Why should we pay this clown’s £245,000 Partygate bill?
SO, the weasel’s legal costs for the Partygate probe are around £245,000 which Boris Johnson expects taxpayers to pay, while the inquiry itself comes in at £460,000 – and for what?
To prove to a committee of MPs that this apology for a human being (and PM) is a liar?
Everybody and their auntie knows as much, but still we have to go through this expensive charade.
In case you’ve not seen the report, here’s a snippet from the end of the summary:
“17. The question which the House asked the Committee is whether the House had been misled by Mr Johnson and, if so, whether that conduct amounted to contempt. It is for the House to decide whether it agrees with the Committee. The House as a whole makes that decision. Motions arising from reports from this Committee are debatable and amendable. The Committee had provisionally concluded that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the House and should be sanctioned for it by being suspended for a period that would trigger the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. In light of Mr Johnson’s conduct in committing a further contempt on 9 June 2023, the Committee now considers that if Mr Johnson were still a Member he should be suspended from the service of the House for 90 days for repeated contempts and for seeking to undermine the parliamentary process, by:
1a) Deliberately misleading the House
1b) Deliberately misleading the Committee
1c) Breaching confidence
1d) Impugning the Committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the House
1e) Being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee.
We recommend that he should not be entitled to a former Member’s pass.”
The committee made its intentions clear, but Johnson, ever the escape artist, quit as an MP before he could be removed.
And he expects us to pay the bill for his abhorrent behaviour?
Millions of people behaved sensibly during the pandemic, abiding by all the restrictions on social gatherings; and tens of thousands could only visit dying relatives and see them through the glass of hospital or care home doors.
To see him smirking his way through the subsequent inquiry and all the questions about his behaviour as if the rules didn’t apply to him made my blood boil.
The government claimed there’s a precedent for supporting ex-minister with legal representation, but has anybody seen it?
Can anybody find it?
The SNP, LibDems and Labour all railed against Johnson having his legal bill paid, and we can only hope Westminster authorities eventually change their minds and admit there is no precedent and force the buffoon to pay for his own mess.
On another subject entirely, I am pleased that Sarah Bradley and her partner Youssef Mikhaiel have had something of a reprieve after he was locked up in Dungavel immigration detention centre and told he was being deported.
The couple are planning to marry this year, but the Home Office doesn’t recognise their relationship because they are not co-habiting – which goes against their religious beliefs.
Youssef – and aeronautical engineering graduate from Glasgow University – suffers from a rare condition Fabry Disease, and there is no treatment available for it in his home country Egypt.
His lawyer Usman Aslam managed to stop his removal after taking the case to the Court of Session, which will decide if the Home Office was right to try to remove him while there was an application to remain here pending.
Have you ever known the Home Office to be right about anything?
I thought not.
admin