I'm not a leaver, and think the original claims on the NHS were stupid, but also realise that it was made during a political campaign. I hope Boris wins this.
BTW, I hope that the guy bringing this case has properly accounted for the £200,000 he crowdfunded. He'd be stupid not to have ...
So it's okay to lie because it's during a political campaign?
> Genuine question; do we actually know if Blair deliberately lied to Parliament to get support for the Iraq War or was it was just poor intelligence? Facts only please.
He said in the foreword to his dossier:
“I believe that the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt... that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons...”
No honest man could have believed that on the evidence available.
It'd be interesting to get TimT's perspective on that.
> @Casino_Royale said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > Good to see that Leavers are huffing and puffing to be allowed to lie without consequence. I’m not sure that’s going to be very saleable to the general public. > > > > > > If I’m honest, Alastair, I’m very surprised to see you taking the position you have on this; I can only assume out of anger over the original Leave campaign itself. > > > > > > There are ultra hard Remainers - like Jo Maugham QC - who have added their voices to concerns over this today, and underlined that political sanctions should be the punishment and not the criminal law. > > > > > > I’d have thought, as someone with a firm legal background and strong morals, that you’d be the same. > > > > Strong morals require that lying for profit has consequences. All I see is Leavers saying that lying for profit for a cause they approve of should be given a free pass. > > I don’t think anyone is saying that. > > The political consequences are real and clear.
> I've met quite a few stupid people with Oxbridge degrees, although unlike Abbot most of them got to Oxbridge via their parents' wealth and an expensive public school.
>
> That is a fair point.
>
> But much though I dislike her, before her recent illness I have never heard suggestions Abbott was stupid.
>
> Racist, hypocritical, a bully, physically unpreposssing - yes.
>
> Stupid - no.
>
> Cambridge - I'm not going to be so dogmatic for Oxford - take them if they're very bright, or absolutely filthy rich. She wasn't the second.
Physically unprepossessing? Wtf has that to do with anything?
Edit - incidentally, while i fully agree it shouldn't have anything to do with their political status, it does. How many people instinctively disliked Gordon Brown because of his jaw deformity?
How many people here are being very rude about the good looks (or otherwise) of Gove or Rory or Javid etc?
> > Good to see that Leavers are huffing and puffing to be allowed to lie without consequence. I’m not sure that’s going to be very saleable to the general public.
>
> >
>
> > If I’m honest, Alastair, I’m very surprised to see you taking the position you have on this; I can only assume out of anger over the original Leave campaign itself.
>
> >
>
> > There are ultra hard Remainers - like Jo Maugham QC - who have added their voices to concerns over this today, and underlined that political sanctions should be the punishment and not the criminal law.
>
> >
>
> > I’d have thought, as someone with a firm legal background and strong morals, that you’d be the same.
>
>
>
> Strong morals require that lying for profit has consequences. All I see is Leavers saying that lying for profit for a cause they approve of should be given a free pass.
> @Casino_Royale said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > > Good to see that Leavers are huffing and puffing to be allowed to lie without consequence. I’m not sure that’s going to be very saleable to the general public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I’m honest, Alastair, I’m very surprised to see you taking the position you have on this; I can only assume out of anger over the original Leave campaign itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are ultra hard Remainers - like Jo Maugham QC - who have added their voices to concerns over this today, and underlined that political sanctions should be the punishment and not the criminal law. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’d have thought, as someone with a firm legal background and strong morals, that you’d be the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Strong morals require that lying for profit has consequences. All I see is Leavers saying that lying for profit for a cause they approve of should be given a free pass. > > > > > > I don’t think anyone is saying that. > > > > > > The political consequences are real and clear. > > > > He’s favourite to be next Prime Minister. > > The markets are overrating his chances.
I was making the point that the political consequences are far from real and clear. The lying has been so far consequence-free.
> > Good to see that Leavers are huffing and puffing to be allowed to lie without consequence. I’m not sure that’s going to be very saleable to the general public.
>
> >
>
> > If I’m honest, Alastair, I’m very surprised to see you taking the position you have on this; I can only assume out of anger over the original Leave campaign itself.
>
> >
>
> > There are ultra hard Remainers - like Jo Maugham QC - who have added their voices to concerns over this today, and underlined that political sanctions should be the punishment and not the criminal law.
>
> >
>
> > I’d have thought, as someone with a firm legal background and strong morals, that you’d be the same.
>
>
>
> Strong morals require that lying for profit has consequences. All I see is Leavers saying that lying for profit for a cause they approve of should be given a free pass.
I'm not a leaver, and think the original claims on the NHS were stupid, but also realise that it was made during a political campaign. I hope Boris wins this.
BTW, I hope that the guy bringing this case has properly accounted for the £200,000 he crowdfunded. He'd be stupid not to have ...
So it's okay to lie because it's during a political campaign?
Well it seems to be - the Advertising Standards Authority does not have the ability to rule over political advertising no matter how obvious the mis-statement is. Whether it should be is an entirely different matter which is what makes this case so interesting although it won't stop the opposition lying - only those in public service (having won) are liable.
> I've met quite a few stupid people with Oxbridge degrees, although unlike Abbot most of them got to Oxbridge via their parents' wealth and an expensive public school.
>
> That is a fair point.
>
> But much though I dislike her, before her recent illness I have never heard suggestions Abbott was stupid.
>
> Racist, hypocritical, a bully, physically unpreposssing - yes.
>
> Stupid - no.
>
> Cambridge - I'm not going to be so dogmatic for Oxford - take them if they're very bright, or absolutely filthy rich. She wasn't the second.
Physically unprepossessing? Wtf has that to do with anything?
Edit - incidentally, while i fully agree it shouldn't have anything to do with their political status, it does. How many people instinctively disliked Gordon Brown because of his jaw deformity?
How many people here are being very rude about the good looks (or otherwise) of Gove or Rory or Javid etc?
ISTR there have been a fair few comments about how Rory's appearance means he won't win.
> @YBarddCwsc said: > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next. > > Were they lying? > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
Were they lying?
It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
> @nichomar said: > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next. > > > > Were they lying? > > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell. > > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
> @The_Taxman said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > > > > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > > > > > > > It’s an outrage. > > > > > > > > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public. > > > > It should in no way be a criminal matter. > > > > We are not a banana republic. > > > > Very dangerous precedent that needs to be strangled at birth. > > I am sorry I don't agree. If a police officer or any other public official misleads the public they will suffer consequences. If the remain side politicians had contrived to misled in the same way as Johnson they should be prosecuted as well. Politicians need to be held to the standard the law dictates.
Surely the correct thing is simply for the law to take its course.
If people think the law shouldn't apply to MPs, then that should be dealt with by amending the law.
> > > Good to see that Leavers are huffing and puffing to be allowed to lie without consequence. I’m not sure that’s going to be very saleable to the general public.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If I’m honest, Alastair, I’m very surprised to see you taking the position you have on this; I can only assume out of anger over the original Leave campaign itself.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There are ultra hard Remainers - like Jo Maugham QC - who have added their voices to concerns over this today, and underlined that political sanctions should be the punishment and not the criminal law.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I’d have thought, as someone with a firm legal background and strong morals, that you’d be the same.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Strong morals require that lying for profit has consequences. All I see is Leavers saying that lying for profit for a cause they approve of should be given a free pass.
>
> >
>
> > I don’t think anyone is saying that.
>
> >
>
> > The political consequences are real and clear.
>
>
>
> He’s favourite to be next Prime Minister.
>
> The markets are overrating his chances.
I was making the point that the political consequences are far from real and clear. The lying has been so far consequence-free.
He’s gone from being a unifying figure to a divisive figure, split his siblings, fractured his own family, and lost respect of many of his colleagues.
> @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s an outrage. > > > > > > > > > > > > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public. > > > > > > It should in no way be a criminal matter. > > > > > > We are not a banana republic. > > > > > > Very dangerous precedent that needs to be strangled at birth. > > > > I am sorry I don't agree. If a police officer or any other public official misleads the public they will suffer consequences. If the remain side politicians had contrived to misled in the same way as Johnson they should be prosecuted as well. Politicians need to be held to the standard the law dictates. > > Should Blair and his henchman Campbell be prosecuted for lying to us about Iraq?
> @nichomar said: > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next. > > > > Were they lying? > > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell. > > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there.
If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress.
By the same standard, if a politican promises something in their manifesto then does the opposite, why shouldn't the same standards apply?
My point isn't that the Lib Dems are all criminals. It's that we shouldn't be using the courts to harass political opponents, lest we find the lines redrawn to classify our opinions as criminal.
Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
Were they lying?
It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
The LDs didn't win that election so were never in a position to do as they wanted.
And there is a difference between breaking a promise, and making a claim that is disproved by the National Statistician and then carrying on making that claim in the knowledge that it's false.
> Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
>
>
>
> Were they lying?
>
>
>
> It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
>
> You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
Elect them POTUS?
Am sat here listening to the news and how people are interpreting mueller’s statement. To me it implies he was obviously guilty but I can’t indicate a sitting president. To Trump he reckons he is cleared of any wrong doing. Which interpretation is right?
> @Casino_Royale said: > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago. > > The shortness of both still baffles me.
Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
> Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
>
>
>
> Were they lying?
>
>
>
> It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
>
> You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there.
If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress.
By the same standard, if a politican promises something in their manifesto then does the opposite, why shouldn't the same standards apply?
My point isn't that the Lib Dems are all criminals. It's that we shouldn't be using the courts to harass political opponents, lest we find the lines redrawn to classify our opinions as criminal.
Yes but I’m trying to differentiate trying to influence an outcome by deliberate misinterpretation of the facts in comparison to politicians offering unicorns.
> Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
>
>
>
> Were they lying?
>
>
>
> It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
>
> You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there.
