On June 23, I wrote about the House of Commons voting against giving Boris Johnson a former members’ pass to Parliament.

The hypocrisy of MPs voting to refuse him a routine privilege is breathtaking.

The Hansard debate is here. Excerpts follow, emphases mine, with news updates since then.

Penny Mordaunt, Leader of the House, led the debate. Her opening statement ended with this, a response to Plaid Cymru’s Liz Saville Roberts:

The right hon. Lady brings me to my closing remarks on why what we do this afternoon matters, whichever way we decide to vote, or not to vote. The real-world consequences of a vote today may seem to come down to whether the former Member for Uxbridge has a pass to the estate. Our constituents may not appreciate why we are focused on contempt towards the House as opposed to contempts that they may feel have been made against them: the lockdown breaches themselves, which grate hard with those who sacrificed so much to keep us all safe; for others, the creation of a culture relaxed about the need to lift restrictions; for others, wider issues such as the debasement of our honours system. But we would be wrong to think that there is no meaningful consequence to our actions this afternoon.

The Committee of Privileges, in its work producing this report, did not just examine the conduct of a former colleague but sought to defend our rights and privileges in this place: the right not to be misled and the right not to be abused when carrying out our duties. As a consequence, it has also defended the rights of those who sent us here and those we serve. I thank the Committee and its staff for their service.

This matters because the integrity of our institutions matter. The respect and trust afforded to them matter. This has real-world consequences for the accountability of Members of the Parliament to each other and the members of the public they represent. Today, all Members should do what they think is right, and others should leave them alone to do so.

Well, in the event, only seven MPs, of whom six Conservatives, voted against the motion.

Not surprisingly, most MPs weighed in against Boris in this late afternoon debate that extended until the end of that day’s session, around 9:45 p.m.

Only Conservative MP Bob Seely raised a question about Tony Blair’s spurious reasons for going to war with Iraq. This intervention occurred when the Shadow Leader of the House, Thangam Debnonaire, spoke:

I want to make a brief point. I am voting in support of the motion and I did not vote in support of Owen Paterson, but I remind the hon. Member that we got rid of Boris Johnson a year ago because we lost faith in him, because he was probably not telling the truth. I am also an Iraq war veteran, and the reality is that when Tony Blair lied and lied and lied, you lot covered up for him.

Former Prime Minister Theresa May gave her speech at 5:02 p.m.:

I do not intend to dwell on the events covered in the report of the Committee of Privileges or its conclusions. It is a rigorous report and I accept its findings. I do wish to comment on the role of the Committee, the role of this House and the importance of today’s debate and vote for our political life, this Parliament and our democracy.

It is not easy to sit in judgment on friends and colleagues. One day we are judging their behaviour, the next day we may be standing next to them in the queue in the Members’ Tea Room. I know that it is not easy because, as Prime Minister, I had to take decisions based on judgments about the behaviour of friends and colleagues—decisions that affected their lives and, potentially, their careers. But friendship and working together should not get in the way of doing what is right.

I commend members of the Privileges Committee for their painstaking work and for their dignity in the face of slurs on their integrity. The House should, as the Leader of the House said, thank all of them for their service and for being willing to undertake the role. Particular thanks should go to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for being willing to stand up to chair the Committee when the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) rightly recused himself. This Committee report matters, this debate matters and this vote matters. They matter because they strike at the heart of the bond of trust and respect between the public and Parliament that underpins the workings of this place and of our democracy.

Let us consider the pious Mrs May. One week after this debate, on Monday, June 26, The Telegraph tweeted that she, too, had attended a party during lockdown on the parliamentary estate. As we can see, Guido Fawkes got there first:

Guido posted that Theresa May attended an event on November 24, 2020, two weeks before the one in Deputy Speaker Dame Eleanor Laing’s office which Bernard Jenkin MP attended: the December 8 birthday party for his wife Anne, Baroness Jenkin. Anne is wearing the white coat and was also present, allegedly, at the November 24 event:

Guido has more photos and more on the story (emphases in red his):

Bernard Jenkin’s “cowardly” silence hasn’t deterred Guido from digging deeper into the Jenkin’s parties. Yes, you read that right, parties – plural. Guido can reveal that Anne Jenkin’s lockdown-breaking birthday bash in Eleanor Laing’s office wasn’t an isolated event. Just two weeks prior, when the country was in an even stricter lockdown, she hosted a “(socially distanced) party”…

At the time, lockdown regulations made clear “you must not meet socially indoors with family or friends unless they are part of your household… or support bubble”. There was no such thing as a  “socially distanced party” permitted, and “everyone who can work effectively from home must do so”. There was no justification for an indoor social celebration – even if it was a ‘work event’.

