Bringing a professional negligence claim in England and Wales requires careful compliance with procedural rules and strict evidential standards. Claimants must establish duty of care, breach, causation and measurable loss while adhering to the Pre-Action Protocol for Professional Negligence and the Civil Procedure Rules. Many otherwise valid claims falter because they are issued too late,…

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson held key responsibilities including National Security, MI6, Intelligence, Protection of UK Citizens, International Relations As PM he misled Parliament about 'Partygate'. original image Guardian Editorial 22 March 2023

JOHNSON'S 'COVER-UP' JUSTICE FOR DAWN STURGESS Mother-of-three Dawn Sturgess died after coming into contact with the Russian nerve agent Novichok original image BBC

JOHNSON'S COVER-UP Indirect responsibility for murder of Dawn Sturgess original image Guardian Editorial 22 March 2023

‘The common denominator linking Lord Evgeny Lebedev, Alexander Lebedev (a ‘former’ KGB agent), and Boris Johnson is primarily their interactions and the broader context of Russian influence in UK politics, as well as the handling of sensitive security and political issues.

Meetings and Relationships

- Boris Johnson, as the UK's Foreign Secretary and later Prime Minister, had significant and controversial interactions with the Lebedev family. In April 2018, Johnson attended a party at Evgeny Lebedev's Italian mansion, where he also met Alexander Lebedev, a former KGB agent, without any officials or security present. This meeting occurred shortly after Johnson had attended a NATO meeting to discuss the Russian response to the Salisbury Novichok poisonings [2][3].

Security Concerns and Protocol Breaches

- The private meeting between Johnson and Alexander Lebedev raises serious security concerns. Former MI6 agent Christopher Steele highlighted that such off-the-books meetings pose significant risks to the UK, as they may not have been properly recorded or reported back into the government. This breach of protocol is particularly alarming given Johnson's role as Foreign Secretary at the time [1][2].

Delay of the ISC Russia Report

- The delay in publishing the ISC Russia Report, which investigated Russian interference in UK politics, including the Brexit referendum and other events, is another critical point. Johnson's government was criticised for delaying the report's release until after the 2019 general election, despite the report being completed in March 2019. This delay has been seen as an attempt to avoid scrutiny of potential Russian influence during the election period [2][4].

Appointments and Conflicts of Interest

- Boris Johnson's decision to nominate Evgeny Lebedev for a peerage in 2020, despite concerns from UK intelligence agencies, further complicates the picture. This move has been criticised for potentially allowing Russian influence to penetrate deeper into British politics and society [1][2].

Handling of Russian Aggression

- The way Johnson's government handled incidents of Russian aggression, such as the polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and the Novichok poisonings of the Skripals and Dawn Sturgess, has been questioned. The timing of Johnson's meeting with Alexander Lebedev, just after discussing Russia's actions with NATO, adds to the concerns about his judgement and the potential for Russian influence [2][3].

Misconduct and Leadership Failures

- Johnson's overall handling of these issues, including his ill-judged prime ministerial ambitions and the allegations of misconduct in public office, obstruction of justice, and breach of duty, have raised significant questions about his leadership and integrity. His actions have been criticised for not adequately addressing the threat of Russian influence and for potentially emboldening Russian aggression, including Putin’s invasion of Ukraine [1][2].

In summary, the common denominator is the complex web of relationships and interactions between Boris Johnson and the Lebedev family, set against the backdrop of concerns about Russian influence in UK politics, breaches of security protocols, and the handling of sensitive security and political issues.’

Citations:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag4qR91JUOc 

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-ap-evgeny-lebedev-london-conservative-party-b2131696.html 

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/novichok-nerve-agent-use-in-salisbury-uk-government-response 

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_Security_Committee_Russia_report 

[5] https://www.dw.com/en/uk-russia-report-brexit/a-54182899 

[6] https://www.europeansources.info/record/uk-conservative-party-leadership-contest/ 

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Conservative_Party_leadership_election 

[8] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50765773

NOTES Explain why it is important for users of AI Language software to exercise critical thinking, independently verify validity, reliability -'fact-check' data from generally reliable sources and not solely rely on the model's responses for important decisions or information. Llewelyn Pritchard 21 October 2024: 

Perplexity: ‘Exercising critical thinking, independently verifying the validity and reliability of data, and fact-checking information from generally reliable sources are crucial for users of AI language software for several reasons:

Hallucinations and Inaccuracies: AI language models, even advanced ones, can generate responses that are not grounded in reality, a phenomenon known as "hallucinations." These models can confidently provide incorrect or misleading information, which can be particularly problematic if users rely solely on the model's responses [1][2][4].

Limited Training Data: AI models are trained on specific datasets, and their accuracy is limited by the quality and scope of these datasets. For example, Google's DataGemma tool, while effective, has limitations in terms of the data it can access and the questions it can answer accurately. If the relevant data is not in the model's training set or database, the model may not provide accurate or reliable information [1].

