Briefing note proves Johnson knew full well he was lying about ‘no press’ on hospital visit

Johnson told distraught dad no press – after issuing statement to press in preparation for visit
Boris Johnson lying – in front of press cameras

Earlier today, Boris Johnson was challenged by the distraught father of a sick baby about Tory NHS cuts and the danger they cause to patients. When the angry dad told Johnson he was there on a ‘press opportunity’, Johnson looked him in the eye and said “there’s no press here”.

Johnson even looked at the press cameras as he said it – but now the briefing notes his team supplied to the press before the visit have put the matter beyond doubt.

The notes, published tonight by Buzzfeed, not only show that the visit was prepared in advance as exactly a ‘press opportunity’ – but even include a pre-prepared press statement by Johnson:

This was not the only Tory claim associated with the visit that was subsequently exposed as a lie. Right-wingers claimed that the livid dad was wearing a microphone in a set-up to embarrass Johnson – but video analysis by the SKWAWKBOX showed conclusively that the ‘mic’ was in fact… his belt and the belt loop on his trousers.

Boris Johnson’s supporters got very upset recently when a Channel 4 News presenter described him as a ‘known liar’.

Well, he’s proven it again.

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 or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. 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.

23 responses to “Briefing note proves Johnson knew full well he was lying about ‘no press’ on hospital visit

  1. “Well, he’s proven it again.”
    Like there was a doubt… (hollow laugh)

  2. Seems the Labour membership cancells out any concerns the father has for his daughter as far as the BBC and Laura Kuennsberg are concerned when defending the Torys. Propping up the government and t he Tory party will not be forgotten by an incoming Labour government.

  3. Cor, blimey! I dunno, Omar Salem; you’re one canny fella for having your sick child put into the EXACT same hospital de piffle decided he’d make an impromptu visit to.

    Apparently we should ‘leave kuenssberg alone’ because she got the info from fatty fawkes’ site, according to the spectator.

    Leave her alone or what, like? Oh, she’ll get them non-existent bodyguards again?

    Just shows how full-on snowflake the right wing gobshites are. Give it but can’t take it.

  4. “Boris Johnson’s supporters got very upset recently when a Channel 4 News presenter described him as a ‘known liar’.

    Boris Johnson/Supporters – Liars copying their guru – Humpty Dumpty. Are such actually beyond commonly accepted definitions of such concepts as ‘honesty’ etc.?

    Lewis Carroll seems to have written the best political analysis of the second decade of the 21st century

  5. Off message again but just listening to reports on the comments from their Lordships most high! Laverys worried about peace in Nireland and the good Friday agreement.Slapped down immediately and warned about is conduct in discussing somthing that as nothing to do with prorogation(Royal prerogative)….?Where do we get these clowns in wigs and to think they get paid for this?.Maybe a couple of transit vans with sunroofs might change their minds?…..Imbeciles you couldn’t make it up!

    • Ps..The supreme court is the answer to why we need a constitution and removal of the royal prerogative,and hopefully the clowns in wigs and gowns shows why we are played as fools by a rotton establishment..I sense a change in Britain’s veiw on a so called democracy after this brexit fiasco..and hopefully we can change our country and good will come from all of this smoke and mirrors democracy that isn’t.

      • PS The ultimate proof that you don’t know what you are talking about is that you don’t even know that they are not wearing wigs.

      • Are you seriously boasting of being uneducated? Seriously?

    • Do get your feet back on the ground, Joseph and stop complaining about everything and everyone who doesn’t match your wishes.

      The case made by the Supreme Court judges was perfectly reasonable : simply that the case was not about the substance of Brexit and its effects, either in NI or anywhere else. It’s about the proroguing of parliament, and the lawfulness of Johnson’s actions.

      Any legal system depends on clarity, and the case made is irrefutable, and nothing to do with your comedy routine about the venality of judges. A court isn’t a student debating society.

      • RH You would know more about student debating society than me All my education was working daytime as a youngster and Bolton Tech Tuesday and Thursday evenings every week But enjoyed the preaching even when you are wrong….?

      • I note, Joseph, that you have no answer to the point made by the judge, as your reply to Ulttraviolet confirms.

        It’s not an obscure issue – Lavery was making points about something that was not under consideration in this case. That obvious fact has nothing to do with the restricted background of senior judges – it is a fact that stands in its own right.

        On the wider point, Ulraviolet is quite right – if you don’t have the judiciary separated from the executive, you are well on the way to a dictatorship. And if you want a judiciary simply appointed by the political class (and graft and money) – as in the US – on your own head be it.

