26th July 2022
There are perhaps two stages to a close reading of a legal, formal or otherwise considered or negotiated document.
The first stage – sometimes overlooked – is to read what the document actually says (and not what you think or hope it says).
The questions to ask here are: What is the content? How is that content framed and conveyed? What propositions are put forward? How are paragraphs and sentences structured? What words are used?
And so on.
In essence: if thought has gone into compiling a text, thought should also go into reading that text.
The second stage is more difficult.
Here the reader needs to work out not what is said, but what is not said.
Why did the writer not say certain things which they otherwise would have said?
What were the words and phrases and sentences which could have been used, but were not?
Of course: this second stage can be prone to speculation or projection or other forms of (over-)elaborate analysis.
But it can be a useful exercise when one has a document where the wording seems, well, strained or odd.
In short: why does the text say this – and not something else?
*
Now we come to a letter that was placed today into the public domain.
The letter is from the current (and departing) Prime Minister Boris Johnson and it is on his official headed paper.
You can read the letter here.
The portion of the letter with which this blogpost is concerned is that under “Question 41“.
The background to this is as follows: on or about 28 April 2018, Boris Johnson, then Foreign Secretary, attended a social event in Italy where one of the other guests was Alexander Lebedev, a former KGB agent.
He was asked about this when he appeared at the recent liaison committee of the House of Commons on 6 July 2022:
There was a follow-up question:
This was not a comfortable moment for the Prime Minister – and it was at the time he was being forced to announce his upcoming departure as Prime Minister.
You will see from the exchanges above that Johnson said he would write to the committee – but in any case the chair of the committee wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 July 2022 expressly asking for – among other things – the Prime Minister to write on the matter of:
“Whether you met with Alexander Lebedev on 28 April 2018 without officials, and whether officials were subsequently informed of the meeting”
The question being asked was plain – and precise.
*
In his letter dated 21 July 2022 (and published by the committee today) devotes over a page of a four-page letter to responding to this question:
*
You will see the response to the question asked comprises twelve paragraphs.
And you will see that from the fifth paragraph onwards, the information provided is not the information requested.
Indeed, if you look at the final paragraph, the Prime Minister is providing information about who Labour politicians have met.
Only the first four paragraphs of the response relate to the request and should be read again:
You can read these paragraphs as well as anyone, and it is worth taking time to read what they say.
And what they do not say.
*
For some reason, there is no mention of Alexander Lebedev by name – he is instead alluded to as “Evgeny Lebedev’s father”.
Johnson was asked both in the committee and in the chair’s subsequent letter whether officials were subsequently informed of the meeting.
Johnson’s letter places emphasis on a notification made about hospitality and that officials were “aware” in advance that he was attending.
You will see both the notification and the “aware” comment are about the social event generally – and not the meeting with Alexander Lebedev in particular.
Johnson cannot bring himself to say plainly that officials were not subsequently informed of the meeting with Alexander Lebedev.
The admission is instead buried in the following text:
In plain language: the Prime Minister did not subsequently notify officials of his meeting with Alexander Lebedev.
Johnson seeks to misdirect the reader with mentions of a notification about hospitality and officials being “aware” in advance of the social event generally, but the answer to the straight question is that he did not notify officials.
Indeed, there is no reason to believe from the content of this letter that officials were aware in advance that Alexander Lebedev would be in attendance.
Johnson further states the meeting with Alexander Lebedev was “not a formal meeting, nor something that was pre-arranged”.
This wording is odd.
That it was not “a formal meeting” is no more than a tautology that this was a social event – it is not a new point, but a dressing up of a point already made.
And that the meeting was not “pre-arranged” does not preclude the meeting as being expected.
Johnson does not say he was surprised to see Alexander Lebedev, which he could have said.
*
The most remarkable phrase in the letter, however, is that “[a]s far as I am aware, no Government business was discussed”.
That formulation is strained in the extreme, as it would be within the Prime Minister’s knowledge what was discussed and what was not.
The “[a]s far as I am aware” proviso makes sense in a formal document when a person cannot have complete knowledge of a thing themselves.
But Johnson would presumably have complete knowledge of what he said.
Note also the Prime Minister does not simply say “[N]o Government business was discussed”.
If the Prime Minister could have said just that, he would have done so – and put the matter beyond any doubt.
But he did not say that, and that is presumably because he cannot say that.