Real-Time Information Challenges: AI models often struggle with real-time events or breaking news, as their training data may not include the latest developments. This can lead to incorrect or outdated information being provided, as seen in the case of Meta AI's responses to the attempted assassination of former President Trump [4].

Subjective Framing and Nuance: Fact-checking is not always straightforward, as AI models may not capture the nuances of human communication. A quote or statement might be technically accurate but misleading due to the context or framing. Human judgement is often necessary to understand the full implications and context of the information provided [5].

Error and Unknown Rates: Studies have shown that even the most accurate AI fact-checking models have error rates. For instance, Originality.ai, which has a high accuracy rate of 72.3%, still has a small error rate and may return "unknown" results for certain queries. This underscores the need for users to verify information independently [2][3].

Manipulated Media and Information Warfare: Bad actors can engineer ways to circumvent AI fact-checking tools, spreading misinformation or manipulated media that might evade detection. This means that relying solely on AI for fact-checking can leave users vulnerable to misinformation [5].

Impact on Decision-Making: For important decisions or critical information, relying solely on AI model responses can be risky. Incorrect or misleading information can have significant consequences, whether in personal, professional, or public contexts. Independent verification from reliable sources ensures that decisions are based on accurate and trustworthy information.

In summary, exercising critical thinking and independently verifying the validity and reliability of data from generally reliable sources are essential because AI language models can generate inaccurate information, have limitations in their training data, struggle with real-time events, lack nuance in their responses, and are not immune to errors or manipulation. These factors highlight the importance of a multi-layered approach to fact-checking to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information used for important decisions.

Citations:

[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/09/12/1103926/googles-new-tool-lets-large-language-models-fact-check-their-responses/ 

[2] https://originality.ai/blog/ai-fact-checking-accuracy 

[3] https://originality.ai/automated-fact-checker 

[4] https://about.fb.com/news/2024/07/review-of-fact-checking-label-and-meta-ai-responses/ 

[5] https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/12/ai-will-start-fact-checking-we-may-not-like-the-results/ 

[6] https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/Steps-in-fact-checking-AI-generated-content 

[7] https://libguides.uel.ac.uk/artificial-intelligence/using-ai-critically 

[8] https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/how-generative-ai-chatbots-responded-questions-and-fact-checks-about-2024-uk-general-election 

Source: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/explain-why-it-is-important-fo-wLezjtPtReucQFNpfsd9ZA #OpenSourceAI #Perplexity 21 October 2024 

DeepAI: ‘The text emphasises the importance of critical thinking and independent verification when using AI language models. Key points include:

1. Inaccuracy: AI may produce plausible but inaccurate information, which can be outdated or false.

2. Contextual Understanding: AI lacks human-like comprehension, leading to incomplete or skewed responses.

3. Bias: AI training data may include biases, which can influence the outputs and reinforce stereotypes.

4. Source Variability: AI responses can stem from both reputable and unreliable sources, necessitating careful evaluation of credibility.

5. Static Information: AI cannot provide real-time updates, making it essential to consult current, trustworthy sources for changing topics.

6. Complexity: Many subjects require deep understanding that AI responses might not adequately cover.

7. Consequences of Misinformation: Relying solely on AI for critical decisions can lead to severe consequences due to potential misinformation.

8. Promoting Critical Thinking: Engaging critically with information leads to better decision-making and understanding.

In conclusion, while AI can be a useful resource, users should approach its outputs cautiously and verify information to make informed, responsible decisions.’ https://deepai.org/chat DeepAI 21 October 2024

ChatGPT4o: ‘It is essential for users of AI language software to exercise critical thinking and independently verify the validity and reliability of information for several key reasons:

1. Potential for Errors: AI models, while highly advanced, are not infallible. They can generate incorrect, outdated, or misleading information because they rely on vast datasets that may include inaccuracies or biases. Although these models can analyse data efficiently, they don't inherently understand the truthfulness of that data.

2. Bias in Data: The data that AI models are trained on can contain inherent biases that reflect the information they were fed. This may result in responses that perpetuate stereotypes, skewed perspectives, or factual inaccuracies. Critical thinking allows users to identify and account for these biases.

3. Dynamic Nature of Information: The real world is constantly changing, and information - especially in areas like science, politics, or technology - may quickly become outdated. AI models, unless specifically updated or browsing current information, may provide responses that do not reflect the most up-to-date facts. Independent verification ensures that the information is current and reliable.

4. Limitations in Context Understanding: AI can sometimes misunderstand the full context of a user's question or lack nuanced interpretation. While it can produce highly accurate responses in many cases, it might miss subtle details or the broader implications of a question, which a human reviewer or expert could more easily identify.