If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress.
The LDs never won the GE so no contract with the public was entered into.
> @Pulpstar said: > I remember Labour going to court over political porky pies.The case failed but it was amusing that they had to trash their manifesto as a defence.
And they were a government not an unaccountable and disparate campaign group with no ability to implement anything destined to be wound up as soon as the campaign was over. I think that there’s a broader question as to whether such unaccountable groups are really the best way to organise a referendum but those were the rules.
Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
Were they lying?
It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
What level of accuracy is required for 'the truth' ?
Say the true figure we sent the EU a week was £349,999,999.99, not £350,000,000. Most of us would have no problem with saying it was £350m: it is accurate enough, if not precise. I'd say the same for £342,000,000 - it's just been rounded up and is only a couple of percent out: good enough for these sorts of purposes.
But if it was only £301,000,000, then IMO saying £350m would be incorrect on any basis.
And what happens if we sent the EU £350m in one particular week, but not in others? The text on the bus is still wrong, but the claim is IMO slightly more supportable.
This whole thing is a minefield. But if it starts politicians using sources for their claims, it'll all be for the better ...
> @Casino_Royale said: > > @AndyJS said: > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > It’s an outrage.
Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem.
> @kyf_100 said: > > @nichomar said: > > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next. > > > > > > > > Were they lying? > > > > > > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell. > > > > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue > > You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there. > > If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress. > > By the same standard, if a politican promises something in their manifesto then does the opposite, why shouldn't the same standards apply? > > My point isn't that the Lib Dems are all criminals. It's that we shouldn't be using the courts to harass political opponents, lest we find the lines redrawn to classify our opinions as criminal. >
A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line.
In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required.
We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
> @Peter_the_Punter said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago. > > > > The shortness of both still baffles me. > > Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome. > > I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm. > > What am I missing?
Probably just because she made it last time, so people are betting on that basis.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @kyf_100 said: > > > @nichomar said: > > > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next. > > > > > > > > > > > > Were they lying? > > > > > > > > > > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell. > > > > > > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue > > > > You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there. > > > > If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress. > > > > By the same standard, if a politican promises something in their manifesto then does the opposite, why shouldn't the same standards apply? > > > > My point isn't that the Lib Dems are all criminals. It's that we shouldn't be using the courts to harass political opponents, lest we find the lines redrawn to classify our opinions as criminal. > > > > A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line. > > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required. > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
My point is very simple.
Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying.
It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it.
> @OllyT said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > It’s an outrage. > > Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem.
Not sure what the case to answer is when May increased the amount for the NHS 2020-25 by far more than the amount promoted by "the bus" - citing part of it as the Brexit bonus.....
Genuine question; do we actually know if Blair deliberately lied to Parliament to get support for the Iraq War or was it was just poor intelligence? Facts only please.
We know that the intelligence said there were WMDs We know that the published version of that intelligence was altered to make the case more convincing to the public We know that the press reported the published version in an exaggerated fashion We know that after investigation there were no WMDs We know that the intelligence agencies were surprised at this.
We do not know whether Blair genuinely believed what he was saying (in which case he was mistaken but not criminal), or he believed it but skewed the presentation for public consumption (in which case he was mistaken but possibly criminal) or he disbelieved it but said it anyway (in which case he was lying and a criminal).
> @Peter_the_Punter said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago. > > > > The shortness of both still baffles me. > > Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome. > > I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm. > > What am I missing?
She believes hard enough. For many that is necessary and sufficient.
The > @nichomar said: > > @nichomar said: > > > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next. > > > > > > > > > > > > Were they lying? > > > > > > > > > > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell. > > > > > > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue > > > > Elect them POTUS? > > Am sat here listening to the news and how people are interpreting mueller’s statement. To me it implies he was obviously guilty but I can’t indicate a sitting president. To Trump he reckons he is cleared of any wrong doing. Which interpretation is right?
> @The_Taxman said: > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s an outrage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public. > > > > > > > > > > It should in no way be a criminal matter. > > > > > > > > > > We are not a banana republic. > > > > > > > > > > Very dangerous precedent that needs to be strangled at birth. > > > > > > > > I am sorry I don't agree. If a police officer or any other public official misleads the public they will suffer consequences. If the remain side politicians had contrived to misled in the same way as Johnson they should be prosecuted as well. Politicians need to be held to the standard the law dictates. > > > > Should Blair and his henchman Campbell be prosecuted for lying to us about Iraq? > > Yes.
I think people should be able to try a private prosecution, I would be surprised if someone hasnt already? They would probably fail.
I would expect Boris to get off easily and would take enormous persuasion to find him guilty if I was on the jury, but dont see why he should be exempt from scrutiny if a judge thinks it is worthy of a court case, and someone other than the state is willing to pay for it. (For a public prosecution it seems to fail on the chance of winning and possibly on whether it would be in the public interest given it is divisive).
> @JonathanD said: > > @nichomar said: > > > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next. > > > > > > > > > > > > Were they lying? > > > > > > > > > > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell. > > > > > > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue > > > > You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there. > > > > If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress. > > The LDs never won the GE so no contract with the public was entered into.
So now we only prosecute people who actually succeed in their crimes?
I have plenty of people banged up for attempted murder who want to talk to you...
> @nichomar said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > > > > > It’s an outrage. > > > > > > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public. > > > > Except that it was a factually correct gross figure, not a bare-faced lie. > > Oh come on! They never said this is the gross figure. I agree that election promises should not be criminalized but continuing to repeat outright lies may be another matter.
> @dixiedean said: > > @Peter_the_Punter said: > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago. > > > > > > The shortness of both still baffles me. > > > > Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome. > > > > I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm. > > > > What am I missing? > > She believes hard enough. For many that is necessary and sufficient.
She can believe as much as she likes, but why should the Billy Bunters?
> @kyf_100 said: > > @noneoftheabove said: > > > @kyf_100 said: > > > > @nichomar said: > > > > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Were they lying? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell. > > > > > > > > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue > > > > > > You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there. > > > > > > If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress. > > > > > > By the same standard, if a politican promises something in their manifesto then does the opposite, why shouldn't the same standards apply? > > > > > > My point isn't that the Lib Dems are all criminals. It's that we shouldn't be using the courts to harass political opponents, lest we find the lines redrawn to classify our opinions as criminal. > > > > > > > A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line. > > > > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required. > > > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians? > > My point is very simple. > > Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying. > > It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it. > >
You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
> @MarqueeMark said: > > @OllyT said: > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > > > It’s an outrage. > > > > Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem. > > Not sure what the case to answer is when May increased the amount for the NHS 2020-25 by far more than the amount promoted by "the bus" - citing part of it as the Brexit bonus.....
> @Sean_F said: > > @MarqueeMark said: > > > @OllyT said: > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > > > > > It’s an outrage. > > > > > > Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem. > > > > Not sure what the case to answer is when May increased the amount for the NHS 2020-25 by far more than the amount promoted by "the bus" - citing part of it as the Brexit bonus..... > > It's a vexatious claim that will be chucked out.
Yes, but it is the sort of vexatious where Remainers will still sneer that "he's had to go to court...."
> @Peter_the_Punter said: > > @dixiedean said: > > > @Peter_the_Punter said: > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago. > > > > > > > > The shortness of both still baffles me. > > > > > > Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome. > > > > > > I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm. > > > > > > What am I missing? > > > > She believes hard enough. For many that is necessary and sufficient. > > She can believe as much as she likes, but why should the Billy Bunters?
If she gets to the final two who beats her apart from BJ? I think she would be favourite against everyone else with the party voters.
Id imagine she is seen by the parliamentary party as more capable than Boris, Raab, McVey, Baker in the pure leaver group, even if she is not popular as them, so could benefit from transfers as people get knocked out. She has a chance, could do well in the debates. Was a clear back at 25+ earlier on, not sure at current prices.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @kyf_100 said: > > > @noneoftheabove said: > > > > @kyf_100 said: > > > > > @nichomar said: > > > > > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Were they lying? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell. > > > > > > > > > > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue > > > > > > > > You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there. > > > > > > > > If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress. > > > > > > > > By the same standard, if a politican promises something in their manifesto then does the opposite, why shouldn't the same standards apply? > > > > > > > > My point isn't that the Lib Dems are all criminals. It's that we shouldn't be using the courts to harass political opponents, lest we find the lines redrawn to classify our opinions as criminal. > > > > > > > > > > A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line. > > > > > > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required. > > > > > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians? > > > > My point is very simple. > > > > Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying. > > > > It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it. > > > > > > You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
As is your refusal to acknowledge that they positively voted to do the opposite. Had they merely been outvoted no one would have held them responsible.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @The_Taxman said: > > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s an outrage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It should in no way be a criminal matter. > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > Yes. > > I think people should be able to try a private prosecution, I would be surprised if someone hasnt already? They would probably fail. > > I would expect Boris to get off easily and would take enormous persuasion to find him guilty if I was on the jury, but dont see why he should be exempt from scrutiny if a judge thinks it is worthy of a court case, and someone other than the state is willing to pay for it. (For a public prosecution it seems to fail on the chance of winning and possibly on whether it would be in the public interest given it is divisive).
I think a referendum is different to other political discourse. But I look at the legal process as being a new constraint on politicians riding rough over the population. I don't think MPs need worry in parliament as they are constrained by their own ethics and standards. Society evolves, it is within my life time for instance that letting dog's shit on pavements and leaving it there has moved from being socially acceptable to being socially unacceptable. To be fair misconduct in public office seems to have grown quickly as a newsworthy event in the last decade or so. I don't think Boris will suffer anything but temporary inconvenience but it is right he is held up to the standards of behaviour that the law guarantees.
