Boris Johnson should be banned from parliament for ‘unprecedented’ lies, rules privileges committee

MazieD Do you feel better for that? I was collecting my husband from hospital….

ronib

It’s hot here MaizieD

It's hot here, too, ronib. So I sat in my nice cool house yesterday and read the whole report...

GrannyGravy13

Thank you NorthFace

(dipping in and out of GN whilst playing with GC and the lawn sprinkler)

So how is ACOBA going to stop him taking the job?

I am sick of these toothless bodies.. A bit of 'censure' isn't going to bother Johnson.

Thank you NorthFace

(dipping in and out of GN whilst playing with GC and the lawn sprinkler)

Radio 2 had a phone in on it.

One caller was unbelievable. Boris Johnson was heroic like Winston Churchill and (yes really) Enoch Powell. Hero’s. And what a charming man. She’d enjoy a G and T with him of an evening.

@GrannyGravy

Johnson must seek approval from ACOBA the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments to take up any new appointment. The rules are stricter for former Cabinet members.

www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-committee-on-business-appointments

www.gov.uk/government/publications/business-appointment-rules-for-ministers/business-appointment-rules-for-ministers

Note it says: Retrospective applications will not normally be accepted.

Johnson has previously faced censure from Acoba for failing to seek advice from the committee before joining the Telegraph, then on a salary of £275,000, after he resigned as Theresa May’s foreign secretary.

Curly whirly , too true, he will firt in ther very easily.
I believe he was sacked from the Times for lying .

It’s hot here MaizieD

ronib

Thanks MaizieD and Siope - I was a bit confused must admit.

Oh well so much for privileged and in strict confidence only. Shouldn’t be surprised. Says it all about BJ ….

Why don't you read the report? It's all set out in it.

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

The Daily Mail has just announced that Boris Johnson is joining them as a columnist quelle surprise…

Which of course having not sought permission, means he has broken yet another rule.

As he resigned with immediate effect why should he need permission?

I am obviously missing something.

GrannyGravy13

The Daily Mail has just announced that Boris Johnson is joining them as a columnist quelle surprise…

Which of course having not sought permission, means he has broken yet another rule.

GrannyGravy13

The Daily Mail has just announced that Boris Johnson is joining them as a columnist quelle surprise…

Oh, he'll fit right in there!

The Daily Mail has just announced that Boris Johnson is joining them as a columnist quelle surprise…

Thanks MaizieD and Siope - I was a bit confused must admit.

Oh well so much for privileged and in strict confidence only. Shouldn’t be surprised. Says it all about BJ ….

Oh you mean show it to Johnson? That is, I believe, normal practice. It is part of that process of comment and correction which Johnson is trying to pretend doesn’t exist.

I query why the committee chose to show a strictly confidential report in the first place. It invited this response. Irregular.

Not true.

The report was always going to be published. The only brief time it would have been confidential was during the two week period Johnson was given to comment on it, and one of the reasons the recommended sanctions were increased is because Johnson breached that confidentiality requirement.

I query why the committee chose to show a strictly confidential report in the first place. It invited this response. Irregular.

Who says it's 'irregular'?

Having reached this provisional conclusion as to the recommended sanction, we then followed the procedure we had set out in our procedure resolution,
This is in the extract I pasted.

The Committee was giving him every chance they possibly could to redeem himself. They cannot be accused of not allowing him to respond to their findings.

If you read the report you will find that they made only one copy of their draft report, marked as strictly confidential, for him alone.

On Thursday 8 June 2023 we sent by email to Mr Johnson’s solicitors the Chair’s warning letter, and immediately despatched by hand a single hardcopy document containing extracts from the Committee’s provisionally agreed draft report, for inspection by Mr Johnson and his nominated legal advisers under secure invigilated conditions. Each page of this document was marked as follows:

PRIVILEGED AND IN STRICT CONFIDENCE–FOR THE USE OF MR JOHNSON AND HIS NOMINATED LEGAL ADVISERS ONLY
It is a contempt of the House to reveal the contents of this document. There are no other physical copies of the document in existence and the document is only made available for inspection under invigilated conditions. It must not be copied. The Committee of Privileges will consider final submissions about the content of the document before it publishes its final report to the House.