He also does not use the more common “[a]s far as I can recollect” proviso.
The only reasonable explanation for the proviso “[a]s far as I am aware” in that statement is that the Prime Minister is aware of the possibility that government business was discussed, and so he does not want to be pinned down to a more committed answer that could mislead parliament.
*
In summary, Boris Johnson did not notify officials that he had met Alexander Lebedev, and he cannot recall exactly what was discussed.
That is the only sensible interpretation and construction on the letter he has sent to the liaison committee, even though the letter goes out of its way not to mention Alexander Lebedev, and goes out of its way not to say expressly that officials were not subsequently notified, and goes out of its way to implicitly accept government business may have been discussed.
Instead of the twelve paragraphs of misdirection and waffle he could have said:
“I did not notify officials that I had met Alexander Lebedev, and I cannot recall exactly what was discussed.”
Instead, none of the information which the committee asked for directly is provided directly.
*
There is something strange and worrying here.
If the meeting in Italy was straightforward and above board, then the response published today would also have been straightforward and open.
But the response was not – and that presumably is because the meeting was not.
Curious stuff.
***
Thank you for reading – and please help this blog continue providing free-to-read, independent commentary on constitutional matters and other law and policy topics.
Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
It would be very useful to have an expert legal opinion on the question of whether or not Johnson has, on the basis of this and related information, committed an act that can be considered criminal. Is there a clear line? Is it obvious when this line as been crossed? What can be done to clarify these questions?
What criminal act does Mr Harries have in mind?
The act of misleading Parliament.
And, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office appears to have failed to enforce the rules. In no way is it acceptable for the Foreign Secretary to secretly meet with a former KGB agent immediately following a NATO summit. We should also know who else was present.
The Conservative base seems to have sold its’ soul and allowed craven immorality into No. 10. It’s time for younger Conservatives to sign up for party membership and outvote the bizarre tweed, wigs and pearls cabal.
Misconduct in a public office is defined in pretty broad terms so it seems reasonable to enquire whether it may have an application here.
The general rule is to prefer the use of a statutory offense over common law offenses, and misconduct in public office is an offense at common law. If I correctly read the Official Secrets Act 1989, prosecution under that statute would be available, thus foreclosing prosecution for misconduct in public office.
How about disclosing sensitive and classified NATO and UK government information ?
The Official Secrets Act 1989 came to mind. Ministers of the Crown are included in the definition of “Crown servant” under the Act. §12(1)(a). Section 1(3) certainly looks to be applicable to Johnson’s Italian adventure: “A person who is or has been a Crown servant … is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position….” The term “damaging disclosure” is defined in section 1(4), and “security or intelligence” is defined in section 1(9).
Section 3(1)(a) deals with disclosure of information relating to “international relations” (defined in section 3(5)). Section 3(1)(b), in turn, makes it an offense to make a damaging disclosure of “any confidential information, document or other article which was obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or an international organisation.” A damaging disclosure under section 3(1) is more narrowly defined than I would have thought: the disclosure “endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad” (§3(2)(a)) or “would be likely to have any of those effects” (§3(2)(b)).
Ah, but what if the hapless then-Foreign Secretary leaves his notebook on the piazza? Is he on the hook then? It looks to me that section 8(1) pins him to the board as if he were a specimen in the lab: if it’s illegal under the Act for him to disclose the information, he commits an offense “if he fails to take such care to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of the document or article as a person in his position may reasonably be expected to take.”
I wouldn’t start lining up for seats to watch the trial. Prosecution has to be or with the consent of the Attorney General. §9(1). I have a greater probability of winning the state lottery than the likelihood of any prosecution occurring. And if an ice storm shut down the roads in Hades and a conviction were obtained, the tumbril will not be rolling in the direction of Tyburn Hill. For not watching his notebook, the hapless defendant “shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.” §10(2). Conviction under section 1 or 3, if the case starts by indictment, has a maximum sentence of 2 years behind bars, a fine, or both; on summary conviction, it’s 6 months, a fine up to the statutory maximum, or both. §10(1).
Thx
So – presumably – the meeting was fishy and he most certainly did not inform officials. Surely burying the truth in an overload of information is a strategy which might or might not work politically. But – in a legal sense – has he mislead Parliament using these words and also in his statements before? As I am not a lawyer I’d be curious from DAG or other readers what they think.