> @MarqueeMark said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @MarqueeMark said: > > > > @OllyT said: > > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > > > > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > > > > > > > It’s an outrage. > > > > > > > > Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem. > > > > > > Not sure what the case to answer is when May increased the amount for the NHS 2020-25 by far more than the amount promoted by "the bus" - citing part of it as the Brexit bonus..... > > > > It's a vexatious claim that will be chucked out. > > Yes, but it is the sort of vexatious where Remainers will still sneer that "he's had to go to court...."
If the DPP think its vexatious they will stop it before trial even though its a private prosecution. Let the process play out, he will almost certainly be cleared, but it is surely a plus that people can try and hold our politicians to account. He is a big enough to defend himself as needed.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @Peter_the_Punter said: > > > @dixiedean said: > > > > @Peter_the_Punter said: > > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago. > > > > > > > > > > The shortness of both still baffles me. > > > > > > > > Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome. > > > > > > > > I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm. > > > > > > > > What am I missing? > > > > > > She believes hard enough. For many that is necessary and sufficient. > > > > She can believe as much as she likes, but why should the Billy Bunters? > > If she gets to the final two who beats her apart from BJ? I think she would be favourite against everyone else with the party voters. > > Id imagine she is seen by the parliamentary party as more capable than Boris, Raab, McVey, Baker in the pure leaver group, even if she is not popular as them, so could benefit from transfers as people get knocked out. She has a chance, could do well in the debates. Was a clear back at 25+ earlier on, not sure at current prices.
I would not underestimate McVey. There are a lot of Tory MP's looking at the EU election results in the north and thinking that could be fertile ground with the right candidate. A strategy of protect your shire heartlands down south and attack up north. Especially as the Labour front bench senior positions are London MPs.
> > > > > > > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s an outrage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It should in no way be a criminal matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > I think people should be able to try a private prosecution, I would be surprised if someone hasnt already? They would probably fail. > > > > I would expect Boris to get off easily and would take enormous persuasion to find him guilty if I was on the jury, but dont see why he should be exempt from scrutiny if a judge thinks it is worthy of a court case, and someone other than the state is willing to pay for it. (For a public prosecution it seems to fail on the chance of winning and possibly on whether it would be in the public interest given it is divisive). > > I think a referendum is different to other political discourse. But I look at the legal process as being a new constraint on politicians riding rough over the population. I don't think MPs need worry in parliament as they are constrained by their own ethics and standards. Society evolves, it is within my life time for instance that letting dog's shit on pavements and leaving it there has moved from being socially acceptable to being socially unacceptable. To be fair misconduct in public office seems to have grown quickly as a newsworthy event in the last decade or so. I don't think Boris will suffer anything but temporary inconvenience but it is right he is held up to the standards of behaviour that the law guarantees.
As leader of vote Leave did he even hold a public office? Genuinely not sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line. > > > > > > > > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required. > > > > > > > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians? > > > > > > My point is very simple. > > > > > > Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying. > > > > > > It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it. > > > > > > > > > > You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre. > > As is your refusal to acknowledge that they positively voted to do the opposite. Had they merely been outvoted no one would have held them responsible.
But that is not how UK governments work, they are based on collective responsibility. These are basics of our constitution, why are so many otherwise well informed contributors on here not aware of them?
> @noneoftheabove said: > > You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
Vote Leave weren't offering a manifesto nor was voting to leave empowering Vote Leave to deliver Brexit - as the last three years have very much demonstrated.
I find it bizarre that you think people who express opinions that may or may not be factually accurate should be prosecuted for doing so.
Where do we draw the line? Do we start locking up toddlers who lie when they tell their parents "she started it!"? Do we immediately incarcerate all middle aged men who tell their young dates "no, of course it's my real hair!"?
I think the libel laws we have should be perfectly adequate. If the person or entity being libelled wishes to raise a case, so be it. Otherwise, leave it up to the individual to decide whether a politician is lying or not. And let them do it through the ballot box, not the courts.
If a random sore loser with a grievance against a politician wants to crowdfund a lawsuit against them, claiming "misconduct in public office", then that is a dangerous precedent of using the courts to harass, silence, and potentially financially cripple a political opponent.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line. > > > > > > > > > > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required. > > > > > > > > > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians? > > > > > > > > My point is very simple. > > > > > > > > Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying. > > > > > > > > It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre. > > > > As is your refusal to acknowledge that they positively voted to do the opposite. Had they merely been outvoted no one would have held them responsible. > > But that is not how UK governments work, they are based on collective responsibility. These are basics of our constitution, why are so many otherwise well informed contributors on here not aware of them?
I don’t think that is what collective responsibility means. It is for a cabinet. But I am not suggesting that the Lib Dem’s should be prosecuted. I am arguing that holding politicians liable in the criminal law for misrepresentations would be a serious mistake.
I suppose rational argument is going down the drain Anti Johnson he’s guilty, pro he’s being politically targeted. Pro Trump he did nothing wrong anti Trump impeach. I know people on here try to be more analytical about it but how I am not happy that it’s seen as fine to misrepresent facts.
> @kyf_100 said: > > @noneoftheabove said: > > > > You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre. > > Vote Leave weren't offering a manifesto nor was voting to leave empowering Vote Leave to deliver Brexit - as the last three years have very much demonstrated. > > I find it bizarre that you think people who express opinions that may or may not be factually accurate should be prosecuted for doing so. > > Where do we draw the line? Do we start locking up toddlers who lie when they tell their parents "she started it!"? Do we immediately incarcerate all middle aged men who tell their young dates "no, of course it's my real hair!"? > > I think the libel laws we have should be perfectly adequate. If the person or entity being libelled wishes to raise a case, so be it. Otherwise, leave it up to the individual to decide whether a politician is lying or not. And let them do it through the ballot box, not the courts. > > If a random sore loser with a grievance against a politician wants to crowdfund a lawsuit against them, claiming "misconduct in public office", then that is a dangerous precedent of using the courts to harass, silence, and potentially financially cripple a political opponent. > > >
I do not particurlarly think Boris should be prosecuted, if I was DPP I would not prosecute on my understanding of what has happened.
I do respect the concept of private prosecutions, where people I may or may not think are right have the right to start proceedings and trust the judiciary to make the right judgements on them. If they are frivelous they get thrown out early on by the court, if the DPP thinks they are malicious they can stop them too.
You dont have to agree with each private prosecution to think that overall they are a good backup for when the DPP is not delivering justice. The vast majority of them fail, but it helps deliver justice.
More Danish polls with the election to the Folketing on June 5th so just a week away:
All three polls put the centre-left bloc of parties ahead of the centre-right group:
Gallup has it 53-47 YouGov has it 55-45 Voxmeter has it 57-43
In essence very little change with the European elections but those did show a stronger vote for Venstre and a weaker vote for the Social Democrats than some polls had suggested.
Anyone know why Sajid Javid is so long at the bookies? He's got over a dozen backers which is surprisingly rare so far and the only poll of Tory members recently released had him on 9%, joint 3rd with Gove. Seems he should be a solid second tier candidate, but the betting has him a no hoper. Andrea Leadsom is way shorter, despite having almost no MP backers. Rory Stewart is shorter too, despite having almost no MPs or members backing.
> @nichomar said: > I suppose rational argument is going down the drain > Anti Johnson he’s guilty, pro he’s being politically targeted. > Pro Trump he did nothing wrong anti Trump impeach. I know people on here try to be more analytical about it but how I am not happy that it’s seen as fine to misrepresent facts.
Has anyone on here said Johnson is guilty? Possibly one or two but not noticed them, several of us have said trust the legal process, or there is nothing wrong with the court being used to see if he is guilty, that is very different.
> @MarqueeMark said: > > @OllyT said: > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler? > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > > > It’s an outrage. > > > > Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem. > > Not sure what the case to answer is when May increased the amount for the NHS 2020-25 by far more than the amount promoted by "the bus" - citing part of it as the Brexit bonus.....
So if we are still making payments next year does that mean the NHS increase will be removed? Of course it won't only the truly gullible would swallow that that increase had anything to do with a "Brexit bonus".
I doubt anyone believes that the case against Johnson will be upheld but it is serving to remind us that Johnson is not fit to be PM.
Imagine still thinking that it was reasonable for the Leave campaign to suggest there would be an immediate 350m per week that would become available to be spent on the NHS.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line. > > > > > > > > > > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required. > > > > > > > > > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians? > > > > > > > > My point is very simple. > > > > > > > > Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying. > > > > > > > > It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre. > > > > As is your refusal to acknowledge that they positively voted to do the opposite. Had they merely been outvoted no one would have held them responsible. > > But that is not how UK governments work, they are based on collective responsibility. These are basics of our constitution, why are so many otherwise well informed contributors on here not aware of them?
Collective responsibility at Cabinet level has been one of the casualties of Brexit.
Just popping in. Apropos the prosecution of Johnson, Jonathan Sumption’s Reith Lectures are very interesting on the use of law to achieve political aims.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required. > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
-------
Well, that is very convenient for the LibDems. They are not likely to govern, except as a Coalition.
And, according to you, they can put whatever they want in their manifesto, and we need never expect it to be delivered.
Actually, the LibDems had a choice (as does everyone). They need not have gone into Coalition, they could have let Cameron govern as a minority, or offered confidence and supply.
They chose to trash their reputation for honesty, and they paid the price.
In fact, I think the LibDems are much more dishonest than Johnson. The Libdems made a promise, they had control over their own actions and they broke their promise.
Johnson seems simply to have done a "dodgy LibDem bar chart" with some statistics.
> @Philip_Thompson said: > > 1/5 wanting to Leave in the Netherlands is quite remarkably high.
Is it? We kept on being told that they would be next, and people were eagerly awaiting Geert Wilders' victory in the election the followed the Brexit vote.