Siope best news heard all day if you are right about the recall petition.

MaizieD these findings are water off a duck’s back - it won’t make the slightest difference.
I guess that Henley might vote him back.

I query why the committee chose to show a strictly confidential report in the first place. It invited this response. Irregular.

For some reason I keep thinking of all this in terms of a tabloid heading ‘Ex Prime Minister, sacked from two (?) previous jobs for lying sacked again for lying’. It’s actually beyond belief in the way that Trump can still stand for President. I feel as if I’m living in some sort of political parallel universe.

ronib

MazieD or another way of thinking about it is that in reality nothing has happened to BJ - yes he resigned, so what? He can re-apply for selection and if voted in he’s legally back.
The 90 days exclusion can’t be enforced as he’s not a sitting mp.
He can still visit the Commons on a visitor’s day pass?
Not sure who has had the last laugh here?

I suspect that not getting his own way is quite a punishment for him.

Regarding being selected and elected again: my understanding is that if the Committee’s recommendations are approved on Monday, they carry forward.

If he is re-elected therefore, as soon as he takes his seat, the 90 day strike suspension, and thus the recall petition, and potentially a by-election, will be triggered. It’d need the be in a very safe, very patient seat, and it would be an extremely embarrassing for the wider Tory party.

Whitewavemark2

Yesterday was an excellent day for our democracy.

The 90 day ban, reinforces the principle that ministers do not step up at the despatch box and lie.

It is a serious charge, attracting a serious punishment.

I understand from my reading of the report that the Committee had initially decided on a much less severe sanction which would be just enough to trigger a recall petition. It was only after Johnson had seen the full report, which was supposed to be strictly confidential, and released detail from it and impugned the Committee itself, that they decided to throw the book at him.

From the report (too long to format...)

Start
Having taken into account the factors set out above, we considered what sanction would be appropriate in this case. We unanimously concluded that the minimum sanction we should recommend to the House should be suspension from the service of the House sufficient to engage the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act.
(Paragraph 211)

32. In agreeing to recommend that sanction, we took into account that this case will set a precedent for the standards of accountability and honesty that the House expects of Ministers. We have no doubt that Parliament and the public expect the bar to be set high and for there to be serious consequences if a Minister, as in this case, impedes or obstructs the functioning of the House by deliberately misleading it.
(Paragraph 212)

33. Having reached this provisional conclusion as to the recommended sanction, we then followed the procedure we had set out in our procedure resolution, and communicated to Mr Johnson the Committee’s proposal to recommend a sanction of suspension for a period long enough to engage the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act, inviting his comments. This material was sent to Mr Johnson under
conditions of strict confidentiality. We set out the events that followed, and our view of their implications for sanctioning Mr Johnson, in the next section of this report.
(Paragraph 213)

Mr Johnson’s resignation as an MP and his attack upon the Committee

34. We note that Mr Johnson does not merely criticise the fairness of the Committee’s procedures; he also attacks in very strong, indeed vitriolic, terms the integrity, honesty and honour of its members. He stated that the Committee had “forced him out […] anti-democratically”. This attack on a committee carrying out its remit from the democratically elected House itself amounts to an attack on our democratic institutions. We consider that these statements are completely unacceptable. In our view this conduct, together with the egregious breach of confidentiality, is a serious further contempt. (Paragraph 222)

35. Notwithstanding his protestations of respect for the Committee, and his earlier deprecation of language such as “kangaroo courts” and “witch hunts”, we note that in his statement of 9 June Mr Johnson himself used precisely those abusive terms to describe the Committee. This leaves us in no doubt that he was insincere in his attempts to distance himself from the campaign of abuse and intimidation of committee members. This in our view constitutes a further significant contempt.
(Paragraph 224)

