Key questions Boris Johnson could face at the COVID inquiry

Published

2 years ago

December 6, 2023

admin

Boris Johnson will appear before the COVID inquiry this week to face scrutiny about the decisions he made during the pandemic.

The former prime minister is expected to issue an apology on behalf of the government about the early handling of the crisis but insist he got the big calls right.

He is expected to face difficult questions on multiple issues – including the partygate scandal and evidence heard at the inquiry so far.

Politics live: Govt bids to revive stalled Rwanda plan

Here are some of the things he could be asked.

Why wasn’t lockdown implemented sooner?

Mr Johnson will likely be asked about whether he initially took the threat of the virus seriously enough and should have acted sooner.

Previous witnesses including Matt Hancock have conceded lockdown should have been introduced earlier than 23 March, with the former health secretary saying “many lives” would have been saved had the action come three weeks beforehand.

Others have accused him of dither and delay, with witnesses to the inquiry describing how he often “oscillated” over key issues and wanted to be like the mayor from the movie Jaws who kept the beaches open, even as he faced warnings the NHS would be overwhelmed.

Did he go on holiday at a crucial time?

Mr Johnson is likely to be asked why he took a 10-day break in February 2020, when cases had been confirmed in the UK. The inquiry has heard that during this time the prime minister received no information from his staff on the virus, including from the two COBRA meetings that took place, and that he did not take personal charge of emergency COBRA meetings until early March.

His former chief aide Dominic Cummings has said he wanted to disappear to finish writing a book about Shakespeare – something Mr Johnson has denied – and that his boss was distracted from his duties with a “divorce to finalise”, “financial problems” and his then girlfriend wanting to “finalise the announcement of their engagement”.

Did ‘toxic culture’ affect decision making?

The inquiry has also laid bare a “toxic culture” of backstabbing and contempt behind the scenes of Number 10 while COVID ripped through the nation. Mr Johnson is likely to face questions on this and what role in particular Mr Cummings played in fuelling it.

Explosive texts released to the inquiry reveal the-then top adviser derided a cabinet of “useless f***pigs”, wanted people sacked, complained about Mr Johnson’s own behaviour and spoke of “dodging stilettos from that c***” in reference to senior civil servant Helen MacNamara.

Mr Cummings insisted he was not misogynistic because he was “much ruder about men”, but Ms MacNamara said that Downing Street under Mr Johnson, was “sexist”, “toxic” and “awful” in a way she had never experienced in government before.

She said this affected decision making as issues including how to help domestic abuse victims, childcare problems and access to abortions were largely ignored.

She also said the “macho, confident” nature of people in Mr Johnson’s No 10 team meant the government was “unbelievably bullish” early on, with people “laughing at the Italians” when they started to impose restrictions and believing the UK would “sail through” the pandemic.

Did Johnson really say ‘let the bodies pile high’?

Mr Johnson is also likely to face questions on his attitude to older people and whether he really said he would rather “let the bodies pile high” than go back into a lockdown in autumn 2020. Reports he said this first emerged in 2021, but they were rubbished by Mr Johnson at the time.

However last month his one-time chief of staff Lord Udny-Lister told the inquiry that Mr Johnson did make the statement in September 2020, during discussions about implementing another lockdown. He called it an “unfortunate turn of phrase” but said the government was trying to avoid further restrictions “given the already severe impact on the economy and education”.

Similar comments suggesting a cavalier attitude to the elderly have also been attributed to Mr Johnson, including a claim by the former chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance that he had suggested “COVID is nature’s way of dealing with old people” and was obsessed with them “accepting their fate”.

Were you bamboozled by the science?

One of the most extraordinary claims made by Mr Cummings to the inquiry was that Mr Johnson struggled to understand the science and asked advisers whether COVID could be eliminated by blowing a hairdryer up your nose.

Sir Patrick told the inquiry Mr Johnson would be the first to admit science was not his “forte”, while an extract from his contemporaneous diary said the prime minister was at times “bamboozled” by the data.

Was Carrie Johnson really in charge?

One of the most damaging claims about Mr Johnson’s leadership abilities was that his wife Carrie “was the real person in charge”. This was said by Simon Case, head of the civil service, in heated texts to Mr Johnson’s top aides amid discussions about imposing circuit breaker lockdowns in autumn 2020.

Mr Johnson is likely to face questions on this and other assessments about his leadership, including that he “cannot lead”, was indecisive, allowed Mr Cummings to have too much influence and blew “hot and cold” on major issues.

Do you regret partygate?

Mr Johnson could also face questions on the partygate scandal that triggered his downfall as prime minister and eventual exit from parliament.