The party concerned a support group for women MPs, Women2Win, which was celebrating its 15th anniversary:

Perhaps this is why Charlotte Carew Pole, director of Women2Win, has become unwilling to speak to Guido. Despite initially responding receptively, after the topic of conversation became apparent she seemed to suffer immediate amnesia. All she could say was that she didn’t run Women2Win’s social media and that she couldn’t remember any details. Although Charlotte insisted she would get back to Guido, she never has…

Guido did manage to get through to two other attendees of the celebration, held as a hybrid event in Policy Exchange’s Westminster offices. Theresa May was there in person, as Boris Johnson and David Cameron addressed the event via zoom. The hybrid event could arguably be a “work event”. It was certainly a live-streamed public event.

More problematic is that the event was followed by celebratory drinks described as a “birthday party” and Theresa May stuck around briefly for a few pictures – though apparently left swiftly and Guido has seen no pictorial evidence she had a lockdown-breaking drink. Whilst one of Guido’s source insists masks were worn at all times, the private photos differ from the publicity photos…

Baroness Nicholson pictured on the left (top photo) has no drink, whereas Anne Jenkin (on the right) has a drink in hand. In publicity photos everyone is masked with no drinks in hand. One attendee insisted it wasn’t a party, although they did describe it as “joyful” and “a celebration, definitely”.

The Telegraph article stated:

Theresa May is under pressure to clarify her involvement in a “socially distanced party” she attended during the second full lockdown.

The former prime minister was pictured taking part in an event held on Nov 24 2020 to celebrate the 15th anniversary of Women2Win, a Tory pressure group she co-founded with Baroness Jenkin …

The Guido Fawkes website reported that Mrs May participated in a hybrid discussion in person at the headquarters of the Policy Exchange think tank, before staying to pose for a number of photographs.

A social media post on the Women2Win Instagram account posted shortly before the event read: “When Anne Jenkin and Theresa May founded Women2Win 15 years ago, there were 17 Conservative women MPs.

“Today there are 87 and we think that deserves a (socially distanced) party.”

The Guido Fawkes report went on to claim the panel was “followed by celebratory drinks described as a ‘birthday party’”.

Mrs May was reported to have left prior to this, and is seen socially distancing from other participants in pictures from before and after the discussion.

There is no suggestion Mrs May broke any Covid rules. In its original article, Guido Fawkes wrote: “The hybrid event could arguably be a ‘work event’. It was certainly a live-streamed public event.”

A spokesman for the former prime minister declined to comment when approached by The Telegraph.

There is no evidence that Boris Johnson broke Covid rules, either, including at the surprise birthday ‘party’ his wife Carrie organised. His cake stayed in its Tupperware container and Boris was photographed socially distancing from Rishi Sunak and others there. It lasted only a few minutes.

Moving away from Mrs May, with regard to Baroness Jenkin’s birthday party on December 8, which Dame Eleanor Laing hosted in her conference room on the parliamentary estate, we learned that another Conservative MP, Virginia Crosbie, was in attendance. Pictured below are Baroness Jenkin, Virginia Crosbie and their hostess, Dame Eleanor Laing:

The aforementioned Telegraph article said:

It came as a ministerial aide to Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, apologised “unreservedly” after attending a drinks party also said to have involved Baroness Jenkin.

Yes, here is a photo of Hancock and Crosbie during their time at the Department of Health and Social Care:

The article continues:

Virginia Crosbie, the Conservative MP for Ynys Môn and Mr Hancock’s parliamentary private secretary during the pandemic, is alleged to have co-hosted the event with the Tory peer on Dec 8 2020, the date of their respective 54th and 65th birthdays.

