear it unless legislation were introduced to make Ministers personally financially liable for their decisions in which case many would decline office. Only the very rich could risk becoming Ministers and that would weaken the talent pool, especially for a Labour government.

I see the National Audit Office are thinking of looking into this use of public money. I'm not hopeful.

Because he is being accused of ill-doing whilst in public office. Simple, no different for anyone serving the public, whether MP or civil servant.

I’ve just Googled this, all reports seem to be coming from left-leaning press. Perhaps deliberately misinterpreting what might have been meant by the NAO intent to look into whether they need investigate, rather than stating they need to investigate something definite. And all they’ll do is make recommendations, not hang, draw anc quarter.
Fair justice applies to all. Good job there’ll be no Gransnet jury!

So, if he is found guilty, which he surely should be, will there be an application for costs?

As he is not appearing before a law court, I can't see why there would be. This is a Select Committee inquiry.

Which also makes me doubt the validity of this:

I understand that proceedings of any kind against a former Minister relating to his or her period of office are a normal charge on the public finances.

I saw that reported in the Guardian today.

I would have thought that that was to cover a potential prosecution through the law courts. I think that using it to cover a Select Committee inquiry is stretching it somewhat. Does it actually count as a 'legal action? It's a disciplinary committee of the House of Commons.

Now, if he were being prosecuted for misconduct in public office that would be a different matter, that would be in a court of law.

I wonder if the lawyers on twitter have anything to say about this?

Is the Daily Mail left wing now?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11636215/Row-breaks-broadcasters-plan-air-Boris-Johnsons-Partygate-hearing-live-TV.html

(read right down to the end sentence, its all there.)

Wyllow3

*Is the Daily Mail left wing now?*

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11636215/Row-breaks-broadcasters-plan-air-Boris-Johnsons-Partygate-hearing-live-TV.html

(read right down to the end sentence, its all there.)

Sorry, but I can’t be held responsible for the order that Google presents its information! I went over the first two pages, reasonable I think.

I think 'of any kind' is the key point. In any case Parliament is a court of law because it can impeach people, call outsiders to the bar to be admonished and occasionally has imprisoned someone in the cell at the bottom of the clock tower.

Actually my last point was not strictly correct. They don't use the cell any more. The last time an outsider (John Junor) was brought before the Bar and admonished by the Speaker was in 1957 for an article published in the Sunday Express casting doubt on the honour and integrity of Members. Junor apologised and no further action was taken. Presumably if he had not apologised further punitive action could have followed.

The last time anyone was imprisoned by the Commons was in 1750. Alexander Murray was found guilty by the House of malpractice in an election and he was ordered into custody at
Newgate Prison until the end of that parliamentary session.