While news of lockdown-busting parties did not emerge until after restrictions were lifted, he may be asked if he regrets presiding over a culture of rule-breaking and whether this impacted his decision making.

Why did Matt Hancock stay in post?

Mr Hancock has been criticised by a number of witnesses who have accused him of being overconfident and saying things that weren’t true (something Mr Hancock has denied).

Mr Johnson may be asked why he kept him in post, given both his chief adviser and the head of the civil service Mark Sedwill, at the time, believed he should be sacked.

UK

Home secretary vows to end UK’s ‘golden ticket’ for asylum seekers – as Denmark-based reforms to be unveiled

Published

1 hour ago

November 16, 2025

admin

Home secretary vows to end UK's 'golden ticket' for asylum seekers - as Denmark-based reforms to be unveiled

The home secretary is set to unveil sweeping measures to tackle illegal migration, vowing to end the UK’s ‘golden ticket’ for asylum seekers.

People granted asylum in the UK will only be allowed to stay in the country temporarily, in the changes expected to be unveiled on Monday by Shabana Mahmood.

Modelled on the Danish system, the aim is to make the UK less attractive for illegal immigrants and make it easier to deport them.

Planned changes mean that refugee status will become temporary and subject to regular review, with refugees removed as soon as their home countries are deemed safe.

The Home Office said the “golden ticket” deal has seen asylum claims surge in the UK, drawing people across Europe, through safe countries, onto dangerous small boats.

Under current UK rules, those granted refugee status have it for five years and can then apply for indefinite leave to remain and get on a route to citizenship.

As part of the changes, the statutory legal duty to provide asylum seeker support, including housing and weekly allowances, will be revoked.

The government will seek to remove asylum support, including accommodation and handouts, to those who have a right to work and who can support themselves but choose not to or those who break UK law.

‘Last chance for a decent politics’

A government source said Ms Mahmood believes her reforms are about “more than the electoral fortunes of her party”.

“This is the last chance for a decent, mainstream politics. If these moderate forces fail, she believes, something darker will follow,” they said.

“But this demands that moderates are willing to do things that will seem immoderate to some. She has reminded those who are reluctant to embrace her ambition for bold reform, with an ultimatum: ‘if you don’t like this, you won’t like what follows me.'”

Ms Mahmood said they were the most sweeping changes to the asylum system “in a generation”, as she vowed the government will “restore order and control to our borders”.

The home secretary also told The Sunday Times that “I can see – and I know my colleagues can – that illegal migration is tearing our country apart”.

System being ‘gamed’

The source said Ms Mahmood believes the system is being “gamed by those travelling on boats or abusing legal visas”.

Some 39,075 people have arrived in the UK after making the journey across the Channel so far this year, according to the latest Home Office figures.

That is an increase of 19% on the same point in 2024 and up 43% on 2023, but remains 5% lower than at the equivalent point in 2022, which remains the peak year for crossings.

What happened in Denmark?

The UK government points to Denmark remaining a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, while also cutting the number of asylum applications to the lowest number in 40 years and successfully removing 95% of rejected asylum seekers.

What are Denmark’s migration rules?

Denmark has adopted increasingly restrictive rules in order to deal with migration over the last few years.

In Denmark, most asylum or refugee statuses are temporary. Residency can be revoked once a country is deemed safe.

In order to achieve settlement, asylum seekers are required to be in full-time employment, and the length of time it takes to acquire those rights has been extended.

Denmark also has tougher rules on family reunification – both the sponsor and their partner are required to be at least 24 years old, which the Danish government says is designed to prevent forced marriages.

The sponsor must also not have claimed welfare for three years and must provide a financial guarantee for their partner. Both must also pass a Danish language test.

In 2018, Denmark introduced what it called a ghetto package, a controversial plan to radically alter some residential areas, including by demolishing social housing. Areas with over 1,000 residents were defined as ghettos if more than 50% were “immigrants and their descendants from non-Western countries”.

In 2021, the left of centre government passed a law that allowed refugees arriving on Danish soil to be moved to asylum centres in a partner country – and subsequently agreed with Rwanda to explore setting up a program, although that has been put on hold.

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the Labour government has “lost control” of the UK’s borders” with illegal channel crossings “surging to over 62,000 since the election”.

He said some of the new measures were welcome but “they stop well short of what is really required and some are just yet more gimmicks – like the previous ‘smash the gangs’ gimmick”.

Mr Philp added: “Only the Conservative borders plan will end illegal immigration – by leaving the ECHR, banning asylum claims for illegal immigrants, deporting all illegal arrivals within a week and establishing a Removals Force to deport 150,000 illegal immigrants each year.”

