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

BBC ‘determined to fight’ any Trump legal action, chairman tells staff

Published

4 hours ago

November 17, 2025

admin

BBC 'determined to fight' any Trump legal action, chairman tells staff

BBC chair Samir Shah has said there is “no basis for a defamation case and we are determined to fight this” – after Donald Trump said he would sue the corporation for between $1bn and $5bn.

It comes after the US president confirmed on Saturday he would be taking legal action against the broadcaster over the editing of his speech on Panorama – despite an apology from the BBC.

In an email to staff, Mr Shah said: “There is a lot being written, said and speculated upon about the possibility of legal action, including potential costs or settlements.

“In all this we are, of course, acutely aware of the privilege of our funding and the need to protect our licence fee payers, the British public.

“I want to be very clear with you – our position has not changed. There is no basis for a defamation case and we are determined to fight this.”

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

On Saturday, President Trump told reporters legal action would come in the following days.

“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 said.

“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.”

The BBC on Thursday said the edit of Mr Trump’s speech on 6 January 2021 had given the “mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action”.

The broadcaster apologised and said the splicing of the speech was an “error of judgment” but refused to pay financial compensation after the US leader’s lawyers threatened to sue for one billion dollars in damages unless a retraction and apology were published.

The Panorama scandal prompted the resignations of two of the BBC’s most senior executives – director-general Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness.

The broadcaster has said it will not air the Panorama episode Trump: A Second Chance? again, and published a retraction on the show’s webpage on Thursday.

UK

Joseph James O’Connor ordered to pay back over £4m in Bitcoin after hacking celebrity X accounts

Published

4 hours ago

November 17, 2025

admin

Joseph James O'Connor ordered to pay back over £4m in Bitcoin after hacking celebrity X accounts

A British man who hacked the X accounts of celebrities in a bid to con people out of Bitcoin, has been ordered to repay £4.1m-worth of the cryptocurrency, prosecutors say.

Joseph James O’Connor, 26, was jailed in the United States for five years in 2023 after he pleaded guilty to charges including computer intrusion, wire fraud and extortion.

He was arrested in Spain in 2021 and extradited after the country’s high court ruled the US was best placed to prosecute because the evidence and victims were there.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said on Monday it had obtained a civil recovery order to seize 42 Bitcoin and other crypto assets linked to the scam, in which O’Connor used hijacked accounts to solicit digital currency and threaten celebrities.

The July 2020 hack compromised accounts of high-profile figures including former US presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

O’Connor and his co-conspirators stole more than $794,000 (£629,000) of cryptocurrency after using the hacked accounts to ask people to send $1,000 in Bitcoin to receive double back.

Prosecutor Adrian Foster said the civil recovery order showed that “even when someone is not convicted in the UK, we are still able to ensure they do not benefit from their criminality”.

The order, which valued O’Connor’s assets at around £4.1m, was made last week, following a freeze placed on the hacker’s property, which prosecutors secured during extradition proceedings.

A court-appointed trustee will liquidate his assets, the CPS said.

The attack also compromised the X (then Twitter) accounts of other high-profile figures including Tesla chief executive Elon Musk, investor Warren Buffett, and media personality and businesswoman Kim Kardashian.

The hack prompted the social media platform to temporarily freeze some accounts.

X said 130 accounts were targeted, with 45 used to send tweets.

UK

Inside the town where 6 out of 7 children grow up in poverty – and live in fear of homelessness

Published

4 hours ago

November 17, 2025

admin

Inside the town where 6 out of 7 children grow up in poverty - and live in fear of homelessness

The cobbled streets of Newport in Middlesbrough survive from the Victorian era.

The staggering levels of child poverty here also feel like they belong in a different time.

Six out of every seven children in Newport are classified as living in poverty.

The measure is defined by the Child Poverty Action Group as a household with an income less than 60% of the national average.

More than half of children across the whole of the constituency of Middlesbrough and Thornaby East are growing up in poverty.

As a long-awaited new strategy on child poverty is expected from the government, much of the focus on tackling the problem has been placed on lifting the two-child cap on benefits for families.

Researchers say there is direct link between areas with the highest rates of child poverty and those with the highest proportion of children affected by that two-child cap.

Mother-of-three Gemma Grafton said: “Maybe if families do have more than two children, give them that little bit of extra help because it would make a difference.”

Three months ago, she and partner Lee welcomed baby Ivie into the world. With two daughters already, the cap means they receive no additional universal credit.

“You don’t seem to have enough money some months to cover the basics,” said Lee.

“Having to tell the kids to take it easy, that’s not nice, when they’re just wanting to help themselves to get what they want and we’ve got to say ‘Try and calm down on what you’re eating’ because we haven’t got the money to go and get shopping in,” added Gemma.

The couple had to resort to paying half of the rent one month, something they say is stressful and puts their home at risk.

Those who work in the area of child poverty say they are engaged in a battle with child exploitation gangs who will happily step in and offer children a lucrative life of crime.

“Parents are crying that they’re failing because they can’t provide for their children,” said Tracey Godfrey-Harrison, project manager at the Middlesbrough Food Bank.

“In today’s society, it’s disgraceful that anyone should have to cry because they don’t have enough.”

In the shadow of a former steelworks, Dormanstown Primary Academy serves pupils in a community hit hard by the economic collapse that followed.

The school works with charities and businesses to increase opportunities for pupils now and in the future.

Katrina Morley, the academy’s chief executive, said: “A child who hasn’t been able to sleep properly can’t concentrate. They’re tired. We know that the brain doesn’t work in the same way. A child who is hungry can’t access the whole of life.

“When you face hardship, it affects not just your physiology but your emotional sense, your brain development, your sense of worth. They don’t get today back and their tomorrow is our tomorrow.”

The school’s year six pupils see the value of things like the on-site farm shop for families in need.

They are open about their own worries, too.

Bonnie, 10, said: “I think that’s very important because it ensures all the people in our community have options if they’re struggling.

“It can be life-changing for families in poverty or who have a disadvantage in life because they don’t have enough money and they’re really struggling to get their necessities.”

Mark, also 10, said: “I worry about if we have nowhere to live and if we haven’t got enough money to pay for our home. But at least we have our family.”

They also see the homelessness in the area as the impact of poverty. “I think it actually happens more often than most people think,” said Leo, “because near the town, there’s people on the streets and they have nowhere to go.”

The school is one of many calling for the lifting of the two-child cap.

The need for life’s essentials has prompted more than 50 families to register for help at Barney’s Baby Bank in the last 11 months. Nappies, wipes, clothing, shoes, toys, are a lifeline for those who call in.

Founder Debbie Smith said local people “are struggling with food. They’re obviously struggling to clothe their babies as well. It’s low wages, high unemployment, job insecurity and that two-child benefit cap”.

“Middlesbrough does feel ignored,” she added.

A government spokesperson said: “Every child, no matter their background, deserves the best start in life. That’s why our Child Poverty Taskforce will publish an ambitious strategy to tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty.

“We are investing £500m in children’s development through the rollout of Best Start Family Hubs, extending free school meals and ensuring the poorest don’t go hungry in the holidays through a new £1bn crisis support package.”

But what is the message to those making the decisions from the North East?

“Come and do my job for a week and see the need and the desperation the people are in,” said Ms Godfrey-Harrison. “There needs to be more done for people in Middlesbrough.”