Wasn't the original point that Bojo saying the parliamentary court was a KC somehow a criminal offense?

The hashing out of what exactly he meant by KC seems relevant, and simply assuming that Bojo of all people uses any given word in the common parlance seems dubious.

Maybe he did, though. If so, and he was basically saying parliament was cracked, then ... what?
Worst case scenario... is that actually illegal? Can he be held in contempt of parliament for opinions stated to the press?
IDK the law.


And what is the not worst case scenario?
Does the law require motive? Proving motive is notoriously hard. He can say he was being dramatic or comedic, or playing up to the cameras... he can deflect his actual motivation into obscurity, which we all know Bojo is practiced at.

Is the ambiguity of the meaning of words, specifically KC, in this case relevant?

If not... does that actually prove his point?
I.e. if his statement is asserted to mean what Parliament chooses to be offended at and punishes him despite his adamant assertion that his motive was not offensive... isn't that kinda KC-ish?