another martin reynolds. official gave us evidence saying, and i quote , i heard saying, and i quote, i heard there were so many people who were unhappy the party that they were unhappy the party that they were not going to go and they themselves to another official that they thought was madness, that they thought was madness, that evidence on page 38 of your bundle. well concerns about the governing compliance with covid rules or guidance raised directly with you at the time. no the individual that you mentioned who raised concerns lee had the was if read what he says he was he was concerned about the optics not about the rules and he himself the event and certainly no concerns were raised me. the events have been within rules why i would be concerned about the optics i think i can't say i think he was concerned about the impression that people might gain if they looked over the garden wall if they were coming from the media room and thought that we were doing something that other people weren't allowed to d

first of all, martin reynolds in addition to - lawyer? . i am very grateful you recall sarah dines mp and - an inquiry. i am very grateful you recall sarah dines mp and simon| an inquiry. i am very grateful you - recall sarah dines mp and simon case mp giving _ recall sarah dines mp and simon case mp giving you those assurances but you were _ mp giving you those assurances but you were present at those meetings were those — you were present at those meetings were those mps said you were given assurance — were those mps said you were given assurance. you can correct me if i have _ assurance. you can correct me if i have misunderstood the point, who were the _ have misunderstood the point, who were the officials who gave these assurances in this meeting that you have referred to at paragraph 98 and your written submissions? | have referred to at paragraph 98 and your written submissions?— your written submissions? i can't name these _ your written submissions? i can't name these officials. _ your written submissions? i can't name these offic

one of the key extracts this morning is from martin reynolds who was the minister's private secretaryout warning borisjohnson about the impact of saying that all rules and guidance had been followed in his remarks to the commons. he suggested that was taken out of his statement by borisjohnson and it sounds like it was. the problem for the prime minister as it was then put back into another answer that he gave to a labour mp. so i suspect he will raise questions about that. part of boris johnson's defence raise questions about that. part of borisjohnson�*s defence this afternoon is going to be that he was told by his assistants that all rules had been followed. there is evidence for that in the documents we have seen. there are questionnaires that were filled out for sue gray, the civil servant looking into all of this where some of his communications team say they do think the guidance, sorry, that the rules were followed at all times although the draw a distinction with the two metre social distancing guidance. so there is some evidence that will support boris johnson there. there i

i accepted this, martin reynolds said, but questioned whether it was realistic to argue for that thisin number ten. he agreed to delete the reference to that guidance. you see on screen there, seven to february, the goose the 8th of february because that is the day the prime minister's questions was, but he then turned up, sorry 8th of december, not eight february, and seeing two dates, this is the 8th of december prime minister's questions were talking about, in this matters because boris johnson were talking about, in this matters because borisjohnson did take a section of his opening statement in prime minister's questions out, so he did not refer to all rules and guidance been followed but did say it later in prime minister's questions in response to an answer, a question from a labour mp. that's something the committee will ask about, whether that was correct, whether the stock should have been corrected a lot earlier, and i want to go to another bet, which is a bit punchier, a bit easier to read, on page 66. this is the evidence of simon case, cabinet secretary, the most senior

in hand at a corporate party in the garden johnson's residence in may 2020 with his assistant martin reynoldsnvited about 100 employees of the government apparatus at that moment for all other british there was a rule not to gather in groups of more than two people. hello everyone, after an incredibly stressful period. we thought it might be a good idea to take advantage of the great weather and knock out some social distancing drinks in the garden on longtime extra 10, please join us from 6:00pm and bring your drinks. so it was necessary insists today, the former prime minister of great britain, when i went out into the garden, it was obvious to me that this was a working event, and i should insist on this people who claim that we hung out during the lockdown period. they simply do not understand anything, if they believe that it was not related to the work of the meeting, then this is wrong. my task was to thank and support my employees in a difficult moment johnson himself was fined by the police for celebrating his birthday in violation of his government's rules, recalling this celebratio

and the principal private secretary to the prime minister, martin reynolds, recalled questioning whetherprime minister's questions. mr speaker, no, but! minister's questions. mr speaker, no, but i am sure whatever happened, the guidance was followed, and the rules were followed, and the rules were followed at all times. in a document published yesterday, borisjohnson in a document published yesterday, boris johnson accuse in a document published yesterday, borisjohnson accuse the mps investigating him of adopting a partisan tone and going beyond their remit. his defence, that he spoke in good faith and relied on trusted advisers, will be tested this afternoon. and in that session, it seems borisjohnson is determined to argue his case, to clear his name against any suggestion that he deliberately misled mps. it's a serious charge and not one the former prime minister will want as part of his legacy. parliament is seeking to hold the former prime minister to account. with consequences and reputation at stake. jonathan blake, bbc news. let's get more on this. 0ur chief political corresponde

and the principle private secretary to the pm, martin reynolds recalled �*questioning whether it wasrgue that all guidance had been followed at all times�*. but during the hearing mrjohnson repeatedly denied he set out to deceive parliament — and what he said was �*in good faith�* your first concern is that i may have knowingly or recklessly deceived parliament on the first and 8th of december and it said that the rules is not been broken and the guidance have been followed completely in the guidance have been followed completely number ten. when i said those words, i was not trying to cover up or conceal anything. i said what i said in good faith based on what i honestly knew and reasonably believed at the time. that believe, what was in my head was based on my understanding of the rules in the guidance. that did not mean that i believed that social distancing was complied with perfectly. that is because i and others did not believe it was necessary or possible to have a two metre or one metre electrified force field around every human being and indeed, that is emphatically not with

case and martin reynolds, as well, dominic cummings saying that lee cain, who was boris johnson's chief cummings both warned boris johnson about the problems with rule breaking . so this this rule breaking. so this this assertion from boris johnson that he was simply relaying what his advisers told him, their advice was wrong, but, hey , it's advice was wrong, but, hey, it's not my fault that boris johnson's saying that for obvious reason, cummings has animus. are. we animus. well, here we are. we have johnson coming have boris johnson coming in with panic case, his legal with lord panic case, his legal adviser . with lord panic case, his legal adviser. though, as we say, this is not a court of law it is a parliamentary committee. here we go . not now go. not now. order, order . this go. not now. order, order. this is a public evidence session of the house of commons committee of privilege . the privileges of privilege. the privileges purpose in this inquiry is to decide whether or not mr. johnson misled the house of commons, whether or not he committed a contempt of the house and wheth

that's there is a poll that mike tindall was third, ryan reynolds fourth, martin lewis, the dermot o'learysix, idris elba, vladimir zelenskyy and mikel arteta, the arsenal manager. right. well, that's a full by number. charlie mullins oh button. i like charlie . he's oh button. i like charlie. he's a great lunch, he's a lovely, he's a lovely, i don't know. we carried out that survey not to mention it. well it's an i've got to say a huge thank on today's show. if you're asking whether lockdown is an abuse of power according to my power and according to my twitter 85% of you say, twitter poll, 85% of you say, yes and 15% of you say, no . yes and 15% of you say, no. thank you so much to my panel, author broadcaster christine author, broadcaster christine hamilton. very much. just hamilton. thank very much. just a pleasure. and also and journalist kelly. thank journalist danny kelly. thank you very much. thank you so much. and huge thank you for much. and a huge thank you for having you to you having us. and thank you to you and company. it's always and your company. it's always great i'll be