5. Ethical and Responsible Use: Relying solely on AI-generated content for critical decisions (e.g., medical advice, financial planning, or legal matters) without verification can be risky. AI tools should be seen as aids to decision-making rather than the final authority. Fact-checking ensures that important decisions are based on robust, well-rounded information from multiple reliable sources.

6. Avoiding Misinterpretation: AI models, including language models, generate responses based on probability, not understanding. This means that they can sometimes output responses that seem plausible but are incorrect or misinterpreted. Users need to cross-check information from reputable sources to avoid potential harm.

In summary, critical thinking and independent fact-checking help ensure the responsible and effective use of AI. By verifying the reliability and validity of AI-generated content, users can avoid errors, mitigate bias, and make better-informed decisions.’ 

Source: https://chatgpt.com/c/67164309-62c4-8003-9c1b-58fdbb98ecad ChatGPT4o 21 October 2024

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSy0h0Lxo1P6ZJAuewBDa2zGm_78ggYkvGpzVzkdJVbcPNQafNZ-ayPMuOXC9jQBrOdruPOmeybTQn2/pub https://unitedforclimate.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-common-denominator-linking-lord.html https://landprotectorshumanrightsmovement.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-common-denominator-linking-lord.html https://muskratfallscivilrightsmovement.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-common-denominator-linking-lord.html https://labradorleadstheworld.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-common-denominator-linking-lord.html ‘The common denominator linking Lord Evgeny Lebedev, Alexander Lebedev (a ‘former’ KGB agent), and Boris Johnson is primarily their interactions and the broader context of Russian influence in UK politics, as well as the handling of sensitive security and political issues.’ #AI #Perplexity Llewelyn Pritchard 1 November 2024

Links

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQ4mLpSPlG0cGz-RXCFa21Vo6AshonvWUwxydZu-o3TKvxiEp55ksNOwzw_1tTu-yEO6BLewd24Cg4_/pub JOHNSON DELAY ON RUSSIA DOSSIER HELPS PUTIN, SAYS LITVINENKO WIDOW wife of poisoned ex-spy warns of risks in suppressing report on RUS interference. Luke Harding, Dan Sabbagh 5 Nov 2019 #JohnsonsCoverUp #Sleaze #Fraud #Crime #ECHR #JohnsonLies #JailTime

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yXFGLRVD1pJN3hWySGJ3C8oFmkELlvYPVWx7YLSPV3g/pub https://unitedforclimate.blogspot.com/2024/09/will-dawn-sturgess-public-inquiry-terms.html https://landprotectorshumanrightsmovement.blogspot.com/2024/09/will-dawn-sturgess-public-inquiry-terms.html https://muskratfallscivilrightsmovement.blogspot.com/2024/09/will-dawn-sturgess-public-inquiry-terms.html https://labradorleadstheworld.blogspot.com/2024/09/will-dawn-sturgess-public-inquiry-terms.html Will the Dawn Sturgess Public Inquiry Terms of Reference allow its Report intentionally omitting civil and criminal liability to be ‘spun’ into the Johnson Cover-up Story? Consisting, at the very least of ‘Tory Sleaze’ unethical behaviour in office; ignoring his own agencies’ intelligence advice; breaching National Security in secretive meeting(s) with Alexander Lebedev, Perugia, Italy; media complicity for his own ends with Evgeny Lebedev; Russian Interference EU Referendum 2016; accepting Russian oligarch Conservative Party donations; ‘constitutional corrosion’ epitomised by ‘LondonGrad Laundromat’; enabling Putin’s Brexit by his failed leadership; interfering in an early, possible Russian-Ukraine peace deal; purportedly supporting the welfare of Ukraine whilst more concerned about ‘saving his own skin’; his Crony COVID Contracts and missing five COBRA meetings whilst otherwise distracted - becoming yet another example of unethical behaviour in the UK Government’s way of working? #AI #Perplexity #MoveOnNothingToSeeHere Llewelyn Pritchard 3 October 2024

Boris Johnson's criminal abuse of political power as foreign secretary and prime minister is clearly shown by his misconduct in public office; obstruction of justice; breach of duty and contempt of Parliament. #AI Llewelyn Pritchard 30 Oct 2024

JOHNSON'S 'COVER-UP' JUSTICE FOR DAWN STURGESS Mother-of-three Dawn Sturgess died after coming into contact with the Russian nerve agent Novichok original image BBC

Johnson’s Cover-Up Legal implications: Misconduct in Public Office; Obstruction of Justice; Breach of Duty; Contempt of Parliament #AI #Perplexity #DeepAI #ChatGPT4o Llewelyn Pritchard 19 October 2024

Perplexity: To address the various allegations against Boris Johnson, here are some detailed explanations and the potential legal implications:

Indirect Responsibility for the Death of Dawn Sturgess

- While Boris Johnson is not directly responsible for the death of Dawn Sturgess, who was killed by Novichok nerve agent, his handling of Russian relations and security issues can be scrutinised. The Skripal poisoning incident, which involved the same nerve agent, highlighted lapses in security and the presence of Russian agents in the UK. However, there is no direct link established between Johnson's actions and Sturgess's death [1][4].

