Vid: Corbyn – Johnson “exceeded evidence, serious questions to answer”

jd johnson pd

An explosive Sky News interview yesterday, in which the CEO of Porton Down chemical weapons facility admitted it had not identified the source of the nerve agent used in the Salisbury attack, appears to have Boris Johnson and the Foreign Office (FCO) reeling and trying to cover their tracks.

Johnson claimed in a filmed interview that Porton Down scientists had “categorically” told him that “there is no doubt” that the poison came from Russia. The FCO initially tried to dismiss the false claim, saying that Johnson ‘misspoke’ – but the FCO then deleted its own tween in which it made the same claim, showing that it was no slip of the tongue.

The BBC has covered the Porton Down statement, but has not looked at what it reveals about the Foreign Secretary’s false claim.

Now Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spoken to Sky News – which has focused on the revelation of Johnson’s – and the government’s – dishonesty about Porton Down’s analysis – to say that Johnson has clearly ‘exceeded the evidence’ and ‘has serious questions to answer’:

Labour’s Chris Williamson, unfettered by the need for statesmanlike language, went even further:


For the security of the country, Johnson cannot be allowed to continue in post.

And for her position at ‘the head of the clattering train‘, as Johnson put it in his Deutsche Welle interview, May must resign too.

It’s time the country ceased to be put at risk for the sake of Tory party internal politics.

Unlike Sky News, BBC News appears not to be making the obvious connection between the Porton Down admission and Johnson’s false claim and has been asked why. It has not responded so far.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. I wonder if the ‘usual suspects’ who signed that infamous letter supporting Theresa May will now compose a letter of apology to Jeremy Corbyn and the party’s membership for their conduct

  2. FO trying to wriggle out of it (bringing the ambassador into it – politician deflects the blame?)
    Playing the nationalist card, hinting that JC is unpatriotic to deflect attention from the potential egg on his Rump-Fed Tory Mug!
    But Mr J we are a civilised country, we act on evidence, and the facts, in short the truth and follow a calm, rational and considered approach.
    What did Nye Bevan once say: “Then he is too stupid to be Foreign Secretary”(?)

  3. More to the point the Tories handed us the way to redress by law but literally and I mean literally no matter where I’ve shared this it’s universally ignored. In 2017 the Tories brought in a Code of Conduct which is now MANDATORY nobody can hold office if they transgress these LAWS yet all I get is more moaning and more instances of their transgressions and how we should fight them sliding right on past this valuable truth. Either we want redress or we just want to moan about it which is it! The code covers everything even explains how to gain redress but people won’t even share and this is around the 20th place I’ve shared this information will the Canary slide on past?

    Who is the code of conduct for?

    This Code of Conduct is for anyone who formally represents the Party as an elected or appointed official. This includes, but is not limited to: Members of Parliament, Peers, Members of the European Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament, Members of the Welsh Assembly, Members of the Greater London Assembly, Police & Crime Commissioners, elected Mayors, Councillors and Association, area, regional, and national Party officers. This Code of Conduct will be presented to the Party Board, which will consider the views of each of these categories of Party representatives, at its meeting in November 2017 with a view to its formal adoption, and will be the process followed until then.

    What standards are expected of individuals covered by this Code?

    They should:

    follow the Seven Principles of Public Life established by Lord Nolan and the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
    Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
    Integrity – Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
    Objectivity – Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
    Accountability – Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
    Openness – Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
    Honesty – Holders of public office should be truthful.
    Leadership – Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour.
    They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs;
    lead by example to encourage and foster respect and tolerance;
    treat others in a professional and straightforward manner;
    act with honesty and probity and in a manner which upholds the reputation and values of the Conservative Party. Such duty is fundamental. Conduct which the public may reasonably perceive as undermining a representative’s honesty and probity is likely to diminish trust and confidence placed in them, and the Party, by the public;
    not use their position to bully, abuse, victimise, harass or unlawfully discriminate against others (see further the interpretation annex);
    take reasonable steps to ensure that people who wish to raise concerns about bullying, discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation by others feel able to do so, and know how to follow the complaints procedure set out in this Code;
    co-operate fully with any process set down by the Party Board should a grievance process be instigated. This Code will be made publicly available on the Conservative Party website.

    If any individuals wish to make a formal complaint against elected representatives or officers of the Party they should email complaints@conservatives.com. Alternatively, they can call our confidential hotline on 020 7984 8050.

    There may be instances where an individual feels able to raise the problem informally with the person responsible and explain clearly to them that their behaviour is not welcome or makes them uncomfortable. If informal steps are not appropriate or have been unsuccessful, then the following formal procedure may apply.

    When we receive a formal complaint, we will investigate it in a timely and confidential manner. The investigation will be conducted by someone with appropriate experience and no prior involvement in the complaint. The investigation should be thorough, impartial and objective, and carried out with sensitivity and due respect for the rights of all parties concerned.

    The following process will be adopted in so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so:

    Stage 1: We will obtain written statements from the complainant and notify the respondent(s) that a complaint has been made about them. The respondent will be given the opportunity to provide any evidence or details that will help to establish their position. It may be necessary to interview witnesses to any of the incidents mentioned in the complaint. If so, the importance of confidentiality will be emphasised to them.