This exchange of course shows that his attempt at obfuscation didn’t deter Parliament from probing for the truth until it (partially) came out. If an MP cultivates such a reputation for dishonesty that Parliament refuses to be led on his word alone, can he ever be accused of misleading Parliament at all?
Two things you might have cut for length-
“Not pre-arranged” <- not prearranged by me.
“Any significant content should be passed back”, with the implication that nothing significant was disclosed. <- what your officials deem significant, and what you, hungover and struggling to remember deem significant are two very different things.
Should we really need to expect the foreign office to do a James Bond style debrief of the foreign secretary?
Yes, as a former intelligence agent and diplomat I can tell you that all such meetings (particularly with former KGB officers) require a debriefing as Johnson would have been aware.
In the spirit of your close reading, which is very illuminating, I would also focus on ‘I did not take Ministerial papers with me’. Johnson was photographed the next morning at the airport with a thick volume under his arm. His visit to Italy was directly after a Nato meeting where the poioning of the Skripals with Novichok was discussed.
So exactly what ‘papers’ DID he have with him?
Could it be that other papers WERE taken which he is choosing to categorise as something other than ‘Ministerial’ papers – such as ‘NATO papers’ so he’s not denying that papers were taken but only that he is choosing not to describe them as ‘Ministerial’ papers?
Bingo.
My view too. But any NATO documents would be in his possession as Foreign Secretary. Does this make them “Ministerial papers” or does this refer to a narrower category of documents?
What documents he took to the meeting is important to check.
As I recall those photograph’s also seemed to show a Foreign Secretary somewhat the worse for wear after a rather heavy night before. He might at least be answering truthy when he says “as far as I am aware” as he may not have been aware of much after the 4th or 5h
Vodka.
“As far as I am aware…”
suggests he was not “aware” during some portion of the “meeting”
ie drunk and unprotected from divulging anything in a state of even fewer inhibitions than usual
Exactly. Isn’t this in fact an admission that we had a Foreign Secretary who spent periods, in this case on foreign soil and in strange company, unaware of what he was saying and doing.
Another possible interpretation of “aware”.
What if the obfuscation is in what is considered to be ‘government business’ ie BJ recalls that topic X was discussed (which the man in the street would see as ‘government business’, but he does not regard it as ‘government business’ ie “So far as I am aware (of what would be regarded as government business) no government business was discussed.
So he’s not ‘aware’ that others would regard this topic as very much ‘government business’. He knows full well and recalls that topic X was discussed but is hiding behind the idea that he didn’t realise others would call that ‘government business’.
It occurred to me that he did not say that no NATO business was discussed either….
Johnson giving a straightforward answer to a straightforward question – that would also raise questions too.
🤣
Having seen pictures that are said to have been taken of the then Foreign Secretary the day after the meeting in question, an obvious alternative interpretation of his answers might be that he became extremely intoxicated at the event and therefore genuinely could be unable to remember at all what matters were discussed.
It would never be a good idea for a senior minister to be in that condition in public, let alone a Foreign Secretary to be in that condition in the company of possible assets of Russian intelligence. One assumes that a form of words would therefore be found to avoid saying that this was the case without leaving too many hostages to fortune, and I think that the letter matches that hypothetical form of words quite accurately.
I noticed that he dropped in the line “I did not take Ministerial papers with me.” at the end of the third paragraph.
This again was not information that was requested, but there had been online speculation about what documents he might have had on his person.
However, the speculation that I had seen was whether he had any NATO documents with him. It is unclear whether the “Ministerial papers” line would cover NATO documents.
I think we can be certain that ANYTHING of foreign intrest he had with him, is now safely at Putin’s desk
Thank you for producing this at speed so soon after the letter was published.
As you indicate, he is using every trick possible in the relevant paragraphs of the letter to suggest that Alexander Lebedev just happened to be at the same social event, and that he was someone Johnson wasn’t familiar with or had any particular interest in (hence the deliberate distancing expression of ‘Evgeny Lebedev’s father’).
Concealing the lack of notification to officials through vague assertions about it being ‘not necessary’ is important. In the liaison committee questioning, he was specifically asked by Hillier: ‘Did you report to your officials that you had met him?’ (which can only have meant after the event), and he answered this with ‘I think I did mention it, yes.’
I’d have to go back and watch to be sure, but I seem to remember he was particularly hesitant about giving this answer. But in any case, as this letter now establishes (unless something relevant is being omitted), that answer was untrue.
