Boris Johnson has resigned with immediate effect !

What is the 'supposed offence', GrannyRose, and how did the inquiry go beyond what was justified? Shouldn't an inquiry go as far as it needs to?

A lie is a lie. There may be degrees of untruth in everyday life, but if someone is asked a direct question in parliament and denies something he knew to be happening there is no 'supposed' about it. And given that what he was lying about was his inability to adhere to the rules that he had put in place, and that other people were being punished for breaking, he deserves the full weight of the system to be against him.

Why can students be fined £10k each for having a party when they were happening in Downing Street? Or women fined for drinking coffee together on a walk? Or young people having a snowball fight? A £10k fine for a student is potentially life changing.

The police spokesman who commented on the party where 20 year olds were fined £10,000 for having a party said:

It is unbelievably selfish for anyone to believe they are exempt when so many law-abiding citizens have not seen their friends and family properly in almost a year.

The people in attendance also gave no thought to the safety of the local community or the officers who had to attend to break up the gathering, not to mention the NHS which is under immense strain.

How and why does that not apply in Downing Street?

has set a very dangerous precedent. From now on Prime Minister’s questions will be punctuated with statements such as “I wouldn’t want to mislead the house so I’m sorry I can’t answer that question until I have consulted all the relevant people”

1. It isn’t a precedent. The Privileges Committee wasn’t set up for Johnson.

What is unprecedented is Johnson’s response to receiving its report.

2. PMs know in advance what they will be asked at PMQs, and they do have experts who brief them on what and how to answer.

3. The offence is ‘deliberately or recklessy’ misleading Parliament, and there is provision for correcting the record and apologising to the House if an PM inadvertently does so.

4. It is very easy to apologise to the House and ask to have the record corrected, and it’s equally easy in most cases to pretend a deception was the result of an incorrect briefing, or was inadvertent/a slip of the tongue, even when it wasn’t.

5. Johnson chose not to apologise or correct the record, which he could have done at any point until the Committee convened, and he continued to lie in the Commons even when a police investigation proved he had done so.

Students shouldn’t have been fined £10000. No-one should have been fined for going about their daily business. The police should never have been involved in enforcing ridiculous rules. The government should have trusted the people and given sound advice for them the follow. No-one should have complied with the taking away of our basic liberties.

The consequences of what we did during Covid are going to echo down the years. It will take decades for us to recover emotionally, economically, socially. We will rue the day we ever allowed our nation to be overtaken by such unjustified panic.

And deliberately means you meant to do it and were in full possession of the facts.

A Covid conspiracy theorist in our midst? Can’t believe what I’m reading.

GrannyRose15

Students shouldn’t have been fined £10000. No-one should have been fined for going about their daily business. The police should never have been involved in enforcing ridiculous rules. The government should have trusted the people and given sound advice for them the follow. No-one should have complied with the taking away of our basic liberties.

The consequences of what we did during Covid are going to echo down the years. It will take decades for us to recover emotionally, economically, socially. We will rue the day we ever allowed our nation to be overtaken by such unjustified panic.

I think, when the full report does come out in a few years time, the findings will be that we didn’t actually do enough…

GrannyRose15

And deliberately means you meant to do it and were in full possession of the facts.

Are you suggesting Johnson wasn’t on full possession of the fact that he’d gone to several parties which broke the rules? Are you suggesting he wasn’t in full possession of the facts of the rules even though he was reciting them on TV at very regular intervals?

He’s not that stupid.

I think, when the full report does come out in a few years time, the findings will be that we didn’t actually do enough…

It won't be in a few year's time, MayBee. Lady Hallet has said that the inquiry intends to publish interim reports as the inquiry progresses. As the inquiry is scheduled to last until at least 2025 this will be very useful.

Hallett confirms the inquiry will be publishing interim reports as it goes along
Hallett says that she hopes that the inquiry’s recommendations will over time “save lives and reduce suffering in the future”.