36. On 12 June 2023 at 11.57 pm Mr Johnson’s lawyers delivered to the Committee a further purported response to our warning letter of 8 June. We have considered its contents even though we are not obliged to do so. The response was not accompanied by a statement of truth from Mr Johnson. The response makes a series of tendentious accusations. The document is reproduced in full at Annex 3 together with our comments on each paragraph. (Paragraph 226)

37. Before his latest purported submission we had decided to treat Mr Johnson’s public statement made on 9 June in response to our warning letter as his response to that letter and his last submissions to this inquiry. We note that on 9 June Mr Johnson stated that “[i]t is in no one’s interest […] that the process the Committee has launched should continue for a single day further.” We agree with Mr Johnson’s view on that point. (Paragraph 227)

38. Contrary to Mr Johnson’s assertions, he has been given multiple opportunities to set out his views and to comment on the evidence in the inquiry:
• We set out in detail the evidence and the issues to be raised with him in our Fourth Report published on 3 March 2023.
• We disclosed to Mr Johnson in unredacted form all the evidence we proposed to rely upon and the identity of all our witnesses.
• At the start of the inquiry, in July 2022, Mr Johnson was invited to make an initial submission in writing concerning the allegations and to identify any witnesses that he believed could give relevant evidence. He did not make such a submission or identify any witnesses.
• Mr Johnson was invited to give oral evidence and publish a written statement, which he did and was questioned about the evidence and issues raised in the Fourth Report.
• Mr Johnson was invited to make final submissions in the inquiry and did so.
• Mr Johnson was sent details of our proposed criticisms of him, and the evidence supporting them, on 8 June 2022, and invited to respond.
• None of the evidence which we relied on in the material sent to Mr Johnson on 8 June was new to Mr Johnson. It was the same as that which was put to him in the Fourth Report and in the oral evidence session. He had the opportunity to
respond to that in oral evidence and by written submission and he did.
• In his oral evidence Mr Johnson accused the Committee of suppressing evidence which would be helpful to him. We invited him to identify any such evidence.
The Committee obtained that evidence from the witnesses he had indicated, supported by statements of truth. In the event he placed no reliance on it. The clear implication is that there was nothing in the evidence and his criticism in public was a cynical attempt to manipulate Member and public opinion.
(Paragraph 228)

39. Our final conclusion is in relation to sanction. Although Mr Johnson’s resignation as an MP renders it impossible for a sanction of suspension to be imposed, we draw attention to the fact that before the events of Friday 9 June we had provisionally agreed to recommend a suspension long enough to engage the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act. In the light of Mr Johnson’s further contempts, we put on record that if he had not resigned his seat, we would have recommended that he be suspended from the service of the House for 90 days for repeated contempts and for seeking to undermine the parliamentary process, by:
• Deliberately misleading the House
• Deliberately misleading the Committee
• Breaching confidence
• Impugning the Committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of
the House
• Being complicit in the campaign of abuse and
attempted intimidation of the Committee
In view of the fact that Mr Johnson is no longer a Member, we recommend that he should not be granted a former Member’s pass. (Paragraph 229)

committees.parliament.uk/publications/40412/documents/197199/default/ pp 77 & 78

So, supporters of BJ - you haven't returned to answer my question regarding the committee's finding that he attempted to affect their findings by intimidation. Is that OK too?

MazieD or another way of thinking about it is that in reality nothing has happened to BJ - yes he resigned, so what? He can re-apply for selection and if voted in he’s legally back.
The 90 days exclusion can’t be enforced as he’s not a sitting mp.
He can still visit the Commons on a visitor’s day pass?
Not sure who has had the last laugh here?

Katie59

He is deliberately attracting the maximum publicity to justify his “witch hunt” accusation, I would be very surprised if he gets a lifetime ban upheld.
There is a lot of support amongst party members, don’t be surprised if he gets elected in another seat, by then he will be contrite and promising truthfulness.

The point is though, the electorate aren’t taken in, even if the Tory Party members are. Just look at the polls to see what the man in the street thinks.
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Boris_Johnson
I think the Tories would be taking a huge risk to their long term reputation if they allow him to be re-selected, damage limitation must surely be the goal now.