that is manifestly unfair. instead, and in the absence of any evidence that i deliberately misled parliament, the committee is trying to mount an argument that i must have known that the guidance was not being followed and that i buried my head as we were fighting covid, it was an unregulated belief that even if we were following the rules, we were somehow failing to follow the guidance. you have in yourfourth report suggested that it must have been obvious to me because you have the photographs, so let me deal with this point head on because it is nonsense. these photos have now been churned through the media for more than a yearand churned through the media for more than a year and it seems to be the view of the committee and sadly many members of the public that they show members of the public that they show me attending will breaking parties when no one was social distancing. they showed nothing of the kind. they showed nothing of the kind. they showed nothing of the kind. they sho
know you re not giving any of them the to explain themselves with their own oral the to explain themselves with their own oral evidence. i don t think you own oral evidence. idon t think you seriously own oral evidence. i don t think you seriously mean to accuse those in the videos seriously mean to accuse those in the videos of lying and i don t think the videos of lying and i don t think you the videos of lying and i don t think you seriously mean to accuse me of think you seriously mean to accuse me of lying think you seriously mean to accuse me of lying. everybody knows there are some me of lying. everybody knows there are some features of this proceeding that are are some features of this proceeding that are extremely peculiar. i have the utmost that are extremely peculiar. i have the utmost respect for you and the chair the utmost respect for you and the chair but the utmost respect for you and the chair but you have said some things about chair but you have sa
oin the seat next to him on the table. lets join the select seat next to him on the table. lets join the select committee, harriet harman is cheering. to join the select committee, harriet harman is cheering. harman is cheering. to decide whether or harman is cheering. to decide whether or not harman is cheering. to decide whether or not mr harman is cheering. to decide whether or not mrjohnson - harman is cheering. to decide - whether or not mrjohnson misled the whether or not mrjohnson misled the house whether or not mrjohnson misled the house of whether or not mrjohnson misled the house of commons, whether he committed a contempt of the house and whether or not this was in any way intentional or reckless. this is what way intentional or reckless. this is what the way intentional or reckless. this is what the house of commons has required what the house of commons has required us to do by referring this matter required us to do by referring this matter to require
believe that was why i was inclined to believe that this event must be in line with believe that this event must be in line with the rules and guidance and that is line with the rules and guidance and that is why line with the rules and guidance and that is why i said what i said on december that is why i said what i said on december the 1st. as for my statements on december the 8th of the committee is concerned i may have the committee is concerned i may have misled the house when i say i was repeatedly assured that the event was repeatedly assured that the event was in accordance with the rules event was in accordance with the rules i event was in accordance with the rules. i don t understand his point. you rules. idon t understand his point. you can rules. i don t understand his point. you can see rules. i don t understand his point. you can see from the evidence that i believed you can see from the evidence that i believed these assurances more than once and be
nothing incriminating, it has gathered a huge amount of evidence which demonstrates very clearly that those working in the two shared my belief that the rules and guidance were being followed and that i received assurances there was no rule breaking. the best and fairest course now would be for the committee to publish all the evidence it has assembled so that parliament and public can judge for themselves, despite my repeated requests, the committee has refused to do this, as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury, it has selected only to publish the evidence which it considers incriminating and not the evidence which i rely on and which answers the charges. and despite assurances that we would be permitted to add material that we rely on into the core bundle published today, late last night we were told the committee were not willing to publish a large number of extracts which i rely upon in my defence.