A ban on socialising indoors was in place in London at the time of the reported gathering. It has come under additional scrutiny after her husband Sir Bernard Jenkin, who was allegedly present, sat on the privileges committee of MPs that recommended Boris Johnson, the former prime minister, be suspended from Parliament for 90 days.

Ms Crosbie said: “The invitation for this event was not sent out by me. I attended the event briefly, I did not drink and I did not celebrate my birthday. I went home shortly after to be with my family.

“I apologise unreservedly for a momentary error of judgment in attending the event.”

Sir Bernard has denied attending a drinks party and an ally has said no rules were broken.

Let’s look at the party Theresa May attended for Women2Win, at which Baroness Jenkin was present:

Now let’s look at the joint Baroness Jenkin-Virginia Crosbie birthday party on December 8:

Guido suggested via tweet that this might be a case for Inspector Columbo:

Guido’s post was, rightly, quite pointed:

In the WhatsApp invitation from Anne Jenkin, the party is described as “joint birthday drinks“. It was both Virginia Crosbie’s 54^th and Anne Jenkin’s 65^th birthdays on December 8, 2020.* Why let a little thing like lockdown get in the way of having a party?

Guido should say that on the list of MPs invited, there are three current cabinet minister’s names and the name of one former PM. Guido has managed to speak to only one of those names. She got her SpAd to deny her attendance after claiming she couldn’t remember. The others are refusing to comment.

The obvious thing for the Metropolitan Police to do is the same they did with the suspected attendees at the Downing Street parties. Send a formal letter inviting them to pay a Fixed Notice Penalty or risk more serious consequences in Court if they deny attending and the evidence shows otherwise. As Bernard Jenkin sanctimoniously reminded us on the Privileges Committee: no matter how high we are, none of us are above the law…

*We are aware that date per the text message was a Tuesday not a Wednesday. We have other meta-data evidence confirming the time and place was Tuesday evening December 8, 2020.

Six hours after Guido broke the story, Virginia Crosbie issued a written apology:

What are we to conclude from a written apology? Boris Johnson made several apologies in the House of Commons but to no avail. The kangaroo court went after him anyway.

Therefore, why should it be any different for another MP? Is the only difference that Boris was Prime Minister?

Boris believed that civil servants were telling him the truth — that he was not breaking the rules with these brief leaving dos and the equally brief surprise birthday party.

All of these MPs should be investigated.

Fortunately, on Thursday, June 28, Guido Fawkes appealed for help from insiders to expose them:

Guido’s accompanying post lays out the ways that people in the know can contact him and his team in safety.

He warns that he has heard of more lockdown violations by MPs, including Dame Eleanor Laing:

Since we broke the story about Anne Jenkin’s party in Parliament, we have been getting snippets of tips about other lockdown legislators’ lawbreaking parties in Westminster. We know of other parties held by Deputy Speaker Eleanor Laing in her offices on other days. We know of other MPs attending those parties. We also know of other parties held elsewhere. Guido believes that there is a cover-up being quietly organised by senior MPs who realise that on this issue “We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

This is a call for information to add to our dossier. If you have evidence, invitations via WhatsApp or emails, better still photos. These parties were not held in total secrecy. Staff in Parliament will have known…

Sources are anonymous (unless you want credit). Who is on the fiddle? Who is lying? If you know “the line” is a lie, ask yourself why you got into politics; was it to cover up the truth or to tell it?

At least one member of the public thinks the Speaker of the House Sir Lindsay Hoyle should investigate the do that Deputy Speaker Dame Eleanor Laing hosted:

Someone else noted that another gathering in Boris’s Partygate was very brief, a leaving do for his adviser Lee Cain. That brief event was different to the joint birthday party gathering:

Now let’s look at the conclusion of Theresa May’s speech about the Privileges Committee report:

As MPs, we are in some sense leaders in our communities, but with that leadership comes responsibility. We each and every one of us bear the responsibility to put the people that we serve first, to be honest with them and with one another, and to uphold the standards of this place. We all know that in the rough and tumble of parliamentary debate between people of opposing views there will be exaggeration, careful use of facts and, in some cases, misrepresentation, but when something is said that is wrong and misleads the House, we are all—not just Ministers—under an obligation not to repeat it and to correct it at the first opportunity. Above all, we are all responsible for our own actions. Beyond that, this House has a responsibility to ensure that standards are upheld by showing that we are willing to act against the interests of colleagues when the facts require it. In this case, I believe they do.

