Connect with us

Published

on

A parliamentary inquiry has concluded that Boris Johnson knowingly misled parliament multiple times with his statements about parties in Downing Street that breached COVID rules.

The privileges committee of MPs found Mr Johnson’s breaches serious enough to recommend a suspension of 90 days if he were still an MP – far exceeding the period needed to trigger a recall petition and possible by-election.

In the highly anticipated report, published this morning, the committee found that Mr Johnson:

• Misled the house on multiple occasions

• Committed further contempt in his conduct last week by impugning the committee, thereby undermining the democratic process of the House

• Was complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee

The committee also recommended that now Mr Johnson has resigned as an MP, he should not be granted a former member’s pass to parliament.

More on Boris Johnson

Johnson ‘deliberately misled the House’ and ‘was complicit in attempted intimidation of committee’ – politics latest

In a scathing 30,000 word assessment, the committee said that in “deliberately misleading the House Mr Johnson committed a serious contempt”.

“The contempt was all the more serious because it was committed by the prime minister, the most senior member of the government.

“There is no precedent for a prime minister having been found to have deliberately misled the House.”

‘A dreadful day for democracy’

The former prime minister immediately hit back by branding the committee’s report a “charade”, adding: “I was wrong to believe in the committee or its good faith.

“The terrible truth is that it is not I who has twisted the truth to suit my purposes. It is Harriet Harman and her committee.

“This is a dreadful day for MPs and for democracy.

“This decision means that no MP is free from vendetta, or expulsion on trumped up charges by a tiny minority who want to see him or her gone from the Commons.

“I do not have the slightest contempt for parliament, or for the important work that should be done by the Privileges committee.

“But for the privileges committee to use its prerogatives in this anti-democratic way, to bring about what is intended to be the final knife-thrust in a protracted political assassination – that is beneath contempt.”

The former prime minister has been under investigation by the Commons privileges committee since last June, after an investigation by police and then senior civil servant Sue Gray confirmed a series of gatherings had taken place in Downing Street during lockdowns.

The cross-party committee, led by Labour MP Harriet Harman, has been assessing whether Mr Johnson misled parliament – either recklessly or deliberately – with his statements claiming all COVID rules and guidance were followed by Number 10.

Johnson had ‘personal knowledge’ of gatherings

In coming to its conclusion, the MPs did not find Mr Johnson’s defence that no one had advised him the gatherings were against the rules as credible.

He also challenged the committee over the fact that the evidence it received “contains not a single document that indicates that I received any warning or advice that any event broke or may have broken the rules or guidance”.

But the committee said it believed “Mr Johnson’s personal knowledge of the gatherings, in particular what he saw while he was present at them, means that he would not have needed to be reliant on advice to satisfactorily assess their nature.

“We also note that Mr Johnson made repeated statements to the House and the public highlighting the responsibility of everyone in the UK to understand and follow the COVID measures in place.”

The former prime minister has repeatedly asserted that he believed one Number 10 leaving do – where he was seen toasting colleagues to mark the departure of communications chief Lee Cain – was “absolutely essential for work purposes”.

But the committee again found against him, saying it did not believe that “severe staff morale pressures during the COVID pandemic … in itself provided a licence for Mr Johnson’s conveniently flexible interpretation of the rules on gatherings, or the guidance on social distancing.”

They added: “A workplace ‘thank you’, leaving drink, birthday celebration or motivational event is obviously neither essential or reasonably necessary.

Read more:
Who are the privileges committee investigating whether Boris Johnson misled parliament over partygate?
Boris Johnson: What the former PM told the privileges committee about partygate

“Mr Johnson is adamant that he believed all of the events which he attended and of which he had direct knowledge were essential.

“That belief, which he continues to assert, has no reasonable basis in the rules or on the facts. A reasonable person looking at the events and the rules would not have the belief that Mr Johnson has professed. That is plain from the fact that around the UK during the period of pandemic restrictions these events did not take place.”

The publication of the report comes after Mr Johnson dramatically quit as an MP on Friday after receiving its draft findings.

In a last-ditch attempt to disparage the Tory-majority panel on the eve of publication, he called for its most senior Conservative member to resign.

