BoJo referred to police by the Cabinet Office. Partygate II?

Hmm! Boris Johnson being trustworthy? I very much doubt it.

[1andrew1]

Reminds me of Blackadder "did not shoot this delicious plump breasted pigeon" "did not delete those 2020 WhatsApp messages"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65787617

Boris Johnson has said he is giving his unredacted WhatsApp messages directly to the Covid inquiry.

It comes a day after the government said it would seek a judicial review of the inquiry's demand that it hand over messages from the former prime minister and other officials.

Mr Johnson said he understood why it was taking legal action but added that this was not his decision.

He said he was "perfectly content" for the inquiry to see his messages.

In a letter to the head of the Covid inquiry Baroness Hallett, Mr Johnson said he would be sending her "all unredacted WhatsApps I provided to the Cabinet Office".

These messages date back only to April 2021 - more than a year into the pandemic - because Mr Johnson's phone was involved in a security breach and has not been turned on since.

Mr Johnson said he would like to send the inquiry messages pre-dating April 2021, but that he had been told he could no longer "access safely" his old phone,

He said he would like to "test" the advice received from the security services and has asked the Cabinet Office for assistance in turning his old phone on securely.

[mrmistoffelees]

'These messages date back only to April 2021 - more than a year into the pandemic - because Mr Johnson's phone was involved in a security breach and has not been turned on since.

Mr Johnson said he would like to send the inquiry messages pre-dating April 2021, but that he had been told he could no longer "access safely" his old phone'


Bwah ha ha ha, there are readily available commercial tools never mind those used by security/intelligence services to safely recover data from a device involved in a security breach.

'Hide the the stuff that incriminates me, publish the stuff that incriminates everyone else'

[1andrew1]

When something sounds too good to be true

In a letter to the head of the Covid inquiry Baroness Hallett, Mr Johnson said he would be sending her "all unredacted WhatsApps I provided to the Cabinet Office".

You know there's always a catch.

These messages date back only to April 2021 - more than a year into the pandemic - because Mr Johnson's phone was involved in a security breach and has not been turned on since.

Boris Johnson could lose legal funding for Covid inquiry

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1...540ecb9ddb1313

The Cabinet Office has warned Boris Johnson it will pull public funding for his legal advice for the Covid inquiry if he “undermines the government’s position” or releases evidence without permission.

Government lawyers wrote to Johnson last week saying money would “cease to be available” if he broke any of their conditions.

These include the requirement to co-operate with any “reasonable” demand and to send them his witness statements and any requested documents for pre-approval and redaction before they are submitted to the inquiry.

The advice puts the former prime minister on a collision course with officials, with experts suggesting that he may have already breached some of its provisions.

Oh, dear, how sad, never mind…

Mind you, I suppose he could ask one of his mates to pay for it - you know, people who have loaned him money/given him freebies before; his cousin Sam Blyth (who was such"close family" he had to be introduced to him by Richard Sharp), Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Serbia, Lord and Lady Bamford of JCB, Lord Goldsmith, Lord Cruddas, David Ross, Lord Brownlow, Christopher Harborne, Investors in Private Capital Ltd, Keith Rupert Murdoch, UK Office of the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, etc., etc…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

'These messages date back only to April 2021 - more than a year into the pandemic - because Mr Johnson's phone was involved in a security breach and has not been turned on since.

Mr Johnson said he would like to send the inquiry messages pre-dating April 2021, but that he had been told he could no longer "access safely" his old phone'


Bwah ha ha ha, there are readily available commercial tools never mind those used by security/intelligence services to safely recover data from a device involved in a security breach.

'Hide the the stuff that incriminates me, publish the stuff that incriminates everyone else'

You missed the bit in your quote that explained:

‘He said he would like to "test" the advice received from the security services and has asked the Cabinet Office for assistance in turning his old phone on securely.’


I’m sure that was just an oversight.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

When something sounds too good to be true

You know there's always a catch.

You missed it too. How very strange.

---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Boris Johnson could lose legal funding for Covid inquiry

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1...540ecb9ddb1313



Oh, dear, how sad, never mind…

Mind you, I suppose he could ask one of his mates to pay for it - you know, people who have loaned him money/given him freebies before; his cousin Sam Blyth (who was such"close family" he had to be introduced to him by Richard Sharp), Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Serbia, Lord and Lady Bamford of JCB, Lord Goldsmith, Lord Cruddas, David Ross, Lord Brownlow, Christopher Harborne, Investors in Private Capital Ltd, Keith Rupert Murdoch, UK Office of the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, etc., etc…

Well, in case you missed it, Boris is actually trying to co-operate with the inquiry. You wouldn’t think it from the tone of your post.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Boris Johnson could lose legal funding for Covid inquiry

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1...540ecb9ddb1313



Oh, dear, how sad, never mind…

Mind you, I suppose he could ask one of his mates to pay for it - you know, people who have loaned him money/given him freebies before; his cousin Sam Blyth (who was such"close family" he had to be introduced to him by Richard Sharp), Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Serbia, Lord and Lady Bamford of JCB, Lord Goldsmith, Lord Cruddas, David Ross, Lord Brownlow, Christopher Harborne, Investors in Private Capital Ltd, Keith Rupert Murdoch, UK Office of the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, etc., etc…

Missed one out…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You missed the bit in your quote that explained:

‘He said he would like to "test" the advice received from the security services and has asked the Cabinet Office for assistance in turning his old phone on securely.’


I’m sure that was just an oversight.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------


You missed it too. How very strange.

---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:58 ----------


Well, in case you missed it, Boris is actually trying to co-operate with the inquiry. You wouldn’t think it from the tone of your post.

Bless…

You must be one of the very few people in the World who doesn’t realise Johnson only engages in actions that benefit him, or can weaken others.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Bless…

You must be one of the very few people in the World who doesn’t realise Johnson only engages in actions that benefit him, or can weaken others.

Yes, you would say that, wouldn’t you, Hugh?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, you would say that, wouldn’t you, Hugh?

Yes, you would say that, wouldn’t you, OLD BOY?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, you would say that, wouldn’t you, Hugh?

Well, a couple of his ex-employers think the same way (the Times, the Leader of the Conservative Party at the time), the Master of the College at Eton, his previous wife who he cheated whilst she was undergoing Cancer Treatment, his Ministers, his back-bench MPs, so I’m not alone in that, am I?

[OLD BOY]

So if he makes his information available to the inquiry it's because there's something in it for him. If he doesn't, he's not co-operating so he must have something to hide.

Whatever he does with you guys, he's wrong. That does explain why you don't see the perversity of the decision to fine him and not Starmer.

It explains the perversity of your blind support for Johnson in that you can’t see that your first sentence is factually correct, and basically sums up (and has been documented as such) Johnson’s approach to life.

Is there any chance of a sensible discussion that has got some actual facts and isn't just stupid attempts at point scoring?Otherwise I suggest people back off from the thread.