Enabling of Brexit 2016 in Putin's Favour

- There is substantial evidence to suggest that Russia supported the Brexit campaign, and Boris Johnson's actions and associations contributed to this narrative. Johnson's backing of the Leave campaign and his connections with figures like Evgeny Lebedev, whose father has ties to Vladimir Putin, are significant. The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report indicated that Russian interference in UK politics is common, and while it did not specifically prove Russian interference in the Brexit referendum, it suggested that such influence could have been a factor [1][3][5].

Ignoring Intelligence Advice

- Johnson has been accused of ignoring intelligence advice on multiple occasions. Notably, he overruled security concerns regarding the nomination of Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords, despite warnings from the security services. This action was described as "unheard of in modern times" and demonstrated a "dangerous disregard for the constitution"[4].

Delaying and Suppressing the Russia Report

- Johnson's government was criticised for delaying the publication of the ISC's "Russia Report," which detailed Russian interference in UK politics. The report was finally published in July 2020, after a nine-month delay, and it highlighted the government's failure to investigate Russian influence on the Brexit referendum thoroughly [1][5].

Secretive Meetings with Alexander Lebedev

- Johnson's secretive meetings with Alexander Lebedev in Italy, particularly after a NATO summit where EU leaders agreed that Russia was likely responsible for the Salisbury nerve agent attacks, raised significant national security concerns. These meetings were not disclosed to relevant officials, and Italian intelligence monitored the gathering due to suspicions of spying activities [4].

Misleading Parliament and Cover-Ups

- Johnson has been accused of misleading Parliament on several occasions, including his handling of the Russia report and his statements on Russian interference. The ISC report criticised the government for not taking adequate action to address Russian meddling, which could be seen as a form of cover-up [2][5].

Awarding of 'Crony COVID Contracts' and Ill-Advised Peerage

- The awarding of COVID contracts to associates and the peerage for Evgeny Lebedev can be seen as examples of cronyism. These actions, while not necessarily criminal, contribute to the narrative of unethical behaviour and potential breaches of public trust [4].

Tory Sleaze and Unethical Behaviour

- Johnson's tenure has been marred by allegations of 'Tory Sleaze,' including unethical behaviour such as accepting donations from Russian oligarchs and engaging in cronyism. These actions, while not necessarily criminal, erode public trust and could be challenged on grounds of misconduct in public office [1][4].

Failure to Attend Emergency COBRA Meetings

- Johnson's absence from emergency COBRA meetings, particularly during critical times such as the COVID-19 pandemic, can be seen as a dereliction of duty. However, this …may… be more of an administrative or procedural issue rather than a criminal one [1].

Media Complicity and Russian Interference

- The involvement of media figures like Evgeny Lebedev, who has ties to Putin, in Johnson's circle raises concerns about media complicity and Russian influence. The ISC report highlighted the role of Russian state-funded media and disinformation campaigns in influencing UK politics [1][3][5].

Accepting Russian Oligarch Donations

- The Conservative Party's acceptance of donations from Russian oligarchs, some of whom have ties to Putin, is a contentious issue. This could be seen as a form of corruption or undue influence, potentially challenging the legitimacy of the government's actions [1][3].

Constitutional Corrosion and London Laundromat

- The term 'Constitutional Corrosion' refers to the broader issue of corruption and influence within the UK system. The 'London Laundromat' refers to the use of the UK financial system to launder illicit funds, often from Russian sources. While these are systemic issues, Johnson's actions and inactions have contributed to this environment [1].

Interfering in the Dawn Sturgess Public Inquiry

- There are no direct allegations that Johnson interfered with the terms of reference for the Dawn Sturgess Public Inquiry. However, the failure to supply WhatsApp messages for the inquest could be seen as an obstruction of justice, although this would need concrete evidence to support such a claim.

Failing to Supply WhatsApp Messages

- The failure to provide WhatsApp messages for the Dawn Sturgess inquest could be seen as an attempt to conceal information. This could potentially be challenged as an obstruction of justice if it is proven that these messages were deliberately withheld.

Interfering in a Russian-Ukraine Peace Deal

- There are no specific allegations that Johnson interfered in a potential Russian-Ukraine peace deal. However, his stance on Ukraine has been inconsistent, with earlier comments blaming the EU for provoking Russian actions and later supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression [2].

Supporting Ukraine While Saving His Own Skin

- Johnson's support for Ukraine has been criticised as being motivated by self-preservation rather than genuine concern. This is more a matter of political judgement than a criminal offence.

