On Thursday 07 July, BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme was specially extended as the surge of government resignations went into full spate and everyone realised Johnson was headed for No.10’s famous door. A few minutes before official confirmation came through, presenter Nick Robinson cross-questioned Attorney General Suella Braverman. Tackling the subject of the PM’s integrity, Robinson made clear that he has “always known” the cocaine-snorting louse was a pathological liar:
Nick Robinson: “You say your duty is to the country. Wasn’t your duty to the country to call out Boris Johnson’s behaviour, months, years ago? There’s nothing that’s happened in the last two days that you didn’t know about Boris Johnson. His willingness to repeatedly say things that were not true, or tell other people to say things that were not true; his willingness to sanction behaviour that was regarded as unacceptable; his willingness to promote people who behaved badly, simply because they were loyal to him. There’s nothing that you know now that you’ve not always known.”
So the question is, why has Johnson always automatically been taken at his word when the alternative was to believe anything favourable to Russia? Assuming one’s mind isn’t shrouded in the primordial fog of racial prejudice; shouldn’t the known fact that he’s a prancing fib-machine have some bearing on the credibility of his statements about, say, the curious events in Salisbury in 2018? Or the Kremlin's alleged poisoning of, <checks notes>, Alexei Navalny’s underpants? Or for that matter the use of chemical weapons in Syria? Or the overthrow of Ukraine's elected government in 2014? Or the downing of Malaysian airliner MH17? Or the deliberate spoiling for a fight which drew Russia into a large-scale military intervention?