The decision of the House on the report is important: to show the public that there is not one rule for them and another for us; indeed, we have a greater responsibility than most to uphold the rules and set an example. The decision also matters to show that Parliament is capable of dealing with Members who transgress the rules of the House—if you like, to show the sovereignty of Parliament. Following an unsettling period in our political life, support for the report of the Privileges Committee will be a small but important step in restoring people’s trust in Members of this House and of Parliament.

I say to Members of my own party that it is doubly important for us to show that we are prepared to act when one of our own, however senior, is found wanting. I will vote in favour of the report of the Privileges Committee and I urge all Members of this House to do so—to uphold standards in public life, to show that we all recognise the responsibility we have to the people we serve and to help to restore faith in our parliamentary democracy.

Oh, the irony!

The next MP to speak was Labour’s Harriet Harman, who chaired the Privileges Committee investigation after the head of the Committee, another Labour MP, Chris Bryant, recused himself because he was so anti-Boris.

She accused Boris of deliberately misleading Parliament. How could she or any other MP know that unless they had eyes into his soul, as Elizabeth I once put it:

The evidence shows that, on a matter that could hardly have been of more importance, Mr Johnson deliberately misled the House, not just once but on numerous occasions. The evidence shows that he denied what was true, asserted what was not true, obfuscated and deceived. It is clear that he knew the rules and guidance: as Prime Minister, he was telling the country about them nearly every day. He knew that there were gatherings: he was there. He knew that the gatherings breached the rules and the guidance. Yet he told the House that the rules and the guidance were followed in No. 10 “at all times”.

Misleading the House is not a technicality but a matter of great importance. Our democracy is based on people electing us to scrutinise the Government, and, on behalf of the people we represent, we have to hold the Government to account. We cannot do that if Ministers are not truthful. Ministers must be truthful; if they are not, we cannot do our job. It is as simple and as fundamental as that. The House asked the Privileges Committee to inquire into the allegations that Mr Johnson, who was then Prime Minister, misled the House. That is the mechanism—the only mechanism—that the House has to protect itself in the face of a Minister misleading it. We undertook the inquiry, scrupulously sticking to the rules and processes laid down by this House under Standing Orders, and following the precedents of this House.

At that point, a Boris supporter, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was Leader of the House under his tenure, intervened:

I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Lady could say something of her own position in relation to the precedent set by a judicial Committee of the House of Lords, when a decision in which Lord Hoffmann was involved was set aside not because he was biased, but because of the perception of bias. In relation to her famous tweets, how does she think she met the Hoffmann test?

Harman defended her position:

I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman. I was appointed by this House in the expectation that I would chair the Committee, with no one speaking against it. After the tweets were brought to light and highlighted, as I am concerned about the perception of fairness on the Committee—I agree that perception matters—I made it my business to find out whether it would mean that the Government would not have confidence in me if I continued to chair the Committee. I actually said, “I will be more than happy to step aside, because perception matters and I do not want to do this if the Government do not have confidence in me. I need the whole House to have confidence in the work that it has mandated.” I was assured that I should continue the work that the House had mandated, and with the appointment that the House had put me into, and so I did just that.

She also mentioned Theresa May, whom the Opposition always defends, possibly because the former Prime Minister did her best to thwart Brexit, even though she made it appear that she was on-side. May is also soft on illegal immigration, which also pleases the Opposition parties:

Like the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, with whom I share a great deal—including, it turns out, a necklace—I thank every member of the Privileges Committee.

Yes, both MPs wear what are called ‘power necklaces’, huge things slung around their necks.

This is the one that Harman was wearing when she gave her speech:

Far from flattering, although The Telegraph‘s fashion writer seems to like them. This is from March 23, complete with photos:

As statement necklaces go, Harman’s is peerless. That oversized gold chains are ultra-fashionable this season is the least of it: of far more significance is the symbolism. You don’t need a GCSE in cultural studies to know that chains are a symbol of bondage, or that prisoners are shackled by them upon their arrest. “It radiates justice like the chains on Marley’s ghost in A Christmas Carol”, one Twitter user noted, while others compared it to the spider brooch worn by Lady Hale in 2019, when the supreme court ruled that Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament during the Brexit crisis was unlawful. Well-played, Harman. Well-played.