And Enver Solomon, chief executive of Refugee Council, said: “These sweeping changes will not deter people from making dangerous crossings, but they will unfairly prevent men, women and children from putting down roots and integrating into British life.”

Ms Mahmood will be appearing on Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips from 8.30am on Sunday.

UK

Rail worker who protected passengers during mass stabbing on Huntingdon train discharged from hospital

Published

7 hours ago

November 15, 2025

admin

Rail worker who protected passengers during mass stabbing on Huntingdon train discharged from hospital

The train crew member who was seriously injured while trying to protect passengers during a mass stabbing has been discharged from hospital.

Samir Zitouni, 48, known as Sam, was working on board the London North Eastern Railway (LNER) train from Doncaster to London when the attack began in Cambridgeshire on Saturday 1 November.

LNER said Mr Zitouni, who has worked for the firm for more than 20 years, was credited with helping to save multiple lives.

Mr Zitouni had been in a critical condition, having suffered multiple injuries in the incident, but was discharged on Saturday.

His family said: “We are so grateful for the outpouring of support from the public, and very touched by all the kind words about Sam’s brave actions on the night of the attack.

“While we are really happy to have him home, he still has a significant recovery ahead and we would now like to be left in privacy to care for him as a family.”

Earlier this month, LNER said he has been a “valued member” of staff for over 20 years, working on board as a customer experience host.

David Horne, managing director at LNER, said: “In a moment of crisis, Sam did not hesitate as he stepped forward to protect those around him.

“His actions were incredibly brave, and we are so proud of him, and of all our colleagues who acted with such courage that evening. Our thoughts and prayers remain with Sam and his family. We will continue to support them and wish him a full and speedy recovery.”

The attack is understood to have started shortly after the train left Peterborough, with passengers pulling the emergency alarms on the LNER service.

Train driver Andrew Johnson, who served in the Royal Navy for 17 years, contacted a signaller and requested an unscheduled stop at Huntingdon station.

11 people were treated in hospital after the mass stabbing – nine were initially reported as having life-threatening injuries.

Anthony Williams, 32, was remanded into custody at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court on November 3, charged with 10 counts of attempted murder over the incident.

He will appear at Cambridge Crown Court on 1 December.

UK

Donald Trump confirms he will sue the BBC over Panorama edit – despite broadcaster’s apology

Published

1 day ago

November 15, 2025

admin

Donald Trump confirms he will sue the BBC over Panorama edit - despite broadcaster's apology

Donald Trump has said he will sue the BBC for between $1bn and $5bn over the editing of his speech on Panorama.

The US president confirmed he would be taking legal action against the broadcaster while on Air Force One overnight on Saturday.

“We’ll sue them. We’ll sue them for anywhere between a billion (£792m) and five billion dollars (£3.79bn), probably sometime next week,” he told reporters.

“We have to do it, they’ve even admitted that they cheated. Not that they couldn’t have not done that. They cheated. They changed the words coming out of my mouth.”

Mr Trump then told reporters he would discuss the matter with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer over the weekend, and claimed “the people of the UK are very angry about what happened… because it shows the BBC is fake news”.

The Daily Telegraph reported earlier this month that an internal memo raised concerns about the BBC’s editing of a speech made by Mr Trump on 6 January 2021, just before a mob rioted at the US Capitol building, on its flagship late-night news programme.

The concerns regard clips spliced together from sections of the president’s speech to make it appear he told supporters he was going to walk to the US Capitol with them to “fight like hell” in the documentary Trump: A Second Chance?, which was broadcast by the BBC the week before last year’s US election.

Following a backlash, both BBC director-general Tim Davie and BBC News chief executive Deborah Turness resigned from their roles.

‘No basis for defamation claim’

On Thursday, the broadcaster officially apologised to the president and added that it was an “error of judgement” and the programme will “not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms”.

A spokesperson said that “the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited,” but they also added that “we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim”.

Earlier this week, Mr Trump’s lawyers threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn unless it apologised, retracted the clip, and compensated him.

Legal challenges

But legal experts have said that Mr Trump would face challenges taking the case to court in the UK or the US.

The deadline to bring the case to UK courts, where defamation damages rarely exceed £100,000 ($132,000), has already expired because the documentary aired in October 2024, which is more than one year.

Also because the documentary was not shown in the US, it would be hard to show that Americans thought less of the president because of a programme they could not watch.

Newsnight allegations

The BBC has said it was looking into fresh allegations, published in The Telegraph, that its Newsnight show also selectively edited footage of the same speech in a report broadcast in June 2022.

A BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC holds itself to the highest editorial standards. This matter has been brought to our attention and we are now looking into it.”

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.