> @Quincel said: > Anyone know why Sajid Javid is so long at the bookies? He's got over a dozen backers which is surprisingly rare so far and the only poll of Tory members recently released had him on 9%, joint 3rd with Gove. Seems he should be a solid second tier candidate, but the betting has him a no hoper. Andrea Leadsom is way shorter, despite having almost no MP backers. Rory Stewart is shorter too, despite having almost no MPs or members backing.
This is a market I don’t find even remotely tempting. There are at least 315 people with a much better inside track of who is in or out than we can hope to have. Plus their staff. If the market is not giving us an insight into what is really going on here it never will.
> @DavidL said: > > @The_Taxman said: > > > @noneoftheabove said: > > > > @The_Taxman said: > > > > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s an outrage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It should in no way be a criminal matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think a referendum is different to other political discourse. But I look at the legal process as being a new constraint on politicians riding rough over the population. I don't think MPs need worry in parliament as they are constrained by their own ethics and standards. Society evolves, it is within my life time for instance that letting dog's shit on pavements and leaving it there has moved from being socially acceptable to being socially unacceptable. To be fair misconduct in public office seems to have grown quickly as a newsworthy event in the last decade or so. I don't think Boris will suffer anything but temporary inconvenience but it is right he is held up to the standards of behaviour that the law guarantees. > > As leader of vote Leave did he even hold a public office? Genuinely not sure.
He was mayor of London for part of the campaign as well as an MP. It would be up to the court of course to look at whether he was mayor when he made the claims. It might of course be easily dismissed if he did not use the office of mayor to promote the disputed figures. But I would equally say that someone on the remain side should be prosecuted if they were using misleading figures. I think where Johnson falls down is he was claiming definitively it cost X amount. Where as Osbourne said families might be several thousand pounds worse off in the future as an estimate. You cannot really misled if you are estimating the future where as the past and present are factually testable.
Somebody is suing Boris Johnson for lying in the referendum. Cue every PB Leaver having vapours over the right to lie in a campaign, Telegraph articles et al.
The Brexit Party is suing somebody for saying they were money laundering. Nobody anywhere raises even an eyebrow.
I know there is one law for the metropolitan elite in the UK and another for civilians, but could you at least pretend that there isn't? Because this is getting depressing.
> @Scott_P said: > I find it bizarre that you think people who express opinions that may or may not be factually accurate should be prosecuted for doing so. > > Where do we draw the line? > > I think the libel laws we have should be perfectly adequate. > > But this is exactly the interesting point. > > If a politician says "My opponent is a racist", he might be sued for libel or slander. > > If the same politician says "My opponent's policy is racist", there are no sanctions. > > What's the difference?
Well, that one's quite easy to answer.
Outcome is easy to prove. "This policy will disproportionately affect ethnic minorities".
Intent is much harder. "This politician is deliberately enacting this policy because they dislike ethnic minorities".
Anyone know why Sajid Javid is so long at the bookies? He's got over a dozen backers which is surprisingly rare so far and the only poll of Tory members recently released had him on 9%, joint 3rd with Gove. Seems he should be a solid second tier candidate, but the betting has him a no hoper. Andrea Leadsom is way shorter, despite having almost no MP backers. Rory Stewart is shorter too, despite having almost no MPs or members backing.
The PB Brains Trust reckoned his launch video was utterly crap.
> @Quincel said: > Anyone know why Sajid Javid is so long at the bookies? He's got over a dozen backers which is surprisingly rare so far and the only poll of Tory members recently released had him on 9%, joint 3rd with Gove. Seems he should be a solid second tier candidate, but the betting has him a no hoper. Andrea Leadsom is way shorter, despite having almost no MP backers. Rory Stewart is shorter too, despite having almost no MPs or members backing.
Javid seems oddly long to me too, so I have taken a nibble to help balance my book. I am nearly Gren across the board, with Boris the exception, but his odds are moving out, so I am just watching at present.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @kyf_100 said: > > > @noneoftheabove said: > > > > @kyf_100 said: > > > > > @nichomar said: > > > > > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Were they lying? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell. > > > > >
> > > > > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians? > > > > My point is very simple. > > > > Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying. > > > > It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it. > > > > > > You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
The point is that the MPs individually signed a pledge (as did candidates of all parties) to vote against increasing tuition fees. That was regardless of whether they were in government or opposition, in fact it would make no sense if they were in government.
It's breaking the signed pledge that annoyed people, not failing to implement their manifesto.
> @viewcode said: > So just to summarise. > > Somebody is suing Boris Johnson for lying in the referendum. Cue every PB Leaver having vapours over the right to lie in a campaign, Telegraph articles et al. > > The Brexit Party is suing somebody for saying they were money laundering. Nobody anywhere raises even an eyebrow. > > I know there is one law for the metropolitan elite in the UK and another for civilians, but could you at least pretend that there isn't? Because this is getting depressing.
One is libelling an individual, suggesting they are engaged in money laundering.
The other is using the courts to harass a politician whose figures you don't agree with.
Can you not see the difference? Because this is getting depressing.
> @viewcode said: > So just to summarise. > > Somebody is suing Boris Johnson for lying in the referendum. Cue every PB Leaver having vapours over the right to lie in a campaign, Telegraph articles et al. > > The Brexit Party is suing somebody for saying they were money laundering. Nobody anywhere raises even an eyebrow. > > I know there is one law for the metropolitan elite in the UK and another for civilians, but could you at least pretend that there isn't? Because this is getting depressing.
----
I am happy for Boris to be prosecuted. I am merely pointing out that if the prosecution is successful, we can expect Nick and Tony to be joining Boris in the cells.
In fact, as lying (or at least presenting a optimistic version of the actualite) are endemic in the makeup of most MPs, it may be easier for the House of Commons to meet in Wormwood Scrubs in future.
> > Good to see that Leavers are huffing and puffing to be allowed to lie without consequence. I’m not sure that’s going to be very saleable to the general public.
>
> >
>
> > If I’m honest, Alastair, I’m very surprised to see you taking the position you have on this; I can only assume out of anger over the original Leave campaign itself.
>
> >
>
> > There are ultra hard Remainers - like Jo Maugham QC - who have added their voices to concerns over this today, and underlined that political sanctions should be the punishment and not the criminal law.
>
> >
>
> > I’d have thought, as someone with a firm legal background and strong morals, that you’d be the same.
>
>
>
> Strong morals require that lying for profit has consequences. All I see is Leavers saying that lying for profit for a cause they approve of should be given a free pass.
>
> I don’t think anyone is saying that.
>
> The political consequences are real and clear.
He’s favourite to be next Prime Minister.
In the end whether it’s £350m gross before rebates and repatriated funding or £250m net a week it’s still a shedload of cash to most people! Semantics really as the underlying point was valid and nobody died.
And of course our net contribution was only ever going to keep going up particularly as more poorer than average nations joined.
Prior to the 2010 election who was honest about the Scale of cuts needed - all the parties spent the campaign taking about £6bn on NI. Now austerity by contrast has resulted in deaths and suffering for many. They pretty much all lied. Let’s not even go there with Iraq.
Still prosecuting every MP who lies or allegedly lied would probably result in 650 by elections - and more scope for betting!
> Somebody is suing Boris Johnson for lying in the referendum. Cue every PB Leaver having vapours over the right to lie in a campaign, Telegraph articles et al.
>
> The Brexit Party is suing somebody for saying they were money laundering. Nobody anywhere raises even an eyebrow.
>
> I know there is one law for the metropolitan elite in the UK and another for civilians, but could you at least pretend that there isn't? Because this is getting depressing.
----
I am happy for Boris to be prosecuted. I am merely pointing out that if the prosecution is successful, we can expect Nick and Tony to be joining Boris in the cells.
In fact, as lying (or at least presenting a optimistic version of the actualite) are endemic in the makeup of most MPs, it may be easier for the House of Commons to meet in Wormwood Scrubs in future.
Surely simpler to convert the Palace of Westminster into a jail as part of the renovations.
> @DavidL said: > > @Quincel said: > > Anyone know why Sajid Javid is so long at the bookies? He's got over a dozen backers which is surprisingly rare so far and the only poll of Tory members recently released had him on 9%, joint 3rd with Gove. Seems he should be a solid second tier candidate, but the betting has him a no hoper. Andrea Leadsom is way shorter, despite having almost no MP backers. Rory Stewart is shorter too, despite having almost no MPs or members backing. > > This is a market I don’t find even remotely tempting. There are at least 315 people with a much better inside track of who is in or out than we can hope to have. Plus their staff. If the market is not giving us an insight into what is really going on here it never will.
Yes, I'm usually very reluctant to get involved with leadership markets for the same reason. But we're at the stage of public declarations and Leadsom/Javid's odds just seem so odd. I'm very tempted, despite myself.
...one is libelling an individual, suggesting they are engaged in money laundering.
The other is using the courts to harass a politician whose figures you don't agree with.
Can you not see the difference? Because this is getting depressing.
To be precise, the person being sued made accusations about the Brexit Party (which apparently he is allowed to do) but Richard Tice of the Brexit Party took that accusation as an accusation against him personally and us suing on that basis. That involves subverting the intent of the law and committing the ecological fallacy in one fell swoop.
Incidentally, why do you think I think Boris should be prosecuted for lying? I disapprove of him (as I have frequently said) but I doubt it would make it thru the courts, as Matthew whatsisface pointed out on or near the campaign that the Pink Book backs up the figure.
> @Scott_P said: > Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again...
+1 We live in unusual times but politicians should not mislead the public just to win elections. There is something wrong if you can only win a political argument by hanging your message on an outright lie. It desecrates the whole political process and leads to an enduring mistrust or resentment of politicians. There will always be political cycles and politicians that take huge risks but a more civilised framework and standards for politicians to perform on would be welcome. You only have to go back 20 years or so to see how the transparency of political donations help lead the UK to cleaner politics. There is still work to do but donations from abroad for millions of pounds for Tories or Labour or any other party are no longer allowed.
Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough. Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives. State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army. We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board. Any takers?
Politicians lying? I think this was most effectively covered by IDS who said, regarding the Brexit campaign, "our promises were a series of possibilities"...hmm...
> @viewcode said: > > @viewcode said: > > > So just to summarise. > > > > > > Somebody is suing Boris Johnson for lying in the referendum. Cue every PB Leaver having vapours over the right to lie in a campaign, Telegraph articles et al. > > > > > > The Brexit Party is suing somebody for saying they were money laundering. Nobody anywhere raises even an eyebrow. > > > > > > I know there is one law for the metropolitan elite in the UK and another for civilians, but could you at least pretend that there isn't? Because this is getting depressing. > > > > One is libelling an individual, suggesting they are engaged in money laundering. > > > > The other is using the courts to harass a politician whose figures you don't agree with. > > > > Can you not see the difference? Because this is getting depressing. > > To be precise, the person being sued made accusations about the Brexit Party (which apparently he is allowed to do) but Richard Tice of the Brexit Party took that accusation as an accusation against him personally and us suing on that basis. That involves subverting the intent of the law and committing the ecological fallacy in one fell swoop. > > Incidentally, why do you think I think Boris should be prosecuted for lying? I disapprove of him (as I have frequently said) but I doubt it would make it thru the courts, as Matthew whatsisface pointed out on or near the campaign that the Pink Book backs up the figure.
I am saying that comparing the two is very much comparing apples and oranges.
"Politician tells porkies to win election" is very much dog bites man. "Political party is actually money laundering front and I will say this on national TV without a shred of evidence" is rather more dubious territory. To conflate the two is disingenuous.
It's a shame in my opinion that it won't get to court.
I can't remember what the 'true' lower weekly figure was (was it 240?), but during the controversy over it, I was convinced that more money was going to the EU than is publicly acknowledged, and by doing a little research, I was able to find a proportion of the UK foreign aid budget that was being paid to the EU. Not EU aid for projects in the poorer countries mind, that was seperate. It was just a chunk of our aid being paid to the EU. It didn't make up the whole shortfall, but it was part way there, and I dare say there were other hidden streams of EU funding from other Government depts. I'd quite like 350 million to have its day in court.
Comments
> > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > Good to see that Leavers are huffing and puffing to be allowed to lie without consequence. I’m not sure that’s going to be very saleable to the general public.
>
> >
>
> > If I’m honest, Alastair, I’m very surprised to see you taking the position you have on this; I can only assume out of anger over the original Leave campaign itself.
>
> >
>
> > There are ultra hard Remainers - like Jo Maugham QC - who have added their voices to concerns over this today, and underlined that political sanctions should be the punishment and not the criminal law.
>
> >
>
> > I’d have thought, as someone with a firm legal background and strong morals, that you’d be the same.
>
>
>
> Strong morals require that lying for profit has consequences. All I see is Leavers saying that lying for profit for a cause they approve of should be given a free pass.
>
> I don’t think anyone is saying that.
>
> The political consequences are real and clear.
He’s favourite to be next Prime Minister.
That’s the job of their political opponents.
Were they lying?
It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
> > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> >
>
> > > Good to see that Leavers are huffing and puffing to be allowed to lie without consequence. I’m not sure that’s going to be very saleable to the general public.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If I’m honest, Alastair, I’m very surprised to see you taking the position you have on this; I can only assume out of anger over the original Leave campaign itself.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There are ultra hard Remainers - like Jo Maugham QC - who have added their voices to concerns over this today, and underlined that political sanctions should be the punishment and not the criminal law.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I’d have thought, as someone with a firm legal background and strong morals, that you’d be the same.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Strong morals require that lying for profit has consequences. All I see is Leavers saying that lying for profit for a cause they approve of should be given a free pass.
>
> >
>
> > I don’t think anyone is saying that.
>
> >
>
> > The political consequences are real and clear.
>
>
>
> He’s favourite to be next Prime Minister.
>
> The markets are overrating his chances.
I was making the point that the political consequences are far from real and clear. The lying has been so far consequence-free.
> Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
>
> Were they lying?
>
> It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
Huis clos! 'L'enfer, c'est l'autres.'
> Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
>
>
>
> Were they lying?
>
>
>
> It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
>
> You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
Elect them POTUS?
> > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > @Casino_Royale said:
> >
> > > > @AndyJS said:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > It’s an outrage.
> >
> >
> >
> > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public.
> >
> > It should in no way be a criminal matter.
> >
> > We are not a banana republic.
> >
> > Very dangerous precedent that needs to be strangled at birth.
>
> I am sorry I don't agree. If a police officer or any other public official misleads the public they will suffer consequences. If the remain side politicians had contrived to misled in the same way as Johnson they should be prosecuted as well. Politicians need to be held to the standard the law dictates.
Surely the correct thing is simply for the law to take its course.
If people think the law shouldn't apply to MPs, then that should be dealt with by amending the law.
Two notable political persons have passed away today: Walter Wolfgang and Sir Michael Spicer.
I’d say the consequences have been clear.
> > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> >
>
> > > > @AndyJS said:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > It’s an outrage.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public.
>
> >
>
> > It should in no way be a criminal matter.
>
> >
>
> > We are not a banana republic.
>
> >
>
> > Very dangerous precedent that needs to be strangled at birth.
>
>
>
> I am sorry I don't agree. If a police officer or any other public official misleads the public they will suffer consequences. If the remain side politicians had contrived to misled in the same way as Johnson they should be prosecuted as well. Politicians need to be held to the standard the law dictates.
>
> Should Blair and his henchman Campbell be prosecuted for lying to us about Iraq?
Yes.
> Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
>
>
>
> Were they lying?
>
>
>
> It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
>
> You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there.
If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress.
By the same standard, if a politican promises something in their manifesto then does the opposite, why shouldn't the same standards apply?
My point isn't that the Lib Dems are all criminals. It's that we shouldn't be using the courts to harass political opponents, lest we find the lines redrawn to classify our opinions as criminal.
And there is a difference between breaking a promise, and making a claim that is disproved by the National Statistician and then carrying on making that claim in the knowledge that it's false.
> Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago.
>
> The shortness of both still baffles me.
Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
What am I missing?
> I remember Labour going to court over political porky pies.The case failed but it was amusing that they had to trash their manifesto as a defence.
And they were a government not an unaccountable and disparate campaign group with no ability to implement anything destined to be wound up as soon as the campaign was over. I think that there’s a broader question as to whether such unaccountable groups are really the best way to organise a referendum but those were the rules.
Say the true figure we sent the EU a week was £349,999,999.99, not £350,000,000. Most of us would have no problem with saying it was £350m: it is accurate enough, if not precise. I'd say the same for £342,000,000 - it's just been rounded up and is only a couple of percent out: good enough for these sorts of purposes.
But if it was only £301,000,000, then IMO saying £350m would be incorrect on any basis.
And what happens if we sent the EU £350m in one particular week, but not in others? The text on the bus is still wrong, but the claim is IMO slightly more supportable.
This whole thing is a minefield. But if it starts politicians using sources for their claims, it'll all be for the better ...
> > @AndyJS said:
>
> > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
>
> >
>
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
>
>
>
> Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
>
> I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
>
> It’s an outrage.
Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem.
> > @nichomar said:
> > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
> >
> >
> >
> > Were they lying?
> >
> >
> >
> > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
> >
> > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
>
> You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there.
>
> If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress.
>
> By the same standard, if a politican promises something in their manifesto then does the opposite, why shouldn't the same standards apply?
>
> My point isn't that the Lib Dems are all criminals. It's that we shouldn't be using the courts to harass political opponents, lest we find the lines redrawn to classify our opinions as criminal.
>
A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line.
In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required.
We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
> > @Casino_Royale said:
> > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago.
> >
> > The shortness of both still baffles me.
>
> Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
>
> I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
>
> What am I missing?
Probably just because she made it last time, so people are betting on that basis.
> > @kyf_100 said:
> > > @nichomar said:
> > > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Were they lying?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
> > >
> > > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
> >
> > You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there.
> >
> > If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress.
> >
> > By the same standard, if a politican promises something in their manifesto then does the opposite, why shouldn't the same standards apply?
> >
> > My point isn't that the Lib Dems are all criminals. It's that we shouldn't be using the courts to harass political opponents, lest we find the lines redrawn to classify our opinions as criminal.
> >
>
> A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line.
>
> In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required.
>
> We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
My point is very simple.
Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying.
It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it.
> > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > @AndyJS said:
> >
> > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
> >
> >
> >
> > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
> >
> > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
> >
> > It’s an outrage.
>
> Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem.
Not sure what the case to answer is when May increased the amount for the NHS 2020-25 by far more than the amount promoted by "the bus" - citing part of it as the Brexit bonus.....
We know that the published version of that intelligence was altered to make the case more convincing to the public
We know that the press reported the published version in an exaggerated fashion
We know that after investigation there were no WMDs
We know that the intelligence agencies were surprised at this.
We do not know whether Blair genuinely believed what he was saying (in which case he was mistaken but not criminal), or he believed it but skewed the presentation for public consumption (in which case he was mistaken but possibly criminal) or he disbelieved it but said it anyway (in which case he was lying and a criminal).
> > @Casino_Royale said:
> > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago.
> >
> > The shortness of both still baffles me.
>
> Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
>
> I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
>
> What am I missing?
She believes hard enough. For many that is necessary and sufficient.
> > @nichomar said:
>
> > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Were they lying?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
>
> >
>
> > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
>
>
>
> Elect them POTUS?