Legal Implications

In a UK court of law, several of these actions could be challenged on the following grounds:

- Misconduct in Public Office: Ignoring intelligence advice, delaying and suppressing the Russia report, and overruling security concerns for the nomination of Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords could be argued as misconduct in public office.

- Obstruction of Justice: Failing to supply WhatsApp messages for the Dawn Sturgess inquest could be seen as an obstruction of justice.

- Breach of Duty: Johnson's failure to attend emergency COBRA meetings and his handling of national security issues could be seen as a breach of his duty to protect national security and public interests.

- Contempt of Parliament: Misleading Parliament or failing to provide full disclosure on critical issues like Russian interference could be seen as contempt of Parliament.

However, whether these actions constitute criminal behaviour would depend on the specific evidence presented and the legal framework under which they are challenged. Many of these allegations, while serious, would need to be substantiated with concrete evidence to support any legal action.

Citations:

[1] https://www.labourmovementforeurope.uk/how_putin_helped_johnson_win_brexit_and_no_10 

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-ukraine-russia-brexit-b2024817.html 

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum 

[4] https://www.occrp.org/en/news/channel-4-ex-pm-overruled-security-concerns-over-nominee-to-house-of-lords 

[5] https://www.csis.org/blogs/brexit-bits-bobs-and-blogs/did-russia-influence-brexit 

[6] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-news-russia-report-intelligence-agency-grieve-a9187616.html 

[7] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/21/britain-report-russian-interference-brexit/ 

[8] https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/russia-report-national-security-brexit-referendum-johnson-may-a9630191.html 

Query: Give a valid and reliable explanation of how and why Boris Johnson's (Foreign Secretary and/or Prime Minister) 1. indirect responsibility for the death of Dawn Sturgess and/or 2. his enabling of Brexit 2016 in Putin's favour and/or 3. ignoring his own agencies’ intelligence advice and/or 4. delaying, suppressing their Russia Report and/or 5. his secretive meeting(s) breaching National Security with Alexander Lebedev, Perugia, Italy and/or 6. Johnson’s ‘Cover-Ups’ of established facts and their potential criminal implications 7. his misleading of Parliament and/or 8. his awarding of 'Crony COVID Contracts and /or 9. the ill-advised peerage for his son Evgeny Lebedev 10. his ‘Tory Sleaze’ unethical behaviour in office and/or 11. failure to attend 5 emergency COBRA meetings and/or 12. media complicity for his own ends with Evgeny Lebedev and others and/or 13. Russian Interference EU Referendum 2016 and/or 14. accepting Russian oligarch Conservative Party donations and/or 15. ‘Constitutional Corrosion’ epitomised by ‘LondonGrad Laundromat’ and/or 16. Attempting to nefariously influence with Priti Patel, Home Secretary the terms of reference, Dawn Sturgess Public Inquiry and/or 17. failing to supply, along with Rishi Sunak all ’Whatsapp’ messages for the Dawn Sturgess inquest and/or 18. interfering in an early, possible Russian-Ukraine peace deal and/or 19. purportedly supporting the welfare of Ukraine whilst very likely more concerned about ‘saving his own skin’ and/or 20. his Crony COVID Contracts and/or 21. Missing five COBRA meetings whilst otherwise distracted by his and/or 22. ‘Russian Partygate’ and/or 23. ‘Kremxit Horror Show’ may be justifiably challenged in a UK court of law as criminal behaviour not in the best public interest State of UK.’ 

Source: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/give-a-valid-and-reliable-expl-oShpYj_4T2aSCe3i5Jcqqg#1 

—---

‘To address the various allegations against Boris Johnson, here are some key points and explanations based on the provided sources:

Russian Interference in the Brexit Referendum

- The UK government, under both Theresa May and Boris Johnson, failed to investigate or assess Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum. This lack of action was criticised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which noted that no assessment was conducted, and this issue was avoided due to its sensitive nature [1][2][6].

Ignoring Intelligence Advice

- Johnson, as Prime Minister, was accused of ignoring intelligence advice on several occasions. For example, he overruled security concerns regarding the nomination of Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords, despite warnings from the security services [3][7].

Delaying and Suppressing the Russia Report

- Boris Johnson was accused of personally preventing the publication of the parliamentary report on Russian interference in British politics, which was seen as a significant delay and suppression of critical information [6][4].

Secretive Meetings with Alexander Lebedev

- Johnson faced criticism for his secretive meetings with Alexander Lebedev, a Russian-born media mogul, in Italy. These meetings raised concerns about national security, especially given Alexander Lebedev's connections to Vladimir Putin[3].

Misleading Parliament

- Johnson's actions, such as delaying the Russia report and ignoring intelligence advice, have been seen as attempts to mislead or avoid full disclosure to Parliament [6][4].

Awarding Peerage to Evgeny Lebedev

- The appointment of Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords, despite security concerns, has been criticised as an example of cronyism and a potential breach of national security protocols [3][7].