I think the piglet is running out of lubrication.
What you watch the footage of the liaison committee back, look out for the two men sitting immediately behind Johnson – a serious-looking suited gentleman with green tie, next to a somewhat younger bearded man in white shirt and more colourful tie – aides or civil servants perhaps?
When Johnson is pressed on when and where he met Lebedev, and whether he reported it, the first suddenly sits up and takes notice; the second utters something, then puts his hand over his mouth, while the first writes an urgent message on a piece of paper, rings it, and puts it in front of Johnson. Looks like two words – “stop talking” perhaps. And then the chairman moves the conversation on.
I would say not only did he sit up and take notice, but his face expressed incredulity at Johnson’s answer. This happens just after the 51 minute mark in this video https://youtu.be/0fMYh8AAHxg .
Having just watched this and given the relevant section a close reading, they look like civil servants, the pen was hovering thoughtfully throughout and sprung into action at:
‘And where did you meet him?’
Then the Chair shut it down.
That’s where the story needs to go next, for me.
Alastair Campbell recognised one of them at an earlier hearing can’t recall when – Top CS to past PMs though I’m sure one of DAG followers will know.
I think the bearded one is Boris Johnson’s parliamentary private secretary (PPS) James Duddridge MP. Not sure who the other person is.
Indeed, that could be Duddridge. The liaison committee session was 6 July, and Duddridge moved over to the whips office two days later: the PM’s PPS is now Alexander Stafford.
The other chap may be a civil servant. There is some resemblance to the PM’s principal private secretary, Peter Wilson, but it could be someone else.
I am not aware of this having happened.
I welcome the investigation into what happened, which will show no wrongdoing on my part.
I cannot discuss potential wrongdoing on my part until the investigation is concluded.
I apologise for what happened, but the country wants to move on, so let’s talk about this no more. Look, a squirrel.
And repeat.
Reading between the lines, Johnson did not have a formal appointment to meet “Evgeny Lebedev’s father”, but perhaps he could have suspected that “Evgeny Lebedev’s father” would be at this social event in Perugia.
They met, and exchanged words, but Johnson cannot recall what was said. It could have been government business, but he has no conscious awareness of that. Well, it was four years ago – I’m not sure I would recall precisely what I said at a party in April 2018, particularly if a few glasses of Italian wine or Russian vodka were involved.
If this is the place, it looks fantastic. https://emercedesbenz.com/lifestyle/travel/palazzo-terranova/
Just to remind people, here is a report of Johnson’s appearance at the airport in Perugia, the morning after the night before: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/26/boris-johnson-security-evgeny-lebedev-perugia-party
So, a more realistic answer might have been: “Yeah, I went to Evgeny’s party. His dad was there, as usual. Their parties are always a blast, and we all got so plastered that I can’t remember what I said or did. But I’m sure we all had a great time. Chin chin.”
For context, the following week, 6 May 2018, Johnson was off to Washington, DC to discuss security matters with Pence and Bolton and others. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-to-visit-washington
The previous day, 27 April 2018, Johnson was at a NATO meeting in Brussels, discussing “Russia’s continued “reckless and destabilising” activity”. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-to-discuss-russia-at-nato-meeting
The Salisbury nerve agent attack was 4 March 2018. For example, this is what Johnson said on 13 March. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-remarks-on-the-use-of-a-nerve-agent-in-salisbury-13-march-2018
This is very very murky indeed.
Indeed. Why would a supposedly very busy man take time out for such a party? What was the appeal? Who was the attraction?
We’re there other events attended on the same trip? What women do we know of as being there?
And what, if anything, about his condition made them care whether or not he kept his clothes on?
It does seem to be particularly murky if reports such as this one are to be believed and taken at face value.
Other guests apparently included Katie Price, Joan Collins, and Marina Wheeler;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/revealed-boris-russian-oligarch-and-page-3-model/
That report appears to relate to a similar event in October 2016, not the one in April 2018.
waiting at the airport to return home “..seemingly without any luggage”. So what about the wadge of papers he was seen carrying before the party?
“As far as I’m aware, no government business was discussed.” leads me to conclude that something was discussed that could or could not have been government business, but Mr Johnson was not aware that it was or wasn’t government business. For a man reported to not usually be fully aware of what government business was, this could cover any conceivable topic (including the Skripal poisoning in March that year).
