>Lewis did not explicitly deny that Gray had been pressured into changing her report because he said he was not involved in the inquiry, but said “anybody who has worked in No 10” knew that “that kind of thing wouldn’t work”.
>He told Sky News’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday: “I’m confident, particularly now that No 10 have outrightly made the point and denied that this happened, that Sue Gray had the freedom to write the report that she was comfortable to write and publish.”
“Oh I can assure you with complete confidence that the people who committed the crimes, lied about it to the house and the people, lied about lying about it, then finally admitted it was true but not as bad as we claimed only when they were found out with irrefutable evidence, then they said we were exaggerating the seriousness of it, and then changed the rules so if they were found to have done it (and/or lied about doing it) then they can’t be held to account for either doing it, or lying about it – I have every confidence that *this time*, when they are being accused of something for which there is irrefutable evidence, that they are not lying.
Even though their MO in *each and every instance without fail* is to lie in the first instance and deny it. That’s not what they’re doing here, denying the reality of this thing (for which we have evidence). No, definitely not. Wouldn’t dream of it. Couldn’t even imagine it”.
Can we introduce a new rule that if you do this – go on behalf of the government to lie to the media through your teeth – that you shouldn’t be allowed to speak in the House? Maybe a year’s ban, or until the end of your term? No parliamentary privilege exists in speaking to the media and if you’re being a paid sycophant for the government you should face censure. If it turns out you brazenly lied, or came out in full support of someone who brazenly lied, in what world are you fit for office?
We’re expected to believe someone who believes Boris at this juncture can fend off foreign bribery and manipulation? If you can’t see Boris is lying now, you shouldn’t be allowed to drive let alone hold high office – you’re a fucking danger to society.
Sue Gray has as much freedom as an incarcerated felon. Only the felons are Tory ministers who are still trying to control the narrative for damage control. Lying and deceit are core levers of Tory control.
Ministers would say anything to keep their jobs they are a disgrace to this country
Well, if Brandon Lewis says it, it must be true.
It’s not as if he’s a lying shithouse like his boss.
So why did Johnson want a meeting with her just before it was released? It’s an odd move if you are not trying to quash it or dilute it.
7 comments
>Lewis did not explicitly deny that Gray had been pressured into changing her report because he said he was not involved in the inquiry, but said “anybody who has worked in No 10” knew that “that kind of thing wouldn’t work”.
>He told Sky News’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday: “I’m confident, particularly now that No 10 have outrightly made the point and denied that this happened, that Sue Gray had the freedom to write the report that she was comfortable to write and publish.”
Pure flannel, spun from the finest bullshit.
>The allegations were reported in [the Sunday Times](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/muzzled-how-senior-officials-fought-to-water-down-sue-gray-report-vrw5xk0t6), which said Gray was lobbied to alter key passages of her report on the eve of its publication by three people: Steve Barclay, the prime minister’s chief of staff, Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, and Alex Chisholm, the permanent secretary for the Cabinet Office.
mirror link to the referred to Sunday Times article: https://archive.ph/91rQ3
“Oh I can assure you with complete confidence that the people who committed the crimes, lied about it to the house and the people, lied about lying about it, then finally admitted it was true but not as bad as we claimed only when they were found out with irrefutable evidence, then they said we were exaggerating the seriousness of it, and then changed the rules so if they were found to have done it (and/or lied about doing it) then they can’t be held to account for either doing it, or lying about it – I have every confidence that *this time*, when they are being accused of something for which there is irrefutable evidence, that they are not lying.
Even though their MO in *each and every instance without fail* is to lie in the first instance and deny it. That’s not what they’re doing here, denying the reality of this thing (for which we have evidence). No, definitely not. Wouldn’t dream of it. Couldn’t even imagine it”.
Can we introduce a new rule that if you do this – go on behalf of the government to lie to the media through your teeth – that you shouldn’t be allowed to speak in the House? Maybe a year’s ban, or until the end of your term? No parliamentary privilege exists in speaking to the media and if you’re being a paid sycophant for the government you should face censure. If it turns out you brazenly lied, or came out in full support of someone who brazenly lied, in what world are you fit for office?
We’re expected to believe someone who believes Boris at this juncture can fend off foreign bribery and manipulation? If you can’t see Boris is lying now, you shouldn’t be allowed to drive let alone hold high office – you’re a fucking danger to society.
Sue Gray has as much freedom as an incarcerated felon. Only the felons are Tory ministers who are still trying to control the narrative for damage control. Lying and deceit are core levers of Tory control.
Ministers would say anything to keep their jobs they are a disgrace to this country
Well, if Brandon Lewis says it, it must be true.
It’s not as if he’s a lying shithouse like his boss.
So why did Johnson want a meeting with her just before it was released? It’s an odd move if you are not trying to quash it or dilute it.