Other Allegations

- While the sources do not directly link Johnson to the death of Dawn Sturgess (who died from Novichok poisoning), they do highlight his broader failure to address Russian interference and security threats.

- The allegations of 'Tory Sleaze,' crony COVID contracts, and media complicity are part of a broader narrative of unethical behaviour but are not directly linked to the specific issues of Russian interference and national security.

- The 'London Laundromat' and 'Constitutional Corrosion' are terms used to describe broader issues of corruption and influence, but they are not specifically tied to Johnson's actions in the context provided.

Legal Challenges

In a UK court of law, several of these actions could be challenged on the grounds of:

- Breach of Duty: Johnson's failure to investigate Russian interference in the Brexit referendum and his ignoring of intelligence advice could be seen as a breach of his duty to protect national security and democratic processes [1][2][6].

- Misconduct in Public Office: Delaying and suppressing the Russia report, as well as overruling security advice, could be argued as misconduct in public office, as these actions may have compromised national security and public trust [6][4][3].

- Contempt of Parliament: Misleading Parliament or failing to provide full disclosure on critical issues like Russian interference could be seen as contempt of Parliament[6].

However, whether these actions constitute criminal behaviour would depend on the specific legal framework and evidence presented in court. The allegations, while serious, would need to be substantiated with concrete evidence to support any legal action.’

Citations:

[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/21/britain-report-russian-interference-brexit/ 

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/russia-report-national-security-brexit-referendum-johnson-may-a9630191.html 

[3] https://www.occrp.org/en/news/channel-4-ex-pm-overruled-security-concerns-over-nominee-to-house-of-lords 

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/31/boris-johnson-accused-report-russia-dominic-grieve 

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/22/boris-johnson-theres-may-ignored-claims-russia-had-likely-hold-over-donald-trump-ex-spy-christopher-steele-claims 

[6] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-news-russia-report-intelligence-agency-grieve-a9187616.html 

[7] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61427468 

NOTE ‘While Perplexity AI strives to provide accurate and reliable information, it is essential for users to critically evaluate the information obtained and verify it through additional sources when necessary.’ ‘It is always advisable to independently verify and cross-reference the information obtained from any AI system.’

Query: Give a valid and reliable explanation how and why Boris Johnson's as Foreign Secretary and/or Prime Minister 1. indirect responsibility for the death of Dawn Sturgess and/or 2. his enabling of Brexit 2016 in Putin's favour and/or 3. ignoring his own agencies’ intelligence advice and/or 4. delaying, suppressing their Russia Report and/or 5. his secretive meeting(s) breaching National Security with Alexander Lebedev, Perugia, Italy and/or 6. Johnson’s ‘Cover-Ups’ of established facts and their potential criminal implications 7. his misleading of Parliament and/or 8. his awarding of 'Crony COVID Contracts and /or 9. the ill-advised peerage for his son Evgeny Lebedev 10. his ‘Tory Sleaze’ unethical behaviour in office and/or 11. failure to attend 5 emergency COBRA meetings and/or 12. media complicity for his own ends with Evgeny Lebedev and others and/or 13. Russian Interference EU Referendum 2016 and/or 14. accepting Russian oligarch Conservative Party donations and/or 15. ‘Constitutional Corrosion’ epitomised by ‘LondonGrad Laundromat’ and/or 16. Nefariously influencing with Priti Patel, Home Secretary the terms of reference, Dawn Sturgess Public Inquiry and/or 17. failing to supply, along with Rishi Sunak all ’Whatsapp’ messages for the Dawn Sturgess inquest and/or 18. interfering in an early, possible Russian-Ukraine peace deal and/or 19. purportedly supporting the welfare of Ukraine whilst very likely more concerned about ‘saving his own skin’ and/or 20. his Crony COVID Contracts and/or 21. Missing five COBRA meetings whilst otherwise distracted by his and/or 22. ‘Russian Partygate’ and/or 23. ‘Kremxit Horror Show’ may be justifiably challenged in a UK court of law as criminal behaviour not in the best public interest State of UK.’ 

Source: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/give-a-valid-and-reliable-expl-oShpYj_4T2aSCe3i5Jcqqg#0 

—---------

DeepAI:

‘Overview of Allegations Against Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson has faced various allegations related to his handling of national security, Russian relations, and ethical conduct during his tenure as Prime Minister. Below are detailed explanations of these allegations and their potential legal implications.