>
> Am sat here listening to the news and how people are interpreting mueller’s statement. To me it implies he was obviously guilty but I can’t indicate a sitting president. To Trump he reckons he is cleared of any wrong doing. Which interpretation is right?
As it’s Trump I think it’s obviously the former.
> > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > > @Casino_Royale said:
> >
> > > > @Casino_Royale said:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > > @AndyJS said:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > It’s an outrage.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > It should in no way be a criminal matter.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > We are not a banana republic.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Very dangerous precedent that needs to be strangled at birth.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am sorry I don't agree. If a police officer or any other public official misleads the public they will suffer consequences. If the remain side politicians had contrived to misled in the same way as Johnson they should be prosecuted as well. Politicians need to be held to the standard the law dictates.
> >
> > Should Blair and his henchman Campbell be prosecuted for lying to us about Iraq?
>
> Yes.
I think people should be able to try a private prosecution, I would be surprised if someone hasnt already? They would probably fail.
I would expect Boris to get off easily and would take enormous persuasion to find him guilty if I was on the jury, but dont see why he should be exempt from scrutiny if a judge thinks it is worthy of a court case, and someone other than the state is willing to pay for it. (For a public prosecution it seems to fail on the chance of winning and possibly on whether it would be in the public interest given it is divisive).
> > @nichomar said:
>
> > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Were they lying?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
>
> >
>
> > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
>
>
>
> You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there.
>
>
>
> If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress.
>
> The LDs never won the GE so no contract with the public was entered into.
So now we only prosecute people who actually succeed in their crimes?
I have plenty of people banged up for attempted murder who want to talk to you...
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
>
> > > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > > > @AndyJS said:
>
> > >
>
> > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
>
> > >
>
> > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
>
> > >
>
> > > It’s an outrage.
>
> >
>
> > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public.
>
>
>
> Except that it was a factually correct gross figure, not a bare-faced lie.
>
> Oh come on! They never said this is the gross figure. I agree that election promises should not be criminalized but continuing to repeat outright lies may be another matter.
Yes they did!
> > @Peter_the_Punter said:
> > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago.
> > >
> > > The shortness of both still baffles me.
> >
> > Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
> >
> > I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
> She believes hard enough. For many that is necessary and sufficient.
She can believe as much as she likes, but why should the Billy Bunters?
> > @noneoftheabove said:
> > > @kyf_100 said:
> > > > @nichomar said:
> > > > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Were they lying?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
> > > >
> > > > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
> > >
> > > You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there.
> > >
> > > If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress.
> > >
> > > By the same standard, if a politican promises something in their manifesto then does the opposite, why shouldn't the same standards apply?
> > >
> > > My point isn't that the Lib Dems are all criminals. It's that we shouldn't be using the courts to harass political opponents, lest we find the lines redrawn to classify our opinions as criminal.
> > >
> >
> > A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line.
> >
> > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required.
> >
> > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
>
> My point is very simple.
>
> Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying.
>
> It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it.
>
>
You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
> > @OllyT said:
> > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > > @AndyJS said:
> > >
> > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
> > >
> > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
> > >
> > > It’s an outrage.
> >
> > Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem.
>
> Not sure what the case to answer is when May increased the amount for the NHS 2020-25 by far more than the amount promoted by "the bus" - citing part of it as the Brexit bonus.....
It's a vexatious claim that will be chucked out.
"Google Maps and sat-navs are damaging our brains, says author David Barrie"
(£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/google-maps-and-sat-navs-are-damaging-our-brains-says-author-david-barrie-nq87dwcff
> > @MarqueeMark said:
> > > @OllyT said:
> > > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > > > @AndyJS said:
> > > >
> > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
> > > >
> > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
> > > >
> > > > It’s an outrage.
> > >
> > > Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem.
> >
> > Not sure what the case to answer is when May increased the amount for the NHS 2020-25 by far more than the amount promoted by "the bus" - citing part of it as the Brexit bonus.....
>
> It's a vexatious claim that will be chucked out.
Yes, but it is the sort of vexatious where Remainers will still sneer that "he's had to go to court...."
> > @dixiedean said:
> > > @Peter_the_Punter said:
> > > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago.
> > > >
> > > > The shortness of both still baffles me.
> > >
> > > Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
> > >
> > > I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
> > >
> > > What am I missing?
> >
> > She believes hard enough. For many that is necessary and sufficient.
>
> She can believe as much as she likes, but why should the Billy Bunters?
If she gets to the final two who beats her apart from BJ? I think she would be favourite against everyone else with the party voters.
Id imagine she is seen by the parliamentary party as more capable than Boris, Raab, McVey, Baker in the pure leaver group, even if she is not popular as them, so could benefit from transfers as people get knocked out. She has a chance, could do well in the debates. Was a clear back at 25+ earlier on, not sure at current prices.
> > @kyf_100 said:
> > > @noneoftheabove said:
> > > > @kyf_100 said:
> > > > > @nichomar said:
> > > > > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Were they lying?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
> > > > >
> > > > > You need to see the difference between a promise and claiming a falsehood as a fact. Politicians who renege on promises can be handled through the ballot box but what do you do when someone repeatedly claims something as a fact when it was untrue
> > > >
> > > > You've chosen to draw a fairly arbitrary line there.
> > > >
> > > > If somebody enters into a contract to fix my roof, then buggers off without doing the work, I'm entitled to seek legal redress.
> > > >
> > > > By the same standard, if a politican promises something in their manifesto then does the opposite, why shouldn't the same standards apply?
> > > >
> > > > My point isn't that the Lib Dems are all criminals. It's that we shouldn't be using the courts to harass political opponents, lest we find the lines redrawn to classify our opinions as criminal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line.
> > >
> > > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required.
> > >
> > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
> >
> > My point is very simple.
> >
> > Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying.
> >
> > It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it.
> >
> >
>
> You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
As is your refusal to acknowledge that they positively voted to do the opposite. Had they merely been outvoted no one would have held them responsible.
> > @The_Taxman said:
> > > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > >
> > > > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > > @AndyJS said:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > It’s an outrage.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > It should in no way be a criminal matter.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I think people should be able to try a private prosecution, I would be surprised if someone hasnt already? They would probably fail.
>
> I would expect Boris to get off easily and would take enormous persuasion to find him guilty if I was on the jury, but dont see why he should be exempt from scrutiny if a judge thinks it is worthy of a court case, and someone other than the state is willing to pay for it. (For a public prosecution it seems to fail on the chance of winning and possibly on whether it would be in the public interest given it is divisive).
I think a referendum is different to other political discourse. But I look at the legal process as being a new constraint on politicians riding rough over the population. I don't think MPs need worry in parliament as they are constrained by their own ethics and standards. Society evolves, it is within my life time for instance that letting dog's shit on pavements and leaving it there has moved from being socially acceptable to being socially unacceptable. To be fair misconduct in public office seems to have grown quickly as a newsworthy event in the last decade or so. I don't think Boris will suffer anything but temporary inconvenience but it is right he is held up to the standards of behaviour that the law guarantees.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @MarqueeMark said:
> > > > @OllyT said:
> > > > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > > > > @AndyJS said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s an outrage.
> > > >
> > > > Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem.
> > >
> > > Not sure what the case to answer is when May increased the amount for the NHS 2020-25 by far more than the amount promoted by "the bus" - citing part of it as the Brexit bonus.....
> >
> > It's a vexatious claim that will be chucked out.
>
> Yes, but it is the sort of vexatious where Remainers will still sneer that "he's had to go to court...."
If the DPP think its vexatious they will stop it before trial even though its a private prosecution. Let the process play out, he will almost certainly be cleared, but it is surely a plus that people can try and hold our politicians to account. He is a big enough to defend himself as needed.
> > @Peter_the_Punter said:
> > > @dixiedean said:
> > > > @Peter_the_Punter said:
> > > > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > > > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > The shortness of both still baffles me.
> > > >
> > > > Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
> > > >
> > > > I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
> > > >
> > > > What am I missing?
> > >
> > > She believes hard enough. For many that is necessary and sufficient.
> >
> > She can believe as much as she likes, but why should the Billy Bunters?
>
> If she gets to the final two who beats her apart from BJ? I think she would be favourite against everyone else with the party voters.
>
> Id imagine she is seen by the parliamentary party as more capable than Boris, Raab, McVey, Baker in the pure leaver group, even if she is not popular as them, so could benefit from transfers as people get knocked out. She has a chance, could do well in the debates. Was a clear back at 25+ earlier on, not sure at current prices.
I would not underestimate McVey. There are a lot of Tory MP's looking at the EU election results in the north and thinking that could be fertile ground with the right candidate. A strategy of protect your shire heartlands down south and attack up north. Especially as the Labour front bench senior positions are London MPs.
> > @noneoftheabove said:
> > > @The_Taxman said:
> > > > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > > > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > >
> > > > > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > >
> > > > > > > @AndyJS said:
> > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > It’s an outrage.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It should in no way be a criminal matter.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
>
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > I think people should be able to try a private prosecution, I would be surprised if someone hasnt already? They would probably fail.
> >
> > I would expect Boris to get off easily and would take enormous persuasion to find him guilty if I was on the jury, but dont see why he should be exempt from scrutiny if a judge thinks it is worthy of a court case, and someone other than the state is willing to pay for it. (For a public prosecution it seems to fail on the chance of winning and possibly on whether it would be in the public interest given it is divisive).
>
> I think a referendum is different to other political discourse. But I look at the legal process as being a new constraint on politicians riding rough over the population. I don't think MPs need worry in parliament as they are constrained by their own ethics and standards. Society evolves, it is within my life time for instance that letting dog's shit on pavements and leaving it there has moved from being socially acceptable to being socially unacceptable. To be fair misconduct in public office seems to have grown quickly as a newsworthy event in the last decade or so. I don't think Boris will suffer anything but temporary inconvenience but it is right he is held up to the standards of behaviour that the law guarantees.