He accused Sir Bernard Jenkin of “monstrous hypocrisy” after the Guido Fawkes website reported the MP had gone to a drinks party in Parliament held by Commons Deputy Speaker Dame Eleanor while COVID restrictions were in place in 2020.

But Mr Johnson was accused of attempting to distract from the report’s findings by opposition MPs, while a source close to the committee reportedly dismissed the intervention as “desperate stuff”.

Continue Reading

UK

Russell Brand charged with rape and sexual assault

Published

on

By

Russell Brand charged with rape and sexual assault

Russell Brand has been charged with rape and two counts of sexual assault between 1999 and 2005.

The Metropolitan Police say the 50-year-old comedian, actor and author has also been charged with one count of oral rape and one count of indecent assault.

The charges relate to four women.

He is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Friday 2 May.

Police have said Brand is accused of raping a woman in the Bournemouth area in 1999 and indecently assaulting a woman in the Westminster area of London in 2001.

He is also accused of orally raping and sexually assaulting a woman in Westminster in 2004.

The fourth charge alleges that a woman was sexually assaulted in Westminster between 2004 and 2005.

Police began investigating Brand, from Oxfordshire, in September 2023 after receiving a number of allegations.

Read more from Sky News:
Mum spared prison after son’s death
Last UK blast furnaces days from closure
Ship owner files legal claim after North Sea crash

The comedian has previously denied the accusations, and said all his sexual relationships were “absolutely always consensual”.

Met Police Detective Superintendent Andy Furphy, who is leading the investigation, said: “The women who have made reports continue to receive support from specially trained officers.

“The Met’s investigation remains open and detectives ask anyone who has been affected by this case, or anyone who has any information, to come forward and speak with police.”

Continue Reading

UK

Last UK blast furnaces days from closure as Chinese owners cut off crucial supplies

Published

on

By

Last UK blast furnaces days from closure as Chinese owners cut off crucial supplies

​​​​​​​The last blast furnaces left operating in Britain could see their fate sealed within days, after their Chinese owners took the decision to cut off the crucial supply of ingredients keeping them running. 

Jingye, the owner of British Steel in Scunthorpe, has, according to union representatives, cancelled future orders for the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the furnaces running.

The upshot is that they may have to close next month – even sooner than the earliest date suggested for its closure.

Read more: Thousands of jobs at risk as British Steel consults unions over closure

The fate of the blast furnaces – the last two domestic sources of virgin steel, made from iron ore rather than recycled – is likely to be determined in a matter of days, with the Department for Business and Trade now actively pondering nationalisation.

The upshot is that even as Britain contends with a trade war across the Atlantic, it is now working against the clock to secure the future of steelmaking at Scunthorpe.

British Steel proceesing

The talks between the government and Jingye broke down last week after the Chinese company, which bought British Steel out of receivership in 2020, rejected a £500m offer of public money to replace the existing furnaces with electric arc furnaces.

More on China

The sum is the same one it offered to Tata Steel, which has shut down the other remaining UK blast furnaces in Port Talbot and is planning to build electric furnaces – which have far lower carbon emissions.

These steel workers could soon be out of work
Image:
These steel workers could soon be out of work

However, the owners argue that the amount is too little to justify extra investment at Scunthorpe, and said last week they were now consulting on the date of shutting both the blast furnaces and the attached steelworks.

Since British Steel is the main provider of steel rails to Network Rail – as well as other construction steels available from only a few sites in the world – the closure would leave the UK more reliant on imports for critical infrastructure sites.

British Steel in action

However, since the site belongs to its Chinese owners, a decision to nationalise the site would involve radical steps government officials are wary of taking.

They also fear leaving taxpayers exposed to a potentially loss-making business for the long run.

British Steel

The dilemma has been heightened by the sharp turn in geopolitical sentiment following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

The incipient trade war and threatened cut in American support to Europe have sparked fresh calls for countries to act urgently to secure their own supplies of critical materials, especially those used for defence and infrastructure.

Read more:
Car manufacturers fined £461m for collusion
There were no winners from Trump’s tariff gameshow

Gareth Stace, head of UK Steel, the industry lobby group, said: “Talks seem to have broken down between government and British Steel.

“My advice to government is: please, Jonathan Reynolds, Business Secretary, get back round that negotiating table, thrash out a deal, and if a deal can’t be found in the next few days, then I fear for the very future of the sector, but also here for Scunthorpe steelworks.”