Indirect Responsibility for the Death of Dawn Sturgess

While Johnson is not directly responsible for the death of Dawn Sturgess, who died from exposure to the Novichok nerve agent, his management of Russian relations and security issues is under scrutiny. The Skripal poisoning incident, which involved the same nerve agent, raised concerns about lapses in security and the presence of Russian agents in the UK. However, no direct link has been established between Johnson's actions and Sturgess's death 

[1]https://dsiweb-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/Transcript-14-October-2024.pdf

Enabling of Brexit 2016 in Putin's Favour

Evidence suggests that Russia supported the Brexit campaign, and Johnson's actions contributed to this narrative. His backing of the Leave campaign and connections with figures like Evgeny Lebedev, whose father has ties to Vladimir Putin, are significant. The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report indicated that while it did not conclusively prove Russian interference in the Brexit referendum, such influence could have been a factor.

Ignoring Intelligence Advice

Johnson has been accused of ignoring intelligence advice, notably overruling security concerns regarding Evgeny Lebedev's nomination to the House of Lords. This decision was described as "unheard of in modern times" and demonstrated a "dangerous disregard for the constitution".

Delaying and Suppressing the Russia Report

Johnson's government faced criticism for delaying the publication of the ISC's "Russia Report," which detailed Russian interference in UK politics. The report was published in July 2020 after a nine-month delay and highlighted the government's failure to thoroughly investigate Russian influence on the Brexit referendum [2] https://academic.oup.com/book/33660/chapter/288202292 

Secretive Meetings with Alexander Lebedev

Johnson's undisclosed meetings with Alexander Lebedev in Italy, particularly after a NATO summit where EU leaders agreed that Russia was likely responsible for the Salisbury nerve agent attacks, raised national security concerns. These meetings were monitored by Italian intelligence due to suspicions of espionage.

Misleading Parliament and Cover-Ups

Johnson has been accused of misleading Parliament regarding the Russia report and Russian interference. The ISC report criticised the government for inadequate action to address Russian meddling, which could be interpreted as a form of cover-up.

Awarding of 'Crony COVID Contracts' and Ill-Advised Peerage

The awarding of COVID contracts to associates and the peerage for Evgeny Lebedev exemplify cronyism. While these actions may not be criminal, they contribute to a narrative of unethical behaviour and potential breaches of public trust.

Tory Sleaze and Unethical Behaviour

Johnson's tenure has been marred by allegations of 'Tory Sleaze,' including accepting donations from Russian oligarchs and engaging in cronyism. These actions, while not necessarily criminal, erode public trust and could be challenged on grounds of misconduct in public office.

Failure to Attend Emergency COBRA Meetings

Johnson's absence from emergency COBRA meetings during critical times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, may be viewed as a dereliction of duty. However, this could be more of an administrative issue rather than a criminal one.

Media Complicity and Russian Interference

The involvement of media figures like Evgeny Lebedev in Johnson's circle raises concerns about media complicity and Russian influence. The ISC report highlighted the role of Russian state-funded media and disinformation campaigns in influencing UK politics. 

2 https://academic.oup.com/book/33660/chapter/288202292 

Accepting Russian Oligarch Donations

The Conservative Party's acceptance of donations from Russian oligarchs is contentious and could be seen as a form of corruption or undue influence, potentially challenging the legitimacy of the government's actions.

Constitutional Corrosion and London Laundromat

'Constitutional Corrosion' refers to broader issues of corruption within the UK system, while the 'London Laundromat' describes the use of the UK financial system to launder illicit funds, often from Russian sources. Johnson's actions have contributed to this environment.

Interfering in the Dawn Sturgess Public Inquiry

There are no direct allegations that Johnson interfered with the Dawn Sturgess Public Inquiry. However, the failure to supply WhatsApp messages for the inquest could be perceived as obstruction of justice, pending concrete evidence.

Failing to Supply WhatsApp Messages

The failure to provide WhatsApp messages for the Dawn Sturgess inquest could be seen as an attempt to conceal information, potentially challenging the legality of such actions as obstruction of justice.

Interfering in a Russian-Ukraine Peace Deal

No specific allegations exist regarding Johnson's interference in a potential Russian-Ukraine peace deal. However, his inconsistent stance on Ukraine has raised questions about his motivations.

Supporting Ukraine While Saving His Own Skin

Johnson's support for Ukraine has been criticised as politically motivated rather than stemming from genuine concern, which is more a matter of political judgement than a criminal offence.

Legal Implications

In a UK court, several of these actions could be challenged on the following grounds:

- Misconduct in Public Office: Ignoring intelligence advice, delaying the Russia report, and overruling security concerns could be argued as misconduct.

- Obstruction of Justice: Failing to supply WhatsApp messages for the Dawn Sturgess inquest could be seen as obstruction.

- Breach of Duty: Johnson's failure to attend emergency meetings and his handling of national security issues could be viewed as a breach of duty.

- Contempt of Parliament: Misleading Parliament or failing to disclose critical information could be seen as contempt.

Ultimately, whether these actions constitute criminal behaviour would depend on the specific evidence presented and the legal framework under which they are challenged. Many allegations, while serious, require substantiation with concrete evidence for any legal action to proceed.’

