followed. there was also a bit where sir bernhard suggested committee just did not agree with boris johnson s own interpretation of the government s guidance. so this committee will go away and look at the evidence it has gathered, it may look for new evidence as well. i don t think it will be a few weeks yet until we get any sort of report from them, though i do expect it to come before the summer holidays. but based on what we heard yesterday, there are some bad omens for mr johnson in what the committee was suggesting that it was already thinking. if suggesting that it was already thinkina. , . ., suggesting that it was already thinkin. , . ., ., , thinking. if they agreed that it was not perhaps thinking. if they agreed that it was not perhaps a thinking. if they agreed that it was not perhaps a deliberate thinking. if they agreed that it was. not perhaps a deliberate misleading but a reckless misleading of the house of commons, is it likely that they could try and suspend hi
being what they used to be. in terms of the hearing itself, boris johnson s argument can be broadly summarised as, i told parliament the truth because it was what i believed at the time. and secondly, that those photographs we have all seen, are members of his staff around tables with bottles of prosecco and things like that, that that was essential for work because they had to be in the office anyway. i have got to say, though, listening to the reaction yesterday of some of the members of that committee, i am not sure they were buying a lot of it. harriet harman, the labour chair of the committee, suggested at one point, just looking at my notes, that the evidence was flimsy from mr johnson. bernhard jenkin, a veteran conservative said that mr conservative mp, said that mr johnson had not taken proper advice because he had just spoken to a couple of communication officials are not asked for example the most senior civil servant in the country, the cabinet secretary, whether all the ca