British Steel declined to comment.

Continue Reading

UK

Prince Andrew’s Pitch@Palace branded ‘crude attempt to enrich himself’ as Chinese spy documents set to be released

Published

on

By

Prince Andrew's Pitch@Palace branded 'crude attempt to enrich himself' as Chinese spy documents set to be released

Prince Andrew’s efforts to make money from his Pitch@Palace project have been branded as a “crude attempt to enrich himself” at the expense of “unsuspecting tech founders”, as new documents may shed more light on what he and his team have been attempting to sell.

Today is the deadline for documents to be released relating to Prince Andrew‘s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire and his interactions with the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo.

In February, an immigration tribunal heard how the intelligence services had contacted Mr Hampshire about Mr Yang back in 2022. Mr Yang helped set up Pitch@Palace China, a branch of the duke’s scheme to help young entrepreneurs.

The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew
Image:
The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew

Pic: Pitch@Palace
Image:
Yang Tengbo. Pic: Pitch@Palace

Judges banned Mr Yang from the UK, saying his association with a senior royal had made Prince Andrew “vulnerable” and posed a threat to national security. Mr Yang challenged that decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).

Since that hearing, media organisations have applied for certain documents relating to the case and Mr Hampshire’s support for Mr Yang to be made public. SIAC agreed to release some information of public interest. It is hoped they may include more details on deals that he was trying to do on behalf of Prince Andrew.

So what do we know about potential deals for Pitch@Palace so far?

In February, Sky News confirmed that palace officials had a meeting last summer with tech funding company StartupBootcamp to discuss a potential tie-up between them and Prince Andrew relating to his Pitch@Palace project.

More on Prince Andrew

The palace wasn’t involved in the fine details of a deal but wanted guarantees to make sure it wouldn’t impact the Royal Family in the future. Sky News understands from one source that the price being discussed for Pitch was around £750,000 – there are, however, reports that a deal may have stalled.

Photos we found on the Chinese Chamber of Commerce website show an event held in Asia between StartupBootcamp and Innovate Global, believed to be an offshoot of Pitch.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Who is alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo?

Documents, released in relation to the investigations into Mr Tengbo, have also shown how much the duke has always seen Pitch as a way of potentially making money. One document from 21 August 2021 clearly states “the duke needed money at the time, and saw the relationships with China through Pitch as one possible source of funding”.

But Prince Andrew’s apparent intention to use Pitch to make money has led to concerns about whether he is unfairly using the contacts and information he gained when he was a working royal.

Norman Baker, former MP and author of books on royal finances, believes it is “a crude attempt to enrich himself” and goes against what the tech entrepreneurs thought they were signing up for.

Read more:
Who is Yang Tenbo?
Virginia Giuffre says she has days to live
Emails between Andrew and Epstein revealed

He told Sky News: “The data given by these business people was given on the basis it was an official operation and not something for Prince Andrew, and so in my view, Prince Andrew had no right legally or morally to take the data which has been collected, a huge amount of data, and sell it…

“And quite clearly if you’re going to sell it off to StartupBootcamp, that is not what people had in mind. The entrepreneurs who joined Pitch@Palace did not do so to enrich Prince Andrew,” he said.

Rich Wilson was one tech entrepreneur who was approached at the start of Pitch@Palace to sign up, but he stepped away when he spotted a clause in the contract saying they’d be entitled to 2% equity in any funding he secured.

He feels Prince Andrew is continuing to use those he made a show of supporting.

He said: “It makes me feel sick. I think it’s terrible – that he is continuing to exploit unsuspecting tech founders in this way. A lot of them, I’m quite grey and old in the tooth now, I saw it coming, but clearly most didn’t. And a lot of them were quite young.

“It’ll be their first venture and you’re learning on the trot, so to speak. So to take advantage of people in such a major way – that’s an awful, sickening thing to do.”

We approached StartupBootcamp who said they had no comment to make, and the Duke of York’s office did not respond.

With reports that a deal may have stalled, it could be a big setback for the duke – especially with questions still about how he’ll continue to pay for his home on the Windsor estate now that the King no longer gives him financial support.

Continue Reading

Trending