As leader of vote Leave did he even hold a public office? Genuinely not sure.
> > > >
> > > > A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line.
> > > >
> > > > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required.
> > > >
> > > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
> > >
> > > My point is very simple.
> > >
> > > Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying.
> > >
> > > It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
>
> As is your refusal to acknowledge that they positively voted to do the opposite. Had they merely been outvoted no one would have held them responsible.
But that is not how UK governments work, they are based on collective responsibility. These are basics of our constitution, why are so many otherwise well informed contributors on here not aware of them?
> John is paid £100,000 a year. His expenditure is 90,000. Does he have 10k in the bank ?
He owes the taxman 40K.
>
> You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
Vote Leave weren't offering a manifesto nor was voting to leave empowering Vote Leave to deliver Brexit - as the last three years have very much demonstrated.
I find it bizarre that you think people who express opinions that may or may not be factually accurate should be prosecuted for doing so.
Where do we draw the line? Do we start locking up toddlers who lie when they tell their parents "she started it!"? Do we immediately incarcerate all middle aged men who tell their young dates "no, of course it's my real hair!"?
I think the libel laws we have should be perfectly adequate. If the person or entity being libelled wishes to raise a case, so be it. Otherwise, leave it up to the individual to decide whether a politician is lying or not. And let them do it through the ballot box, not the courts.
If a random sore loser with a grievance against a politician wants to crowdfund a lawsuit against them, claiming "misconduct in public office", then that is a dangerous precedent of using the courts to harass, silence, and potentially financially cripple a political opponent.
> As leader of vote Leave did he even hold a public office? Genuinely not sure.
One of many reasons it should be thrown out.
Chancellor on the other hand, causing economic mayhem with his The End of the World As We Know It routine - there's a case to answer.....
> https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
Well at least leave's score is better than in Ireland
>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
> > > >
> > > > My point is very simple.
> > > >
> > > > Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying.
> > > >
> > > > It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
> >
> > As is your refusal to acknowledge that they positively voted to do the opposite. Had they merely been outvoted no one would have held them responsible.
>
> But that is not how UK governments work, they are based on collective responsibility. These are basics of our constitution, why are so many otherwise well informed contributors on here not aware of them?
I don’t think that is what collective responsibility means. It is for a cabinet. But I am not suggesting that the Lib Dem’s should be prosecuted. I am arguing that holding politicians liable in the criminal law for misrepresentations would be a serious mistake.
Anti Johnson he’s guilty, pro he’s being politically targeted.
Pro Trump he did nothing wrong anti Trump impeach. I know people on here try to be more analytical about it but how I am not happy that it’s seen as fine to misrepresent facts.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
>
> Well at least leave's score is better than in Ireland
And Sweden.
> https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
1/5 wanting to Leave in the Netherlands is quite remarkably high.
If a politician says "My opponent is a racist", he might be sued for libel or slander.
If the same politician says "My opponent's policy is racist", there are no sanctions.
What's the difference?
> > @CatMan said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
> >
> > Well at least leave's score is better than in Ireland
>
> And Sweden.
Brexit has killed euroscepticism in every other EU country. So at least there's a positive to come out of it
> > @noneoftheabove said:
> >
> > You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
>
> Vote Leave weren't offering a manifesto nor was voting to leave empowering Vote Leave to deliver Brexit - as the last three years have very much demonstrated.
>
> I find it bizarre that you think people who express opinions that may or may not be factually accurate should be prosecuted for doing so.
>
> Where do we draw the line? Do we start locking up toddlers who lie when they tell their parents "she started it!"? Do we immediately incarcerate all middle aged men who tell their young dates "no, of course it's my real hair!"?
>
> I think the libel laws we have should be perfectly adequate. If the person or entity being libelled wishes to raise a case, so be it. Otherwise, leave it up to the individual to decide whether a politician is lying or not. And let them do it through the ballot box, not the courts.
>
> If a random sore loser with a grievance against a politician wants to crowdfund a lawsuit against them, claiming "misconduct in public office", then that is a dangerous precedent of using the courts to harass, silence, and potentially financially cripple a political opponent.
>
>
>
I do not particurlarly think Boris should be prosecuted, if I was DPP I would not prosecute on my understanding of what has happened.
I do respect the concept of private prosecutions, where people I may or may not think are right have the right to start proceedings and trust the judiciary to make the right judgements on them. If they are frivelous they get thrown out early on by the court, if the DPP thinks they are malicious they can stop them too.
You dont have to agree with each private prosecution to think that overall they are a good backup for when the DPP is not delivering justice. The vast majority of them fail, but it helps deliver justice.
All three polls put the centre-left bloc of parties ahead of the centre-right group:
Gallup has it 53-47
YouGov has it 55-45
Voxmeter has it 57-43
In essence very little change with the European elections but those did show a stronger vote for Venstre and a weaker vote for the Social Democrats than some polls had suggested.
> I suppose rational argument is going down the drain
> Anti Johnson he’s guilty, pro he’s being politically targeted.
> Pro Trump he did nothing wrong anti Trump impeach. I know people on here try to be more analytical about it but how I am not happy that it’s seen as fine to misrepresent facts.
Has anyone on here said Johnson is guilty? Possibly one or two but not noticed them, several of us have said trust the legal process, or there is nothing wrong with the court being used to see if he is guilty, that is very different.
> > @OllyT said:
> > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > > @AndyJS said:
> > >
> > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Isn't abuse of the courts in order to silence one's political opponents one of those "eleven sure signs of fascism" or whatnot that remainers keep trotting out to prove that everyone who disagrees with them is Literally Hitler?
> > >
> > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
> > >
> > > It’s an outrage.
> >
> > Same was said about the Gina Miller case until she was proved to be right. Nobody is trying to "silence" Johnson they are simply trying to hold him accountable for things he has said and done. If the courts find it frivolous then I am sure it will be kicked out. Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary though not if some of the the Brexiteers had their way it would seem.
>
> Not sure what the case to answer is when May increased the amount for the NHS 2020-25 by far more than the amount promoted by "the bus" - citing part of it as the Brexit bonus.....
So if we are still making payments next year does that mean the NHS increase will be removed? Of course it won't only the truly gullible would swallow that that increase had anything to do with a "Brexit bonus".
I doubt anyone believes that the case against Johnson will be upheld but it is serving to remind us that Johnson is not fit to be PM.
Imagine.
>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A manifesto is an intention to do something if you get an outright majority, events may still change that intention further down the line.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
> > > >
> > > > My point is very simple.
> > > >
> > > > Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying.
> > > >
> > > > It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
> >
> > As is your refusal to acknowledge that they positively voted to do the opposite. Had they merely been outvoted no one would have held them responsible.
>
> But that is not how UK governments work, they are based on collective responsibility. These are basics of our constitution, why are so many otherwise well informed contributors on here not aware of them?
Collective responsibility at Cabinet level has been one of the casualties of Brexit.
>
> In a hung parliament it is incredibly stupid to expect all manifesto commitments to be delivered, going back to 2010 it would probably have been impossible to come up with any coalition set of policies that delivered conflicting manifestos. If people are really stupid enough to expect manifestos to be delivered in coalitions, then some basic politics education at school should be required.
>
> We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
-------
Well, that is very convenient for the LibDems. They are not likely to govern, except as a Coalition.
And, according to you, they can put whatever they want in their manifesto, and we need never expect it to be delivered.
Actually, the LibDems had a choice (as does everyone). They need not have gone into Coalition, they could have let Cameron govern as a minority, or offered confidence and supply.
They chose to trash their reputation for honesty, and they paid the price.
In fact, I think the LibDems are much more dishonest than Johnson. The Libdems made a promise, they had control over their own actions and they broke their promise.
Johnson seems simply to have done a "dodgy LibDem bar chart" with some statistics.
>
> 1/5 wanting to Leave in the Netherlands is quite remarkably high.
Is it? We kept on being told that they would be next, and people were eagerly awaiting Geert Wilders' victory in the election the followed the Brexit vote.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/693569/Nexit-will-Netherlands-leave-EU-next-Dutch-referendum-impact-Brexit-Britain-independence
> Anyone know why Sajid Javid is so long at the bookies? He's got over a dozen backers which is surprisingly rare so far and the only poll of Tory members recently released had him on 9%, joint 3rd with Gove. Seems he should be a solid second tier candidate, but the betting has him a no hoper. Andrea Leadsom is way shorter, despite having almost no MP backers. Rory Stewart is shorter too, despite having almost no MPs or members backing.
This is a market I don’t find even remotely tempting. There are at least 315 people with a much better inside track of who is in or out than we can hope to have. Plus their staff. If the market is not giving us an insight into what is really going on here it never will.
> > @The_Taxman said:
> > > @noneoftheabove said:
> > > > @The_Taxman said:
> > > > > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > > > > > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > @AndyJS said:
> > > > > > > > The maximum sentence for the crime of which Boris is being accused is life imprisonment.
> > > > >
>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I hope Parliament legislates to prevent similar cases in future.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > It’s an outrage.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The case is hopeless. I don’t, however, see the outrage of stopping bare-faced lies issued in the hope of duping the public.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > It should in no way be a criminal matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> >
> > I think a referendum is different to other political discourse. But I look at the legal process as being a new constraint on politicians riding rough over the population. I don't think MPs need worry in parliament as they are constrained by their own ethics and standards. Society evolves, it is within my life time for instance that letting dog's shit on pavements and leaving it there has moved from being socially acceptable to being socially unacceptable. To be fair misconduct in public office seems to have grown quickly as a newsworthy event in the last decade or so. I don't think Boris will suffer anything but temporary inconvenience but it is right he is held up to the standards of behaviour that the law guarantees.