Thanks for this excellent, forensic, analysis. I am highly sceptical of the Prime Minister’s account. His emphasis on Lebedev junior’s role as proprietor of the Standard leaves one thinking that that role could be seen as a very worthwhile investment in creating a direct route for Lebedev senior to get access to Johnson.
Yes – Precisely : I am highly suspicious of PM Johnson’s motives and intent in relation to Russia, given his reputedly parlous financial situation.
The meeting with Mr Lebedev Snr wasn’t pre-arranged but as you’ve pointed out, it opens up a myriad of other possibilities and Johnson would have been well aware of the potential for encountering him at his son’s Italian holiday pad regardless.
The wording of the letter also prompts the question as to whether “NATO” business also qualifies as “Government” (capital G) business and whether his lack of awareness extends to discussing his attendance at those NATO meetings prior to meeting Mr Lebedev Snr.
Johnson will also have been well aware of the reality that there are no living “ex-KGB” agents, except perhaps Mr Skripal.
Given his track record as schoolboy, student, journalist, mayor, MP and even as FS at the time, it’s incredible anyone would ever have trusted him to go anywhere without a minder (much like that of Mr Pincher) never-mind appointing him as FS in the first place.
But we are where we are and if nothing else, this episode should mark Johnson’s card indelibly as being unsuitable for any future public office.
You’ve hit the bullseye again.
It’s what Johnson doesn’t say in his letter and that is the worrying part.
Secondly l doubt if KGB Agents (do they ever retire!) advertise meetings with other States Foreign Ministers especially when Alcohol is sloshing around that can loosen tongues.
We all know the Johnsons and his type. Bored of Nato meetings and poisoning events he just wants to easy jet off to Italy for a smashing weekend in a ritzy castle with loads of good tucker and get plastered. Which he did. Probably started on the Easy Jet mini bottles as soon as the trolley round started and the rest of the weekend is just a blur. Could have been Santa Claus he met. Who knows, but the thing I’m most surprised about is that he never mentioned the fantastic vaccine rollout or the world beating Oven Baked Brexit.
The other curious thing is that this letter has only been released after Johnson’s final PMQ’s which would have been the only venue in which he could have been put on the spot about the glaring inconsistencies and misdirections in this letter.
As this affair continues to raise more questions than it answers why is there so little follow up and investigation by broadcast or print media? It certainly seems newsworthy.
Is ‘As far as I was aware’ the new spin for ‘I was somewhat tired and emotional’, or perhaps, ‘as overwrought as a newt’
Actually, the real problem I have with this is that the various HOC committees have no real power to hold anyone to account and that Johnson (et al) can simply obfuscate or (laterly) simply refuse to turn up. If the committees are to fulfil their oversight purposes then they need teeth and the ability to insist that a question properly asked is properly answered – obviously, some sensitive information would remain beyond their grasp, but nothing in this sorry chapter should.
I seem to recall that any meeting of a politician with (unfreindly) foreign intelligence agents was to be fully disclosed. As for the fluff about junior’s criticism of Putin, Led By Donkeys did an excellent rebuttle of that some weeks ago (besides, critics of Putin have a tendancy to sudden acts of suicide, mysterious demises or long spells of incareration!).
There seems little doubt that anyone in most areas of public service, the police, civil service, military etc were all fully aware of an absolute duty to make an early report of any meeting with any foreign officials and agents, real or suspected and
the like. The duty was clear to all and it is a nonsense to suggest all FS are not appropriately briefed.
I had one such instance happen to me and reported it and got a real bollocking (not for reporting but for mixing in certain circles)
“As far as I am aware, no Government business was discussed.”
Why not say “No such discussions took place within my earshot.” (There might well have been people chatting about the British, the PM, even him. The people present were and still are very interested, if not actively involved, in the politics of many countries.) So the questions are begged, how far did his awareness extend, and has he, voluntarily or otherwise, then or now, drastically tailored his consciousness of events?
Johnson is a grand master of on-the-hoof and on paper misdirection.
He has a smorgasbord of techniques that (incredibly) most politicians and journalists have still not picked up on, and he clearly enjoys the challenge of deploying them.