—----

ChatGPT4o:

‘The allegations against Boris Johnson encompass a wide range of political and ethical concerns, many tied to his handling of national security, Brexit, Russian relations, and political appointments. Here’s a more detailed look at the key points and potential legal implications:

Indirect Responsibility for Dawn Sturgess's Death:

Context: Dawn Sturgess died after being exposed to the Novichok nerve agent, the same substance used in the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal by Russian agents.

Johnson’s Role: While Johnson’s government did handle the diplomatic fallout from the Skripal case, there is no direct evidence linking him to Sturgess's death. Any legal implications would be remote unless his specific actions on security failures were proven negligent.

Enabling Brexit to Putin’s Advantage:

Context: Russian support for Brexit has been widely reported, and Johnson’s ties to figures with Russian connections, such as Evgeny Lebedev, raise concerns about potential foreign influence.

Johnson’s Role: His strong support for Brexit coincided with reports of Russian interest in destabilising European unity. However, while Russia’s influence on Brexit is plausible, no direct legal action could likely arise unless there is clear evidence of illegal activity or knowing complicity.

Ignoring Intelligence Advice:

Context: Johnson is alleged to have ignored advice about the security risks associated with nominating Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords.

Potential Legal Issues: This could be framed as "misconduct in public office" if it were proven that he acted recklessly, ignoring credible warnings and endangering national security.

Delaying and Suppressing the Russia Report:

Context: The Intelligence and Security Committee’s "Russia Report" highlighted failures to address Russian interference in British politics. Johnson’s government was accused of delaying its release.

Potential Legal Issues: Suppressing a government report for political reasons, while unethical, would be difficult to prove as criminal unless it can be demonstrated that there was intent to conceal wrongdoing for personal or party gain.

Secretive Meetings with Alexander Lebedev:

Context: Johnson’s undisclosed meetings with Alexander Lebedev raised national security concerns, especially given Lebedev’s ties to the Kremlin.

Potential Legal Issues: Non-disclosure of such meetings violates basic security protocols, and could be seen as misconduct. However, proving criminality would require evidence that Johnson acted in a way that compromised national security.

Misleading Parliament and Cover-Ups:

Context: Johnson has been accused of misleading Parliament, including his responses regarding Russian interference and the handling of the Russia Report.

Potential Legal Issues: Misleading Parliament could be considered "contempt of Parliament," though it is more likely to result in political censure than criminal prosecution.

Awarding of Crony COVID Contracts:

Context: Johnson faced allegations of favouritism in the awarding of COVID contracts, as well as peerage appointments, including Evgeny Lebedev’s.

Potential Legal Issues: While unethical, awarding contracts to political allies does not necessarily violate the law unless there is evidence of fraud or corrupt practices.

Tory Sleaze Allegations:

Context: Johnson's government faced accusations of sleaze, including accepting donations from Russian oligarchs and engaging in cronyism.

Potential Legal Issues: Although these actions undermine public trust, they would not be considered illegal unless proven to involve bribery or corruption.

Failure to Attend COBRA Meetings:

Context: Johnson’s failure to attend critical emergency meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic sparked accusations of neglect.

Potential Legal Issues: This would likely be seen as poor leadership rather than a criminal offence unless it could be demonstrated that his absence directly led to loss of life or avoidable harm.

Accepting Russian Oligarch Donations:

Context: The Conservative Party, under Johnson, accepted donations from figures connected to Russian oligarchs, raising concerns about undue influence.

Potential Legal Issues: If any link between these donations and policy decisions can be proven, this could raise serious legal concerns over undue influence or corruption.

Failure to Supply WhatsApp Messages:

Context: Johnson’s failure to provide WhatsApp messages relevant to the Dawn Sturgess inquiry could be seen as obstructing the investigation.

Potential Legal Issues: If deliberate obstruction of justice is proven, this could lead to significant legal consequences.

Legal Implications:

Misconduct in Public Office: Ignoring intelligence advice, political appointments contrary to security warnings, or deliberately suppressing critical information (such as the Russia Report) could be argued under this offence.

Obstruction of Justice: Johnson’s failure to supply evidence or cooperate with inquiries (such as withholding WhatsApp messages) might be considered obstruction if there is proof of intent to withhold crucial information.

Contempt of Parliament: Misleading Parliament, particularly around issues of national security and interference, could lead to political sanctions or potential charges of contempt.

Breach of Duty: Johnson’s absence from emergency meetings or failures in handling national security could potentially result in legal challenges for failing to fulfil his duty as a public official, although this would likely be more of a political issue.

While many of these actions raise significant ethical and political concerns, concrete legal actions would depend on the strength of the evidence, the specific legal framework applied, and how these actions are interpreted in court. For now, many of these allegations remain politically damaging but would require robust proof of legal violations to result in prosecution.’