She also confirms that she intends to publish reports as she goes along. She says:

My plan, as people now know, is to publish reports as we go along. So that when the hearings for this module finish, work will begin on preparing the report for this module. When that report is ready, it will be published. In the meantime, the other module teams and I will be working on the next modules.

davidallengreen.com/2023/06/why-the-covid-inquiry-publishing-reports-as-it-goes-along-is-brilliant-news-and-a-welcome-change/

This report suggests that the UK is poorly prepared should there be another pandemic. Interim reports may help the government to concentrate their minds on effective preparation. Though I sincerely hope that we have a more effective government by then...

chpi.org.uk/papers/reports/after-the-pandemic-is-the-new-public-health-system-in-england-fit-for-purpose/

Hallett does have the mobile phones and all the diaries/notebooks we may presume? Redacted/unredacted? Strange how that little spate has gone away from the public domain.

The inquiry will be a total waste of time and money. It has already shown its bias by asking people to wear masks and take lateral flow tests. On the opening day Brexit was blamed for the consequences of Covid.

Nothing useful will come out of this.

GrannyRose15

The inquiry will be a total waste of time and money. It has already shown its bias by asking people to wear masks and take lateral flow tests. On the opening day Brexit was blamed for the consequences of Covid.

Nothing useful will come out of this.

What do you think the alternative is though, to learn nothing from the handling of the pandemic and leave hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom have lost loved ones, with unresolved questions?

That is exactly the problem. The inquiry is focusing on the people who died rather than the catastrophic effects on the rest of us. Businesses ruined, children’s education disrupted, medical services collapsed. All totally unnecessary. The enquiry isn’t even asking the right questions. So how can it get the right answers.

GrannyRose15

That is exactly the problem. The inquiry is focusing on the people who died rather than the catastrophic effects on the rest of us. Businesses ruined, children’s education disrupted, medical services collapsed. All totally unnecessary. The enquiry isn’t even asking the right questions. So how can it get the right answers.

No, it’s much more far reaching than that, here are the Terms of Reference.
covid19.public-inquiry.uk/

The inquiry is focusing on the people who died rather than the catastrophic effects on the rest of us

No it isn’t.

The aims of the Inquiry are to:

1. Examine the COVID-19 response and the impact of the pandemic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and produce a factual narrative account, including:

a) The public health response across the whole of the UK
b) The response of the health and care sector across the UK
c) The economic response to the pandemic and its impact, including governmental interventions

2. Identify the lessons to be learned from the above, to inform preparations for future pandemics across the UK

There are lots of sub-clauses. See here for full Terms of Reference covid19.public-inquiry.uk/documents/terms-of-reference/

The Terms of Reference were, as I am sure you know, determined after extensive public consultation.

Or ‘what Casdon said’ 😀

And the original remit didn’t even mention the word children. How can we learn lessons if we are not even prepared to accept that children have suffered devastating consequences from our over reaction to a virus that hardly affected them at all.

My granddaughter nearly died, aged 7 at the time. How can you say that?

Headlines - I haven’t time to read the report yet.

90 days recommended suspension and Johnson deliberately misled parliament.

I think the thread proves the point that granny rose is making there are discussions to be had about the costs of lockdown, (a policy I agreed with) but people cant have them because they are basically told to shut up.

Whitewavemark2

Headlines - I haven’t time to read the report yet.

90 days recommended suspension and Johnson deliberately misled parliament.

Ww2 The House of Commons has to vote on the recommendations. This could be interesting. It’s Dracula inspired?

It’s Dracula inspired.

It was always going to be. I could have written a précis of the report the day the committee sat down.

Whilst I don’t entirely agree with GrannyRose I certainly think she has raised important points and we have to allow ourselves to think that lockdown could have been done differently.
The damage done to children is an important point.

Whitewavemark2

Headlines - I haven’t time to read the report yet.

90 days recommended suspension and Johnson deliberately misled parliament.

Crikey, that is worse than I thought it would be. Just read what Chris Mason had to say on BBC News.

The MPs are complaining that Johnson’s attacks amount to attack on democracy.

He should be entirely ignored.

Crikey. It’s even more damning than even I thought it would be. Did anyone see him in his car the other day with his MIL holding the dog who did not appear to have a safety harness on? And on Facebook it said he wasn’t wearing a seat belt either. I’m only just beginning to realise how chaotic Downing Street must have been when he was PM.