It’s a pity that the paper didn’t mention May’s Wilma Flintstone neck pebbles.

Let’s look at Harriet Harman for a moment.

On May 26, 2022, while Boris was still PM, Labour appointed Harman in Chris Bryant’s place to investigate Partygate:

Guido told us that Harman was hardly above receiving fines herself:

… The vacancy was created when Chris Bryant stepped down because he didn’t want the investigation to look biased. Guido’s not sure whether any Tory in the country is going to accept Harman’s judgements as politically neutral…

If Labour goes ahead with the bizarre appointment, not only will the PM be judged by someone equally as biased as Bryant, having called for the PM to quit, it’ll be one of the few Labour MPs who’s racked up more Fixed Penalty Notices than Boris. As Guido pointed out when Harman accused the PM of breaking the laws he made, she was charged with three speeding offences during her time as a minister…

Guido posted the penalties from 2003, 2007 and 2010.

On May 30, 2023, Guido alum Christian Calgie alleged in The Express that Harman received reports on Boris from one of her relatives via marriage:

Alex Chisholm, Permanent Secretary for the Cabinet Office, is related to Privileges Committee chair Harriet Harman, the Express can reveal.

The familial tie is yet another link between the top Government department at the heart of the Partygate saga, sparking new questions about the neutrality and independence of the civil service.

Last week, top Mandarin Alex Chisholm passed Boris Johnson’s diaries over to both the Met Police and Thames Valley police amid allegations from Government lawyers that visits to Mr Johnson’s grace-and-favour mansion Chequers had broken Covid rules.

The Cabinet Office then handed the diaries over to Ms Harman’s Privileges Committee, which is investigating whether the former PM “recklessly” misled Parliament over lockdown parties.

A few weeks earlier, on May 12, Guido posted that Harman had been in touch with the then-senior civil servant Sue Gray, who, although she was supposed to be impartial, had allegedly agreed by then to become an adviser to Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer. Impartiality?

Guido wrote:

Chief Partygate investigator-turned Labour Chief of Staff Sue Gray was in personal contact with Privileges Committee chair Harriet Harman while Gray was still a civil servant. According to Sky News, Harman made frequent, direct contact with Gray in the early stages of the Kangaroo Court’s Partygate probe, claiming privately “I just speak to Sue”. A Privileges Committee spokesperson insists this is all above board:

The chair with the full knowledge of the committee has had regular contact with a number of ministers and officials in the Cabinet Office to discuss matters such as the provision of documents to the committee, the identity of potential witnesses and the welfare of civil servants who may be affected by the inquiry.

They also stressed “the privileges committee is not relying on evidence gathered by Sue Gray“. Just like how she ‘wasn’t’ working on the Partygate probe after opening talks with Labour – until it was revealed she was, after all…

Starmer claimed Richard Sharp being appointed to the BBC was corrupt because he was helpful to then PM Boris on an unrelated matter when the role was being discussed. Gray being appointed to Starmer’s office however is not corrupt despite when the role was being discussed her being helpful to the man who wants to be PM in getting rid of his most potent campaigning opponent. Completely different.

Going back further, to August 2019, weeks after Boris became Prime Minister, Harman was having none of his new position and said she should be a caretaker PM in order to prevent a no-deal Brexit:

We knew then how anti-Boris she was.

One month later, she decided to put her name into the ring to become the second female Speaker of the House, following news that John Bercow, who began as a Conservative but then revealed his left-wing, anti-Brexit stances during his tenure, was standing down.

On September 13, Guido posted the full list of MPs wanting to succeed Bercow. As he was technically a Conservative, a Labour MP would have to succeed him. Of Harman, Guido wrote:

The (self-described) ‘Mother of the House’. Pitching herself as ‘continuity Bercow.’ That will go down well with Remainers but is unlikely to pick up much Tory support…

Guido had his finger on the pulse even at that early stage:

Harriet Harman has the most sophisticated operation and the most support from the Labour benches. Another serious contender at this stage is Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle.

Well done. Hoyle was duly elected Speaker several weeks later.