He will typically and more obviously answer questions that have not been asked of him: “What I can tell you is that… [answer to question that wasn't asked]”
He will also escape poorly-formed questions laid out to trap him with linguistic literalism: “Did the Prime Minister attend any parties on that date?” “No, I absolutely did not attend any parties on that date [but on other dates, I did attend parties]”
He also deploys extreme warping of of basic responses that would be reasonably read by any normal person as a confirmation of the substance of the question asked: “I can tell the Right Honourable Gentleman I did not attend a party on the date he has mentioned [Johnson’s meaning here would be ‘I can literally tell you this statement – it is literally possible for me to relay this statement to you verbally’]”
His arsenal of slippery verbal gymnastic moves is what enabled him to connive his way to Number 10, and it was those same moves that eventually caught up with him.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think enough people have credited Keir Starmer for laying the long-lived barristerial traps for Johnson in Parliament that eventually contributed to his downfall.
While also dealing with the Left in his own Party. I’ve been wondering for a while if Starmer is in fact a brilliant tactician, albeit one lacking in personal presentation.
In my opinion, he had a lawyer with him when he – or a staffer – wrote and typed it up. The way he side-swipes Labour, more than once, smacks of projection – yes, and misdirection. Many times, in this strangely worded letter, the old question ‘what’s that got to do with the price of sausages?’ came to mind. Does the man know how to give – as requested – a simple yes or no? The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Does anyone who knows about these things, view him as a security risk? Too many questions arise from the Prime Minister Who Hasn’t Officially Resigned’s letter. As he might say: Hasta la vista, baby (I’ll be back).
It begins to make me wonder if the Mess was blackmailed into giving Baron Siberia his title, or else the tape/video recordings of how he may have compromised himself could have surfaced. (they still might)
He was warned off by security services that Lebedev posed a security risk, but he ignored them and enobled him anyway.
Given the state he was in when arriving at the airport to return home, he was in all probability well out of it all weekend.
Being there on his own without the necessary security in tow, they may even have slipped something in his drink, I’d say the truth of the matter is that he cannot remember anything whatsoever, and has therefore worded his letter accordingly, just in case the Italian Caste Tapes were ever to air.
Does a discussion about receiving gifts or funds >in a purely personal capacity< count as 'government business'?
Or the distribution of peerages?
Indeed!
Were he being questioned in person, a key question for me would be ‘How do you define Government business?’ because I think he may have his own interpretation.
I freely admit that I have a nasty suspicious mind and one of my happiest work experiences was when I worked closely with somebody who had an even nastier and more suspicious mind.
We almost invariably found that when people ‘explained things’ or ‘gave some context’ there was something fishy – the truth was often simple (and didn’t need dressing up).
I agree with Dr Mike C that there is a lack of teeth to select committees but, that said, Johnson (Diana) and Hillier still managed to take chunks out of Johnson (Alexander Boris).
To have some formal process where the Government is compelled to appear (and no last-minute refusals) and answer questions (staying until they give an acceptable answer) would help stop some of this nonsense.
Thanks to DAG for giving my nasty suspicious mind some food for thought.
Johnson seems totally incapable of a straight answer. He would be in front of the committee forever.
I’m interested in the employment of the full stop between the two sentences “That was not necessary in this case. As far as I am aware no government business was discussed.”
This could have been expressed in a number of other, arguably more natural ways.
It heavily implies a relationship between the two sentences but conspicuously does not create the link.
You could come to the conclusion that he is making two stand alone arguments.
He is also not arguing that the content of discussion was not significant. The other (according to him) conceivable ground for not reporting it.
My other query is whether Johnson’s stated understanding of the reporting requirements fully corresponds to the actual requirements relevant at the time.
It was probably a Berlusconi style billionaires’ Bunga Bunga party and I doubt that for most of the time he spent carousing there our then Foreign Secretary was in a fit state to discuss sensitive official matters with Lebedev père or anyone else although I suppose he might have let something interesting slip. He is very keen on mixing with the uber rich, which could get him/has got him into trouble and I guess he might betray his country by accident but I don’t think that he would wittingly do so.
Johnson’s visit to Italy for a weekend of excess chez Lebedev was a gross breach of his responsibilities as Foreign Secretary in a number of areas. However, I’ll stick to the security aspects.
Johnson must hold the highest level of security clearance (DV) as PM, and would also have done as Foreign Secretary. In clearing someone for DV, vetting staff look for any area of a subject’s life (including aspects of their personality) that might make them vulnerable to pressure from someone who is opposed to the interests of the UK.
Johnson ticks every single character flaw.