    The Investigating Officer may dismiss complaints that are obviously trivial, and/or lacking in merit and/or cannot fairly be investigated or cannot be investigated.

    Stage 2: A panel consisting of no fewer than three people, appointed by the Party Chairman, will examine the complaint and evidence gathered. This must include representation of the voluntary Party alongside at least one independent person. If the complaint regards a Member of Parliament, the panel must include at least one person nominated by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee.

    If there is an allegation of criminal wrongdoing, we will strongly advise the complainant to report this to the relevant authority as soon as practicable. In certain instances, we may have a duty to contact the relevant authority directly.
    The panel will collectively determine whether the complaint warrants further investigation and/or whether there is a potential breach of the Conservative Party’s Code of Conduct, or whether it is vexatious or malicious or trivial.
    If it is agreed that the Code of Conduct has not been breached, and the complaint does not warrant further investigation by the Party, then the complainant will receive written notification of this, explaining the decision.
    If it is agreed that the Code of Conduct may have been breached, the process will move to Stage 3.
    Records of meetings and decisions will be kept for a minimum of 5 years or as required by law.
    Stage 3: The panel established under Stage 2 will examine further the complaint and evidence gathered.

    The panel will provide their findings to the Party Chairman, recommending the appropriate level of the Party at which the complaint should be resolved and/or dealt with according to the Party’s Constitution, and will continue to monitor the complaint to its conclusion.
    If the panel cannot agree collectively on its findings, the dissenting views must be presented as well as the majority view.
    If appropriate, the complaint may then be referred by the Chairman to the Leader and/or to the Board of the Conservative Party, who shall take such action as they see fit. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, suspension of membership or expulsion from the Party.
    Any hearing of any panel or body established to hear a complaint under the Code of Conduct will be provided with Terms of Reference and Notes on Procedure to be adopted at the hearing. The panel will be obliged to consider an application on behalf of the respondent for the matter to be dismissed on the grounds that the complainant’s case is vexatious or malicious, or for any other reason. In considering such an application for dismissal, the panel may seek qualified legal advice.
    Any removal of rights of membership will only be made after due considerations of natural justice.
    Schedule 6 (23) of the Constitution of the Conservative Party provides for an appeal process in the event of the Board of the Party determining that an individual should be suspended or expelled from membership of the Party. Any member whose membership is suspended, withdrawn or refused by the Board of the Party has 28 days to lodge an appeal to the Individual Member Review Committee which shall exist for the purpose of hearing such appeals under a process determined by it and whose decision shall be final.
    Records of meetings and decisions will be kept for a minimum of 5 years or as required by law. In no way should anything in this Code interfere with an elected representative carrying out his or her duties and exercising his or her judgement in relation to his or her work, nor to any individual’s right to a private life within the law.  


  4. Russia = Iraq
    Theresa May = Tony Blair
    Boris Johnson = Jack Straw
    Novichock = WMD

  5. Johnson’s blustering tweets – effectively calling JC a traitor for unpatriotically failing to support a not only blatant but STAGGERINGLY incompetent lie – on a matter of international importance – just WTF?
    A foreign secretary with the intellect and maturity of an eight-year-old is caught out in a lie that could start a war and keeps his position? WTF is wrong with these people?

    Blair’s mistake was sycophancy – this guy’s just CLUELESS!

    When Britain called itself “Great” – and meant it – he’d have been handed a loaded pistol and told to think of the family honour.
    Wiki has 72 British politicians who did the decent thing.
    Least he could do is grow a beard, change his name and go be a beach bum somewhere.
    Papua New Guinea, Congo, Syria – anywhere really.

    1. I don’t mean to contradict you David, but Blair was just the key mouthpiece for the Establishment, and all those in high places – including the security services, so-called – were all a party to the whole thing. And they all knew of course that there were no WMD, and well before the invasion took place, they had worked out how they would deceive the British public again when THAT became apparent, and pretend that Blair had exaggerated the intelligence to make it look like it was all down to him, and that they weren’t complicit in it all. But they WERE.

  6. Wow, I’d always just simplistically assumed his declaration that Britain would ‘stand shoulder to shoulder” with Dubya had just left us with nowhere else to go.
    I despised him when I thought he was just a tool – imagine what I think now…
    Just now done a little of the reading I should have back then – thanks for pointing me that way – life got in the way of keeping up back then, as I guess happens to many who fall prey to the MSM.
    And ps, contradict me anytime you like 🙂

  7. Boris Johnson’s not the only one to claim that Porton Down identified the agent. Mary Creagh MP included this in her email of 20 March 2018 “This is a reckless attempted murder by the Russian state against the UK, which left 3 people in hospital including a police sergeant. It is the first time a chemical weapon has been used in Western Europe since the end of the Second World War. The agent was identified by UK experts at Porton Down. Given that Russia produced this weapon and has a history of attacking former spies on UK soil, Russia is clearly responsible.@

Leave a Reply