>
> As leader of vote Leave did he even hold a public office? Genuinely not sure.
He was mayor of London for part of the campaign as well as an MP. It would be up to the court of course to look at whether he was mayor when he made the claims. It might of course be easily dismissed if he did not use the office of mayor to promote the disputed figures. But I would equally say that someone on the remain side should be prosecuted if they were using misleading figures. I think where Johnson falls down is he was claiming definitively it cost X amount. Where as Osbourne said families might be several thousand pounds worse off in the future as an estimate. You cannot really misled if you are estimating the future where as the past and present are factually testable.
Somebody is suing Boris Johnson for lying in the referendum. Cue every PB Leaver having vapours over the right to lie in a campaign, Telegraph articles et al.
The Brexit Party is suing somebody for saying they were money laundering. Nobody anywhere raises even an eyebrow.
I know there is one law for the metropolitan elite in the UK and another for civilians, but could you at least pretend that there isn't? Because this is getting depressing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Mhokzv-jw
> I find it bizarre that you think people who express opinions that may or may not be factually accurate should be prosecuted for doing so.
>
> Where do we draw the line?
>
> I think the libel laws we have should be perfectly adequate.
>
> But this is exactly the interesting point.
>
> If a politician says "My opponent is a racist", he might be sued for libel or slander.
>
> If the same politician says "My opponent's policy is racist", there are no sanctions.
>
> What's the difference?
Well, that one's quite easy to answer.
Outcome is easy to prove. "This policy will disproportionately affect ethnic minorities".
Intent is much harder. "This politician is deliberately enacting this policy because they dislike ethnic minorities".
Count 13
Flanagan (Ind, left) 121,824 ELECTED
Walsh (Fine Gael) 107,198 ELECTED
Carthy (Sinn Fein) 98,732 ELECTED
Casey (Ind) 78,362
Count finished
Ireland South
Count 18
Kelleher (Fianna Fail ) 131,652 Elected
Wallace (I4C) 109,149
Clune (Fine Gael) 97,935
O'Sullivan (Green) 96,095
Ní Riada (Sinn Fein) 95,573
Still 3 to be elected: 2 who will go to Strasbourg immediately and 1 after Brexit
Could be a factor?
> Anyone know why Sajid Javid is so long at the bookies? He's got over a dozen backers which is surprisingly rare so far and the only poll of Tory members recently released had him on 9%, joint 3rd with Gove. Seems he should be a solid second tier candidate, but the betting has him a no hoper. Andrea Leadsom is way shorter, despite having almost no MP backers. Rory Stewart is shorter too, despite having almost no MPs or members backing.
Javid seems oddly long to me too, so I have taken a nibble to help balance my book. I am nearly Gren across the board, with Boris the exception, but his odds are moving out, so I am just watching at present.
> > @kyf_100 said:
> > > @noneoftheabove said:
> > > > @kyf_100 said:
> > > > > @nichomar said:
> > > > > Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Were they lying?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > We are going to have many more coalitions as we are a divided country, can we not grow up and acknowledge the limitations that imposes on our politicians?
> >
> > My point is very simple.
> >
> > Politicians who lie should be punished at the ballot box. Politicians who break other laws (e.g. embezzlement of funds) should be punished under those laws. There should be no law prohibiting lying.
> >
> > It is unwise to draw the line as some lies (Boris) can be prosecuted while some lies cannot (Nick Clegg). Lest one day the line is redrawn and you find yourself on the wrong side of it.
> >
> >
>
> You have no idea what the LDs would have done if they had won a majority so no way to tell if Clegg and the LDs were being "honest" or not. That you either continue to ignore or fail to understand that they had no power to deliver their manifesto is bizarre.
The point is that the MPs individually signed a pledge (as did candidates of all parties) to vote against increasing tuition fees. That was regardless of whether they were in government or opposition, in fact it would make no sense if they were in government.
It's breaking the signed pledge that annoyed people, not failing to implement their manifesto.
I am not sure that's how the law generally works...
> So just to summarise.
>
> Somebody is suing Boris Johnson for lying in the referendum. Cue every PB Leaver having vapours over the right to lie in a campaign, Telegraph articles et al.
>
> The Brexit Party is suing somebody for saying they were money laundering. Nobody anywhere raises even an eyebrow.
>
> I know there is one law for the metropolitan elite in the UK and another for civilians, but could you at least pretend that there isn't? Because this is getting depressing.
One is libelling an individual, suggesting they are engaged in money laundering.
The other is using the courts to harass a politician whose figures you don't agree with.
Can you not see the difference? Because this is getting depressing.
> So just to summarise.
>
> Somebody is suing Boris Johnson for lying in the referendum. Cue every PB Leaver having vapours over the right to lie in a campaign, Telegraph articles et al.
>
> The Brexit Party is suing somebody for saying they were money laundering. Nobody anywhere raises even an eyebrow.
>
> I know there is one law for the metropolitan elite in the UK and another for civilians, but could you at least pretend that there isn't? Because this is getting depressing.
----
I am happy for Boris to be prosecuted. I am merely pointing out that if the prosecution is successful, we can expect Nick and Tony to be joining Boris in the cells.
In fact, as lying (or at least presenting a optimistic version of the actualite) are endemic in the makeup of most MPs, it may be easier for the House of Commons to meet in Wormwood Scrubs in future.
And of course our net contribution was only ever going to keep going up particularly as more poorer than average nations joined.
Prior to the 2010 election who was honest about the Scale of cuts needed - all the parties spent the campaign taking about £6bn on NI. Now austerity by contrast has resulted in deaths and suffering for many. They pretty much all lied. Let’s not even go there with Iraq.
Still prosecuting every MP who lies or allegedly lied would probably result in 650 by elections - and more scope for betting!
> > @Quincel said:
> > Anyone know why Sajid Javid is so long at the bookies? He's got over a dozen backers which is surprisingly rare so far and the only poll of Tory members recently released had him on 9%, joint 3rd with Gove. Seems he should be a solid second tier candidate, but the betting has him a no hoper. Andrea Leadsom is way shorter, despite having almost no MP backers. Rory Stewart is shorter too, despite having almost no MPs or members backing.
>
> This is a market I don’t find even remotely tempting. There are at least 315 people with a much better inside track of who is in or out than we can hope to have. Plus their staff. If the market is not giving us an insight into what is really going on here it never will.
Yes, I'm usually very reluctant to get involved with leadership markets for the same reason. But we're at the stage of public declarations and Leadsom/Javid's odds just seem so odd. I'm very tempted, despite myself.
Incidentally, why do you think I think Boris should be prosecuted for lying? I disapprove of him (as I have frequently said) but I doubt it would make it thru the courts, as Matthew whatsisface pointed out on or near the campaign that the Pink Book backs up the figure.
> Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again...
+1
We live in unusual times but politicians should not mislead the public just to win elections. There is something wrong if you can only win a political argument by hanging your message on an outright lie. It desecrates the whole political process and leads to an enduring mistrust or resentment of politicians. There will always be political cycles and politicians that take huge risks but a more civilised framework and standards for politicians to perform on would be welcome. You only have to go back 20 years or so to see how the transparency of political donations help lead the UK to cleaner politics. There is still work to do but donations from abroad for millions of pounds for Tories or Labour or any other party are no longer allowed.
Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives.
State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army.
We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board.
Any takers?
> Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again...
----
That is what happens now.
1. You lie (see N. Clegg).
2. Your political opponents nail the lie.
3. Electoral disaster looms (see N. Clegg).
4. You lose your seat (see N. Clegg).
In the case of B. Johnston, the Remainers should nail his lie by ensuring he loses his seat.
The fifth stage is of course
5. Sell out and get a massive salary to lie professionally for others (see N. Clegg).
I expect B. Johnston's trajectory will be the same as N. Clegg's.
> > @viewcode said:
>
> > So just to summarise.
>
> >
>
> > Somebody is suing Boris Johnson for lying in the referendum. Cue every PB Leaver having vapours over the right to lie in a campaign, Telegraph articles et al.
>
> >
>
> > The Brexit Party is suing somebody for saying they were money laundering. Nobody anywhere raises even an eyebrow.
>
> >
>
> > I know there is one law for the metropolitan elite in the UK and another for civilians, but could you at least pretend that there isn't? Because this is getting depressing.
>
>
>
> One is libelling an individual, suggesting they are engaged in money laundering.
>
>
>
> The other is using the courts to harass a politician whose figures you don't agree with.
>
>
>
> Can you not see the difference? Because this is getting depressing.
>
> To be precise, the person being sued made accusations about the Brexit Party (which apparently he is allowed to do) but Richard Tice of the Brexit Party took that accusation as an accusation against him personally and us suing on that basis. That involves subverting the intent of the law and committing the ecological fallacy in one fell swoop.
>
> Incidentally, why do you think I think Boris should be prosecuted for lying? I disapprove of him (as I have frequently said) but I doubt it would make it thru the courts, as Matthew whatsisface pointed out on or near the campaign that the Pink Book backs up the figure.
I am saying that comparing the two is very much comparing apples and oranges.
"Politician tells porkies to win election" is very much dog bites man.
"Political party is actually money laundering front and I will say this on national TV without a shred of evidence" is rather more dubious territory. To conflate the two is disingenuous.
I can't remember what the 'true' lower weekly figure was (was it 240?), but during the controversy over it, I was convinced that more money was going to the EU than is publicly acknowledged, and by doing a little research, I was able to find a proportion of the UK foreign aid budget that was being paid to the EU. Not EU aid for projects in the poorer countries mind, that was seperate. It was just a chunk of our aid being paid to the EU. It didn't make up the whole shortfall, but it was part way there, and I dare say there were other hidden streams of EU funding from other Government depts. I'd quite like 350 million to have its day in court.