DV, or Developed Vetting, is carried out if the individual will have regular access to information classified as Top Secret, and/or with the caveat Codeword. intended to weed out people who
Hadn’t finished
Top Secret (and Codeword) information is extremely sensitive. If I remember correctly, divulging Top Secret information to an enemy can cause “severe damage to the security of the nation”. I won’t give examples, for obvious reasons, but I’m sure you can guess some of the sort of stuff I’m talking about. Think submarines. Think communications.
Johnson will have had regular access to this country’s deepest secrets – at the same time as a KGB Colonel (and no, they don’t retire) had regular access to Johnson. A Johnson who, on the occasion in question, was probably completely pis*sed, with no security detail. Because he dumped them.
Lebedev Senior was almost always at the parties his son (now Lord Lebedev, despite security service advice) gave in London. Johnson has been regularly photographed at these parties, with Colonel Lebedev standing next to him. I think Johnson actually partied with the Lebedevs in London on the night he was elected as Leader of the Tory Party.
There is a photograph of Johnson in the flat at No 10, surrounded by his wife’s friends – known as the Gays, for some reason. On the desk is his Red Box, open and the contents visible to all. The document sticking out is headed “STRAP”. That is a classification used in, amongst other things, Government communications and is the equivalent of Top Secret. I believe it is also used by MI5 and MI6.
Johnson has also had access to highly classified NATO information, much of which (relative to Russia) would have been fresh in his mind as he flew to meet Colonel Lebedev in Italy, a mere hour away from Brussels.
Personally, I think Johnson’s security clearance should be withdrawn with immediate effect. It can always be reinstated if these fears prove to be unfounded. Or, of course, it may already be far too late.
Incidentally, around the same time as Johnson was leaving STRAP documents in full view of Mrs Johnson’s chums, the No 10 mobile phones were discovered to have been hacked. The Canadian cyber security company who discovered the hack said it was sophisticated enough to have been done by a hostile state, rather than an individual. It was not possible to discover how long the hack had been in place.
The No 10 mobiles, used particularly by Johnson, were hacked in a way that was unnoticeable, but turned them into cameras. They transmitted everything within view. We just don’t know to whom.
Fully agree. Didn’t May withhold security information from him when he was Foreign Secretary? And I think he went to Lebedev’s London party the night after the general election in December, 2019.
If Johnson had replied as briefly and straightforwardly as you say he might have, he would have been tacitly acknowledging the Committee’s superiority over him in the context of that hearing. Unlike a witness in a court-room, I have never heard of a witness before a parliamentary Committee being threatened with a fine for contempt of parliament if he dodges a member’s question. I have never heard of a member pursuing a line of questioning, rephrasing when necessary and anatomising the witness’ unsatisfactory answers until the witness can wriggle no longer. The Committee chairperson does not intervene to support the member by saying, “You must answer.”
There may be advocates sitting on a Committee, but they are there as politicians. It’s not surprising that, in the letter drafted for Johnson, he replied like a politician.
I fear that the only way to get a straightforward answer out of a greased piglet would be to ask questions for which the only possible answers were “Yes” or “No”, to tell the piglet that those were his only options and to remind him that a failure to answer at all, or a deviation from the choices, would be interpreted in the most negative light possible.
Anything less and you are going to get misdirection, half-truths and potentially outright porkies.
Brilliant interpretation and reduction of a narcissist’s 12 paragraphs of word salad into a line and a half, thank you!
I agree that “as far as I am aware” makes no sense in this context. It is also not particularly helpful for the PM. It is no less inherent in that admission that official business could have been discussed then it is in the phrase “I don’t exactly recall”.
The whole letter is infected with a frantic desire to shut down lines of enquiry so incompetently executed that, rather than allaying, it triggers suspiscion.
It reads like a very poor lawyer’s letter: the kind that tells you, but doesn’t say, an over generous settlement offer will be shortly be on its way.
In particular, I detect the sunken masts of another well-worn formula
sailing in the other direction in his response: namely the “my unvarying practice” inference.
In other words, what Johnson starts to stay, and would dearly like to be able to say, but doesn’t, is:
“if a Minister finds themselves…discussing official business without officials present any siginficant content should be passed back to the department after the event. That is my unvarying practice. On this occasion I did not pass anything back my to my officials. Accordingly, while I don’t exactly recall what was discussed, it is reasonable to assume no official business was discussed”.
