Boris Johnson has issued a comprehensive statement critiquing the Privileges Committee’s report on partygate. In his nearly 1,700-word statement, Johnson describes the findings as “deranged” and “beneath contempt”. The committee’s report, which followed a 14-month investigation, was released on Thursday.
The Prime Minister expresses his skepticism towards the Privileges Committee’s intentions, citing warnings he received that it was a biased and politically motivated proceeding orchestrated by Harriet Harman. He also highlights the committee’s preconceived notions, particularly the majority of Remain supporters within the committee and Bernard Jenkin’s personal bias against him.
Initially, Johnson admits to being skeptical of these warnings, believing the inquiry to be a procedural stunt by the Labour party. He asserts his confidence in his own knowledge of the events he attended in Number 10, as well as his belief that they were lawful and essential to his role. He also questions the committee’s accusation that he deliberately misled the House of Commons, considering it a baseless lie contradicted by facts.
Johnson further rebuts the committee’s argument that the farewell events he attended were unauthorized workplace events, which were impossible under the committee’s interpretation of COVID rules. He asserts that he believed these events were necessary for work purposes and emphasizes the importance of maintaining staff morale during a pandemic. He also highlights the fact that the Metropolitan Police did not find his actions unlawful.
The Prime Minister challenges the committee’s conclusion that all such events were inherently illegal, arguing that this is contrary to the intentions of those who created the rules. He questions the committee’s hypocrisy by pointing out that Sir Bernard Jenkin attended a similar event, suggesting a double standard.
Johnson dismisses the remainder of the committee’s report as lacking substance and reiterates that no evidence was found to support the claim that he was aware of the events’ illegality. He also expresses disbelief that individuals would be too scared to raise concerns with their superiors, citing prominent figures like Simon Case, Sue Gray, and Rishi Sunak.
The Prime Minister contends that the committee ignores the nuances of the guidance, which allowed for social distancing of less than 1 meter in specific circumstances. He reiterates that the question is not about maintaining perfect social distancing at all times but rather about whether he believed they were doing enough to follow the guidance, which he asserts they were.
Johnson criticizes the committee’s dismissal of Jack Doyle and James Slack’s assurances regarding the Dec 18 event, emphasizing the testimonies of Andrew Griffiths and Sarah Dines, who also heard similar assurances. He finds it absurd and incoherent that the committee disregards these testimonies.
Finally, the Prime Minister contests the committee’s claim that he saw the Dec 18 event with his own eyes. He questions how the committee could make such a claim without evidence, particularly as others have testified that people were working throughout the evening. He challenges the validity of their assertions and highlights the lack of recollection regarding any occurrences in the press room.
In conclusion, Boris Johnson vehemently defends himself against the Privileges Committee’s findings, providing counterarguments and highlighting inconsistencies within the report. He affirms his belief in the lawfulness of his actions and asserts his confidence in his own understanding of the events.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
