Proponderance of Evidence I used means that there is s more evidence than not that he may want to speak to them
I'm finding this thread very hard to follow. Preponderance of Evidence normally means a body of circumstantial 'evidence'. In law, if it is necessary to make a binary decision and there is no proof (proof being unequivocal), then circumstantial evidence may be woven into a narrative to make a case.
I think what you mean here is not what you stated (which is effectively no morethan no smoke without fire) but an accumulation of genuine proof. And I would agree with you.
Johnson is a proven liar from way back, and more recently he continues to make claims that are quickly shown to have been false. There is no 'circumstantial' about it, and the careful weighing of evidence is unneccessary. The fact there is so much of it, and people seem to disregard it, is the baffling thing. People can't even claim 'whatabout Corbyn' any more
I think the press are interesting. Johnson was asked a tough question yesterday and did his usual subject changing, ending in a patriotic rallying call with statements of the obvious with which nobody could disagree. Yet the questioner did not then say 'But PM, you did not answer my question and instead went off on one about how great it is that so many people are getting vaccinated. I asked you about the rule breaking at your party during lockdown when ordinary people were banned from attending the funeral of their own parent; your cold-hearted hypocrisy, and your continued lies about it.'. They keep letting him off the hook. Are they waiting for the right moment? If so, who will be Brutus, I wonder?