Obviously, that approach invites further enquiry (i.e. what other meetings without officials have you had where you did report back the contents), which is why, I think, it starts to call for the inference but ends up losing itself in its own language.
Very curious indeed.
Also Johnson went to Italy straight out of a NATO meeting. He was seen carrying papers. He says ” I did not take Ministerial papers with me”
Would NATO documents or notes of the NATO meeting -presumably in his possession in his capacity as Foreign Secretary – qualifiy as “Ministerial papers”?
Another factor. Johnson was clearly intoxicated during and after the event. This could have been caused by alcohol or drugs. If it was the later he was probably not always ‘aware’ of what he said.
There is no good reason why Johnson should have attended the event, especially when taking into account of the timing. The man us utter filth.
Somehow I think the term Prime Minister shouldn’t be used to describe Mr Johnson. I’d suggest Crime Minister as an alternative, in light of both his actions and his apparent lack of understanding what a Prime Ministers job is supposed to be. Then again, didn’t we know it after his tenure as London mayor?
“As far as I am aware …”
The post does, incidentally, make the case for improving reading skills at all ages and levels of education by encouraging the reading of fiction. With a particular emphasis on works with unreliable narrators.
Enjoyed your forensic reading and you do make a strong case. Johnson’s letter avoids answering the question in all the ways you’ve spotted.
Much as I dislike him, it seems to me just possible that the meeting was kept discreet for official and not personal reasons; that it was a ‘Track-2’ kind of event – parallel diplomacy, or whatever the term is.
Coming directly after the NATO meet, it is not improbable that the British foreign minister was charged with passing on a message quietly or getting some feedback. That would also explain why there was no official inquiry or alarm when news of the meeting first got out. Not in the UK or the rest of NATO.
It is the circumstances, not Johnson’s character, that make me doubt he was being villainous in this instance. Was there administrative follow-up, such as disciplinary action against his security officers? If he gave them the slip while abroad and they never noticed him gone, never raised the alarm, that should have spelt the end of their careers.
The whole thing stinks. It is very like his initial responses to lockdown party accusations. As far as he was aware no parties took place and all rules were followed. Now he isn’t aware of government business being discussed or Alexander Lebedev attending the event.
Not being aware of things seems to be a favourite form of words for Johnson. It’s his way to hide the truth without overtly lying. He seems to think it gets him off the hook. In fact it only increases suspicion that something very wrong took place. Sadly unless someone present spills the beans he will probably get away with it but who knows information breaching national security was discussed.
The other concerning thing about this is that the term government business does not equate to all matters of national security. The government is just part of that. Who knows what he revealed, accidentally or deliberately.
I think “Mike’s” response is germane. Note also that the tactics seemingly deployed by the Russian state have more than an echo of those used by Putin on Drumpf when he managed to isolate the POTUS for a significant period of time at one of the ‘G’ meetings back in around 2017(?)
Like Alex, the former guy was possibly confronted with damaging material or it was hinted at in a way that made some sense only to the then President.
I’m also struck by the state that Johnson was allegedly in that night. As we know, when one is intoxicated to that extent, one’s mobile device becomes very very vulnerable to loss, theft and “fiddling”
This is not the end of this matter.
Fascinating deconstruction of the document. And as far as I can see, not only does he not use Alexander Lebedev’s name, he does not even actually admit meeting Evgeny Lebedev at the party, which seems odd. He refers to “the house of Evgeny Lebedev” and “Evgeny Lebedev’s father” but no-where does he make any reference to who invited him to the event, for instance.
As for advance planning, presumably he and the “officials” had an idea of what he had accepted an invitation to, and who was likely to attend. It might be time to ask his Lordship to provide evidence of what he had provided to the Foreign Secretary by way of advance information on the gathering.
re ‘For some reason, there is no mention of Alexander Lebedev by name – he is instead alluded to as “Evgeny Lebedev’s father”.’
This is, I think, the psychology of lying. Johnson is trying create distance between himself and the senior Lebedev by identifying him as indirectly as possible.
It appears the goal is to create an impression that Lebedev is neither central nor material to the discussions.
An honest & innocent person would not feel the need to create distance; and you can tell a dishonest & guilty person because their protestations are always about themselves and, figuratively, pushing the subject of the accusation away from themseves.
This falls below any legal standard of proof but the psychological interpretation is pretty clear, in my opinion.