This kangaroo court is nothing but a stitch-up and should be stopped say Boris supporters

6
470

By Claire Bullivant – Founder and Editor of the Conservative Post.

I’m no Lord Pannick or even Elle Woods for that matter. But I have seen Legally Blonde a fair few times and I have a pretty clear grasp on the legal term ‘Mens Rea’ referring to criminal intent. Ask pretty much any girl who lived through the noughties, we all do. 

The literal translation of Mens Rea from Latin means “guilty mind.” And let’s remember this is what this Privileges Committee was supposed to be finding out. Did Boris Johnson INTENTIONALLY mislead Parliament? Did he have a guilty mind? Was there Mens Rea / intent involved? 

Lord Pannick, one of the world’s most respected lawyers has already said if this was a court trying anyone of us, it would be unlawful and swiftly thrown out. 

So why is this kangaroo court allowed to progress under the glaring eye of the public like some dystopian episode of Black Mirror? 

How can it be right for a handful of MPs who have aired their own personal dislike and prejudice towards Boris Johnson, be allowed to determine what happens to his parliamentary and political career?

How can it be right for a handful of MPs who have aired their own personal dislike and prejudice towards Boris Johnson, be allowed to determine what happens to his parliamentary and political career?

If public statements already declaring Boris as guilty by the leader of the pack, Labour’s Harriet Harman isn’t enough for you to question the validity of the jury joeys involved. Consider too; the committee’s central reliance upon the Sue Gray Report, which is now heavily discounted due to her extraordinary move to run Keir Starmer’s office. 

Added to this Gray’s politically outspoken advising barrister was caught on Twitter as a Boris bashing, Brexit hating, Labour activist who promptly deleted his account as soon as it was uncovered.  

And it doesn’t stop there, Gray’s son is allegedly now campaign manager for Boris Johnson’s Labour opponent in his Uxbridge seat. Surely this really is the biggest stitch up since 1066?

But let’s park all this to the side for now. Let’s hope the Privileges Committee actually look at the factual evidence we currently know. 

My team and I have spent weeks scouring every Hansard record and every video of what was actually said in the House of Commons. 

The evidence very clearly shows Boris was asked specific questions about specific dates and specifically parties – NOT gatherings.   

In the House of Commons when he was asked about specific parties on specific dates, even Sue Gray’s final report shows he was: 

a) Not there on December 18th 2020 at the Allegra Stratton Video Christmas party one. Feasible that he didn’t even know about it. 

b) On November 13th 2020 at Lee Cain’s leaving event Boris attended for 40 approx. mins and gave a speech.  The Met Police did not issue an FPN and therefore deemed his attendance as ‘Necessary for work’ and NOT A PARTY.  

This is almost a carbon copy of what happened to Rishi Sunak.  Rishi was also was asked in the House of Commons a specific question about a specific date and like Boris he said no parties took place. Yet the left let this go. I wonder why. 

However, the Boris haters were quick to start publishing all Boris’s responses to specific questions, out of the context in which they were asked, and turned them into generic answers about social distancing at every ‘necessary for work’ gathering across the pandemic.  

But it’s important to remember, the Metropolitan Police who are the higher authority here, solely fined Boris for people walking into his office to sing happy birthday during a work day, at a place of work gathering. They never fined Boris for attending any parties. 

The birthday cake photos were even published on Downing Street’s Flickr account the next day by Boris’s personal Number 10 photographer. Are these the actions of a man who had an intention to deceive the House of Commons? 

The birthday cake photos were even published on Downing Street’s Flickr account the next day by Boris’s personal Number 10 photographer. Are these the actions of a man who had an intention to deceive the House of Commons? 

But maybe the jury joeys know all this and maybe that’s why they’ve suddenly changed the word “intent” and reduced it to “recklessly misleading.” 

Can you be reckless without intent? Of course you can. 

Have they really so openly moved their own goal post?  

So are they now saying Boris does NOT have to be proven to have knowingly misled the House, he just has to be shown to have ‘recklessly misled’ to face a sanction?  

If this is so, this will set a precedent for all future MPs and in perpetuity restrict the ability of any of them to answer a question in the commons ever again.  

If a charge of recklessly misleading (not intent) can be issued against Boris and successfully kick him out, then any MP or any future PM can be easily ousted on a whim. 

If justice doesn’t prevail it will be a very sad day for Parliament and our country. It’s time for Boris to bend and snap this kangaroo court then bounce them off into oblivion for the sake of us all. 


Hat tip to Emma Lloyd. Follow her Twitter account here and her article REVEALED: The Privileges Committee’s Great British stitch-up of Boris.

6 COMMENTS

  1. How can he even have unintentionally misled parliament when they had to have a tax-wasting enquiry about it? Obviously he did not, since none of them wants to believe him.
    And what about the “bubbles” the Covid rules permitted, so that certain groups could socialise together at the time? Didn’t they include working groups? Wasn’t No. 10 listed as a bubble, or did the London Met police get it wrong? Nothing surprises me in that domain.
    The whole thing looks utterly corrupt and ridiculous to an outsider – an embarrassment to the UK’s international profile.

  2. What does Claire Bullivant not get about this investigation. It’s not about what he did or did not. It’s what he said in the HoC and that’s what matters. If you can’t trust what the person you sent to Westminster to represent you says, then we may as well go home.

    • I don’t agree with your statement.

      To many people blame Boris for all.
      However take a look at Starmner,he’d a boozey party. STARMNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PICKED UP AS WELL.
      Starmner was allowed
      His boozey party..
      Now why not 1 rule for Boris.

  3. i agree this is a joke – id much rather see Borris explain the millions squandered on test and trace and PPE and the blatant cronyism, which resulted in the loss of lives of countless people. If you drive a car in a reckless way that results in an accidental death the charge would be manslaughter.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here