No evidence Boris Johnson knowingly misled Parliament - Yorkshire Post Letters

I hold no brief for Boris Johnson. But justice matters. And, reading Matthew Flinders's supercilious denunciation of Boris Johnson and his "hearing" before the Privileges Committee (The Yorkshire Post, June 24) I did wonder if Professor Flinders had any concept of the principles of English jurisprudence.

Boris Johnson likened the committee to a kangaroo court. It was certainly not a court of law, and its members were not jurists. If it had been, then more members than Sir Chris Bryant would have had to recuse themselves.

Why? Because the behaviour of the English judiciary is regulated by Rules of Natural Justice and Rules Against Bias, which means that anyone who has a predisposition towards the accused or defendant can not preside or sit in judgement.

And, in a court of law, there are strict Rules of Evidence, in which hearsay, for example, is inadmissible.

In the event, the committee failed to present any evidence to substantiate the charge that Boris Johnson's intent was to "knowingly mislead" Parliament (in line with the 1997 Resolution of the House). Instead, they engaged in supposition, speculation and even mind-reading : what he must have known or "thought". A presumption of guilt.

A "kangaroo court"? On a balance of probabilities, it would certainly appear so. And that is a poor reflection on the House and British justice.

From: Alan Chapman, Beck Lane, Bingley.

The Labour Party’s stitch up of Boris Johnson’s political career is patently obvious.

The Partygate report concocted by senior civil servant and soon-to-be Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff Sue Gray, allegedly without political bias, is clearly misleading.

Then the House of Commons Privileges Committee chaired by Labour Party grandee, Harriet Harman, publicly pronounced Boris Johnson as guilty before the charade commenced had him bang to rights prior to a word being uttered at his public hearing – a blatant injustice. Anne Boleyn had a fairer trial in Parliament 500 years ago than Mr Johnson.

From: ME Wright, Harrogate.

Many thanks for Professor Matthew Flinders' perfectly condensed history of the antics and malignancies of Boris Johnson. Will it impress his devotees? Once again I recall my grandad's old aphorism "You can't teach pork lad".

I shuddered at the Prof's 'Boris bounce back' prediction; but take solace from the recent announcement that wife number three is pregnant with their child number three. I understand that Eton's fees are around £30,000 per annum. Might not Anglo-American BoJo's next few years be spent on well-paid waffling to American audiences who are enraptured by him?

From: Mr R Urquhart, High Hunsley, Cottingham.

On the delicate subject of Boris Johnson and his alleged dishonesty. I was reminded of two of Churchill’s most relevant quotes.

1. Politics is almost as exciting as war and quite as dangerous. In war you can only be killed once but in politics many times.

1. The high belief in the perfection of man is appropriate in a man of the cloth but not in a Prime Minister.