#TaxpayersExpense

[llewelynpritch]

Boris Johnson Lies Here Ben Jennings Cartoons Support The Guardian

https://lnkd.in/eKZR5yQQ Share this thread  Explain in what binding or non-binding circumstance can a serving Conservative Prime Minister of the UK obtain a legal judgement in his favour when the overwhelming burden of proof shows that, for example, by deliberately attending an illegal so-called ‘lockdown party’, by stating that it was the ‘most socially distanced party in the UK’ and as PM not showing due regard nor respect for the ‘lockdown sacrifices’ made by others how he must have known in advance that he would not be following and/or not be legally bound to follow his own Tory government’s parliamentary legislation. 

How, of his own volition, selfishly, unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, irresponsibly he must have known in advance of his attendance at the said party or parties that he could be found guilty of either intentionally, or unintentionally, misleading other Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

AI’s reply

“As an AI language model, I must clarify that a legal judgement is determined by the facts and evidence presented in court, and not by the burden of proof or public opinion outside of court. Therefore, the circumstances under which a serving Conservative Prime Minister of the UK could obtain a legal judgement in his favour would depend on the specifics of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the evidence provided to the court.

However, in general, if there is overwhelming evidence to support the allegations against the Prime Minister, it may be difficult for him to obtain a legal judgement in his favour. In the example you provide, if the Prime Minister attended an illegal party and willfully disregarded the lockdown restrictions, it is possible that he could be charged with a criminal offence and face legal consequences.

It is important to note that the UK legal system is designed to be impartial, and any judgement would be based solely on the evidence presented in court. The Prime Minister would have the right to legal representation and could argue his case in court, but the ultimate judgement would be determined by the court based on the facts presented.

In the example you provide, if the Prime Minister is found guilty of intentionally or unintentionally misleading other Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, he could face consequences such as censure or removal from office. However, any legal judgement would depend on the specific evidence and arguments presented in court.”

Source: https://chat.openai.com/  AI Open Source GPT Chat Llewelyn Pritchard MA 15 March 2023 

[llewelynpritch]

MP's JOHNSON VERDICT: HE KNEW BECAUSE HE WAS THERE Daily Mirror 4 March 2023

https://lnkd.in/eC2pBwfm 

https://lnkd.in/eKZR5yQQ Share this thread

Explain in what binding or non-binding circumstance can a serving Conservative Prime Minister of the UK obtain a legal judgement in his favour when the overwhelming burden of proof shows that for example, by deliberately attending an illegal so-called ‘lockdown party’, by stating that it was the ‘most socially distanced party in the UK’ and as PM not showing due regard nor respect for the ‘lockdown sacrifices’ made by others how he must have known in advance that he would not be following and/or not be legally bound to follow his own Tory government’s parliamentary legislation. 

How, of his own volition, selfishly, unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, irresponsibly he must have known in advance of his attendance at the said party or parties that he could be found guilty of either intentionally, or unintentionally, misleading other Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

AI’s reply

“As an AI language model, I must clarify that a legal judgement is determined by the facts and evidence presented in court, and not by the burden of proof or public opinion outside of court. Therefore, the circumstances under which a serving Conservative Prime Minister of the UK could obtain a legal judgement in his favour would depend on the specifics of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the evidence provided to the court.

However, in general, if there is overwhelming evidence to support the allegations against the Prime Minister, it may be difficult for him to obtain a legal judgement in his favour. In the example you provide, if the Prime Minister attended an illegal party and willfully disregarded the lockdown restrictions, it is possible that he could be charged with a criminal offence and face legal consequences.

It is important to note that the UK legal system is designed to be impartial, and any judgement would be based solely on the evidence presented in court. The Prime Minister would have the right to legal representation and could argue his case in court, but the ultimate judgement would be determined by the court based on the facts presented.

In the example you provide, if the Prime Minister is found guilty of intentionally or unintentionally misleading other Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, he could face consequences such as censure or removal from office. However, any legal judgement would depend on the specific evidence and arguments presented in court.”

Source: https://chat.openai.com/  AI Open Source GPT Chat Llewelyn Pritchard MA 15 March 2023