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

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.

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.

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.

It’s hot here MaizieD

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

@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.

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.

Thank you NorthFace

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

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.

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...

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

Wyllow3

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.

I don't suppose it will MaizieD. It will just be more headlines for him which is exactly what he wants and will reinforce the nonsense being trotted out by Gutto Harri on QT yesterday about the Privileges Committee taking away Johnson's livelihood.

8 February 2023

Johnson who has already registered an advance payment of nearly £2.5m for speaking events, in his latest declaration of outside earnings.

It brings the former prime minister's declared income since leaving office last September to almost £4.8m.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64569598

Apologies - didnt mean to link my reply to Maizie to Wyllow's comment.

@Wyllow

Max Hastings writing almost four years ago to the day:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain

We can't say we weren't warned by someone who knows him very well:

Quote:

Dignity still matters in public office, and Johnson will never have it. Yet his graver vice is cowardice, reflected in a willingness to tell any audience, whatever he thinks most likely to please, heedless of the inevitability of its contradiction an hour later.

Like many showy personalities, he is of weak character. I recently suggested to a radio audience that he supposes himself to be Winston Churchill, while in reality being closer to Alan Partridge. Churchill, for all his wit, was a profoundly serious human being. Far from perceiving anything glorious about standing alone in 1940, he knew that all difficult issues must be addressed with allies and partners.

Churchill’s self-obsession was tempered by a huge compassion for humanity, or at least white humanity, which Johnson confines to himself. He has long been considered a bully, prone to making cheap threats. My old friend Christopher Bland, when chairman of the BBC, once described to me how he received an angry phone call from Johnson, denouncing the corporation’s “gross intrusion upon my personal life” for its coverage of one of his love affairs.

“We know plenty about your personal life that you would not like to read in the Spectator,” the then editor of the magazine told the BBC’s chairman, while demanding he order the broadcaster to lay off his own dalliances.

Bland told me he replied: “Boris, think about what you have just said. There is a word for it, and it is not a pretty one.”

He said Johnson blustered into retreat, but in my own files I have handwritten notes from our possible next prime minister, threatening dire consequences in print if I continued to criticise him.

Johnson would not recognise truth, whether about his private or political life, if confronted by it in an identity parade. In a commonplace book the other day, I came across an observation made in 1750 by a contemporary savant, Bishop Berkeley: “It is impossible that a man who is false to his friends and neighbours should be true to the public.” Almost the only people who think Johnson a nice guy are those who do not know him.

There is, of course, a symmetry between himself and Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn is far more honest, but harbours his own extravagant delusions. He may yet prove to be the only possible Labour leader whom Johnson can defeat in a general election. If the opposition was led by anybody else, the Tories would be deservedly doomed, because we would all vote for it. As it is, the Johnson premiership could survive for three or four years, shambling from one embarrassment and debacle to another, of which Brexit may prove the least.

End quote.

How right he was.

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.

Well spotted.

The Daily Mail is no longer accepted by Wikipaedia as a newspaper as so much of its content has proved to be untrue.

So who better than a proven liar to boost the reputation of the Daily Mail as (mostly) a pack of lies.

The mystery is why do people read it and believe the lies?

I wonder why Boris Johnson doesn’t have a go at writing a novel? I would say fiction but he’s covered that genre in other ways.

ronib

I wonder why Boris Johnson doesn’t have a go at writing a novel? I would say fiction but he’s covered that genre in other ways.

He has written a novel. In 2004.

varian

The Daily Mail is no longer accepted by Wikipaedia as a newspaper as so much of its content has proved to be untrue.

So who better than a proven liar to boost the reputation of the Daily Mail as (mostly) a pack of lies.

The mystery is why do people read it and believe the lies?

"Wikipaedia", varian? Is that a children's online encyclopedia?

He was still on Wikipedia this morning, at least on my google. It is written by members of the public and I don’t think they would actually remove something like that. The Daily Mail also remains as an entry. Maybe there are different versions of Wikipedia in Europe ?

In February 2017, pursuant to a formal community discussion, editors on the English Wikipedia banned the use of the Daily Mail as a source in most cases.[26][27][28] Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist",[18][26][257] and it can no longer be used as proof of notability.[26] It can still be used in reference to an article about the Daily Mail itself.[258] Support for the ban centred on "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".[18][26][27] Wikipedia's ban of the Daily Mail generated a significant amount of media attention, especially from the British media.[259] Though the Daily Mail strongly contested this decision by the community, Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales backed the community's choice.

Wikipaedia

varian

The Daily Mail is no longer accepted by Wikipaedia as a newspaper as so much of its content has proved to be untrue.

So who better than a proven liar to boost the reputation of the Daily Mail as (mostly) a pack of lies.

The mystery is why do people read it and believe the lies?

When I was teaching, we advised pupils not to use Wikipedia when doing research, for obvious reasons.

I do hope you also advised them not to believe a ything printed inside, the Daily Mail

I worked in an area of high deprivation, very few could afford the Daily Fail. Thank goodness. 😉

Oh that's good. God forbid the poor should have access to newspapers.