What is really interesting about BoZo is the line he has taken to defend himself in front of the privileges' committee.
On one side he is saying he did not deliberately mislead them and on the other side he is saying he has not broken the lockdown rules. So which is it going to be, mislead or not mislead and then we can look at whether it was deliberate or not. Apparently Baron Pannick charged the government over 200,000k to come up with this defense.
If indeed it is that he did not break the rules because it was part of his job to give people a sending off do just before they left their job, was it ok to do it during lock down. Were we allowed to do all the activities of our role at work that we would do under normal circumstances. Was the idea of lock down not to stop spreading the virus and did some of us not work from home to do our proper work because of it.
And finally could they not arrange a meeting like that on zoom or teams and still drink and say what they wished.
This transpired when BoZo was 17 years old. So it is true that a person character is formed by the age of 7
The report, from classics master Martin Hammond to Stanley Johnson in 1982, criticised the 17-year-old for thinking he should be free of the "network of obligation that binds everyone".
The teacher also said Johnson "believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception".
I guess if you know about BoZo and his character you would know that he never felt normal rules that applied to people applied to him.
In the meantime when Gove says he believes BoZo was telling the truth, surely he must have known it is lies and hence he is a liar himself. The argument BoZo has put forward could not fool a 2 year old child and Gove is a lawyer too. Tut tut tut tut