        The fact that the UK is a stratified society that creates a judiciary with a restricted background is a different issue – but at least their role requires transparency of judgment.

        But even under a much less socially discriminatory system, senior judges would always be atypical of the public as a whole, because of the requirements of fulfilling that role. It’s not a job that anyone can do.

        Or would you prefer that Johnmings gets away with anything unchallenged ?.

    • Joseph, if you attack the credibility and integrity of the judiciary, the only people who win are would-be dictators like Johnson.

      Those of us who understand the law are seriously impressed by the legal rigour and intellect on display in this case from the judges and most of the advocates – on all sides.

      • Ultra ..I well
        understand the law and the interpretation by the men in wigs and gowns…and fully realise that people from the narrow background such as their lordships have a wide remit on whats relevant…and NIreland is relevant and obviously Lavery felt so as well….I do admit I have nothing but contempt for the men in wigs who often come out with the most propostruse garbage.But what can WE expect from a group who are totally unrepresentative of the society we live in..So whilst you are Impressed by the men in wigs I have nothing but contempt?

      • Joseph OKEEFE at 7:48 pm
        “I do admit I have nothing but contempt for the men in wigs who often come out with the most preposterous garbage.B”

        Do you have some specific examples of these preposterous decisions?

      • UItra….. Men in wigs is a descriptive term of abuse
        ,used to describe the aristocracy in the 1700s and many used this in a derogatory fashion to describe the infighting between the wigs and the Torys eventually the two sides came together and some would describe history repeating itself with a right wing liberal democrat party leader.So to repeat not literally men in wigs,or womon but an ancient term of abuse,a little bit like the Royal prerogative…and lets keep the debate between comrades polite even if we don’t agree?

  6. Lying? I thought that they call that ‘misleading’ these days?

    • Steve H preposterous garbage was the criticism of lavery from their lordships was astonishingly nieve and dangerous in suggesting that N Ireland and the good Friday agreement,re the border in the occupied part of Ireland had no relevance to prorogation of parliament.Lives are at risk and Lavery is slapped down in the usual pompous manner of these narrow minded men in wigs.The whole stinking system is littered with victims of the justice system…have you ever heard of the Diplock courts and internment without trial,all supported by this narrow elitist judiciary So step back and wait for another ludicrous decision and you can then give me a lesson on this system that requires a group of establishment men in wigs to decide what should be the discussion of an elected parliament and a written constitution not overruled by an archaic Royal prerogative….go on steve you know it makes sense

      • Joseph OKEEFE 19/09/2019 at 8:35

        I understand your sentiments BUT as far as I can see the NI border has absolutely bugger all to do with the cases currently before them.

        If the Justices had allowed things to drift off into different areas it muddies the waters and they’d have been there for weeks. I think that it is admirable that by keeping the hearing on track they’ve managed to get through some extremely complex issues in just 3 days.

        Any dispute about the legalities of breaking an international treaty over NI would rightly be an entirely different case.

  7. Steve H.I take your point and you argue it well,but the suspension of parliament effects many other laws and bills including the safety and welfare of inocent people including the powder keg of N Ireland.Brexit and the backstop are critical to the international treaty of the good Friday agreement IT’s not for the judge’s to insult Lavery and casually ignore the effects that the closure of parliament and the effects and damage to democracy This coup by Johnson and is supporters in the establishment allowt these men in wigs from a narrow privalaged background to not represent me and many other socialist Labour party members….

    • “these men in wigs from a narrow privalaged background do not represent me and many other socialist Labour party members….”

      That’s not their role. Their job is to represent the law and its interpretation. Criticize them om that basis if they fail or betray prejudice.

  8. This thread’s gone a fair way from the original issue. But there’s something that hasn’t – as far as I know – been questioned.

    The BBC defended Kuenssberg’s intervention about the ‘Labour activist’ in terms of being involved with Twitter is an essential part of her job.

    Is it? I would have thought that the last thing a senior journalist for the BBC should do is to pontificate of social media – IF they wish to be credible.

    • RH from what I read kuenssberg identified the father of a very sick child as a member of the Labour party as if that was a crime and assumed the wider audience would follow her lead.!Well they didn’t and she as once again shown the BBC to be a biased and not fit for purpose as a public service broadcater.I also believe that the quality of programmes has deteriorated whilst the broadcaster concentrated on news and documentarys which were in many cases poorly researched and contained downright lies and lazy poor quality journalism…sad really?

Leave a Reply