In the meantime, Harman appeared to allege that the Commons never had a woman Speaker, which it surely did in the 1990s with Betty Boothroyd:

Harman was even an MP when Boothroyd was Speaker:

By November 4, former Labour Party member, Daily Mail journalist and Glenda Jackson’s son Dan Hodges tweeted that Harman’s campaign had been a disaster:

This was Harman’s pitch that day, which did not go down well:

Later that afternoon, Harman signalled to the then-Father of the House, then-Conservative MP Ken Clarke, that she was ending her candidature:

In the end, Labour MPs carried Sir Lindsay Hoyle from their benches to the Speaker’s chair, a longstanding Commons tradition going back to when an elected Speaker did not want to take up the post.

Moving closer to the present, on December 7, 2021, The Sun‘s political editor Harry Cole, another Guido alum, tweeted that Harman would not be seeking re-election in the next general:

That is why she was so determined to get Boris. She wanted to leave a lasting legacy.

On March 17, 2023, Guido posted that Harman seemed to have come to a conclusion even before grilling Boris as part of her investigation. Fairness?

When Harman interviewed Boris on March 22, she told him that Sue Gray would not be a witness:

Boris reminded Harman of her biased tweets against him:

Guido has a full rundown of the Committee’s grilling of the then-MP, who was by then no longer PM, along with these videos.

Note Harman’s power necklace:

Harman even brought up a speeding metaphor:

16:50 – Whilst berating Johnson’s assurances, Harriet Harman asked “if I was going at 100mph and I saw the speedometer saying 100mph – it would be a bit odd, wouldn’t it, if I said somebody assured me that I wasn’t?”. A peculiar choice of metaphor – coming from Harriet. Would this be the same Harriet Harman caught speeding twice, banned from driving for seven days and fined £400?

The anti-Boris Conservative MP Charles Walker, who is another MP not standing for re-election, asked Boris if he thought he was up before a kangaroo court:

Boris gave him a polite response.

The Mail‘s Sarah Vine, Michael Gove’s ex-wife, thought that Boris had done admirably:

However, there is a long-forgotten past to Harriet Harman, one that my British readers remember and one that I mentioned in my 2011 post, ‘More on the Fabians, the Frankfurt School and society today’:

– Sanctimonious politicians whose minds are in the gutter.  In my 2010 post on the Fabians and Labour politicians, I wrote that they presented themselves very well on television and radio interviews.  Between 1997 and 2010, they articulately pointed out the shortcomings of British taxpayers who smoked, drank and ate too much.  If we were not guilty of any of those, then we consumed too much electricity and gas.  We drove too much.  We didn’t get enough exercise.  We didn’t read to our children enough.  The list was endless.  But did you know that one of these MPs, Harriet Harman, in an earlier incarnation as legal officer in 1978 for the organisation now called Liberty, wanted to lower the age of consent to 14 and to decriminalise incest? British readers should also note that at that same time Patricia Hewitt — later a Secretary for Health (!) under Tony Blair — was the general secretary for what was then the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL):

It also defended self-confessed paedophiles in the press and allowed them to attend its meetings …

In NCCL’s official response to the Government’s plans to reform sex laws, dubbed a “Lolita’s Charter”, it suggested reducing the age of consent and argued that “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage”. It claimed that children can suffer more from having to retell their experiences in court or the press.

What I did not know until 2014, was that Harman’s husband, Jack Dromey, who died in 2022, had chaired the NCCL in the 1970s. In 2014, he was still a serving MP and remained so until his rather sudden death.

On February 28, 2014, Guido reported on a story in The Sun, which appeared during the Leveson inquiry:

… Earlier this week Jack Dromey insisted:

During my time on the NCCL Executive, I was at the forefront of repeated public condemnations of PIE and their despicable views. I was then the first to argue that paedophiles could have no place in NCCL.

Today’s dark revelations in the Sun cast doubt over the credibility of that denial. While Dromey was sitting on the NCCL executive, general secretary Patricia Hewitt put her name to a press release arguing that it was acceptable to have sex with children as young as ten. Recipients of the press release were urged to contact Hewitt for further information.

Not only that, Dromey personally attended a meeting where the minutes of which show:

It was agreed that our evidence should propose that i