BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

So we'll just leave it to those with enough money to try which ever politician they see fit for lying?

This is nonesense and should be thrown out. Lying unless you are in court or being questioned is not a crime, nor should it be. We all lie all the time.

He won't be in court for lying; he'll be in court for "misconduct in public office".

All power Mr Ball, AFAIC.

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

So we'll just leave it to those with enough money to try which ever politician they see fit for lying?

This is nonesense and should be thrown out. Lying unless you are in court or being questioned is not a crime, nor should it be. We all lie all the time.

In a free society, anyone can bring a case against anyone for any reason. All it needs to go forward is for a judge to decide there is prima facie evidence - as they have in this case. Johnson (or anyone else facing such a trial) would only be convicted if the case was proven. Again, I don't see the issue...

As for the bit in bold - presumably you are speaking for yourself...

TheBigBean

On the subject of private prosecutions, Andrea Leadsom's brother in law and Conservative Party donor, demonstrates why it should have limits.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... fund-quant

rolf_f

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Prosecuting political leaders for what they say campaigning is a very slippery slope and is fraught with problems.

I take a completely opposite view. If everyone during the referendum campaign had been legally responsible/accountable for what they said, we would not be in this mess now. I'd like to see Johnson successfully prosecuted so that a precedent can be set.

I tend to think that these days things have changed and there is a good case to say that lies should be treated more seriously. To be honest, it would be a start if the media actually called people out on this. How often do you see something reported as "Mr Trump dishonestly claimed", "Boris Johnson lied" etc. This stuff in the past would have been forgotten in five minutes but now it gets used to back up further lies.

There's a difference between errors, misquotes etc and sustained, deliberate, repeated bare faced lying. I'm not sure what slippery slopes Rick is concerned about if this is addressed (serious question - not sniping!). I'd just kind of like politicians to take responsibility for what they say. It's not as though there is the slightest doubt that Boris didn't know what the facts actually were. A successful prosecution of him would serve as a useful lesson to be learned and would reduce the quantity of lies we are exposed to. Surely a good thing.......

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm pretty convinced trying to privately prosecute BoJo for the fib on the bus is a bad development.

As in it will bolster support for him with those who have a say in electing the next party leader?

No as in using private prosecutions as a political weapon isn't on.

It's not a great precedent to set.

Ideally it would be a public prosecution for a public official deliberately seeking to mislead the electorate but no-one had the balls for that. Do we think politicians on any side should be able to lie to get their way?

I've got no issue with them giving an opinion of an outcome no matter how skewed but actually stating a known lie as fact should not be acceptable. If he can demonstrate he was using data / source information that reasonably led him to believe he was stating the truth then I have no issue but he more or less admitted straight after the Leave vote won that he knew it was a pack of lies.

bianchimoon

Johnson knowingly lying about figures is no different to any other criminal gaining something by fraud and deception, there are people with a vote and with very little in the way of critical thinking skills, it's OK some of us saying "well I never believed him anyway". People did and voted upon what they saw and heard, ergo Johnson and others got what they wanted by deception.

Ben6899

TheBigBean wrote:

On the subject of private prosecutions, Andrea Leadsom's brother in law and Conservative Party donor, demonstrates why it should have limits.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... fund-quant

The behavior of GR Software (or whatever they're called) has been abhorrent. But that comes as no surprise.

The five employees that quit... claiming that what they learned at GR is GR's IP? Get in the f***ing sea.

mr_goo

Didn't a certain moneyed Gina Millar take the government to court?
Different but the same in that it was a politically motivated court case.

rick_chasey

Mr Goo wrote:

Didn't a certain moneyed Gina Millar take the government to court?
Different but the same in that it was a politically motivated court case.

That was not criminal and it was constitutional challenge, nor was it aimed at silencing a political rival, but establishing the right constitutional precedence.

imposter2.0

Mr Goo wrote:

Didn't a certain moneyed Gina Millar take the government to court?
Different but the same in that it was a politically motivated court case.

Correct. But you can argue the case was motivated by ethics and a certain amount of irony, as well as politics..

rick_chasey

But yes, it's disappointing you need money to make the constitutional appeal.

TheBigBean

Ben6899 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

On the subject of private prosecutions, Andrea Leadsom's brother in law and Conservative Party donor, demonstrates why it should have limits.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... fund-quant

The behavior of GR Software (or whatever they're called) has been abhorrent. But that comes as no surprise.

The five employees that quit... claiming that what they learned at GR is GR's IP? Get in the f***ing sea.

Indeed. It is a good example to those who think private prosecutions are fine without limit. Going after public sector employees was also pretty low.

robert88

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Prosecuting political leaders for what they say campaigning is a very slippery slope and is fraught with problems.

I take a completely opposite view. If everyone during the referendum campaign had been legally responsible/accountable for what they said, we would not be in this mess now. I'd like to see Johnson successfully prosecuted so that a precedent can be set.

Totally agree. The slippery slope is when the likes of Trump and Johnson can set aside the truth to further their own ambitions.

The excuse of 'free speech' doesn't wash with me. Like anything in life, freedom has to be used responsibly and within the law.

This case is not politically motivated, that is a ploy typically used in the USA by Trump's supporters.

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

So we'll just leave it to those with enough money to try which ever politician they see fit for lying?

This is nonesense and should be thrown out. Lying unless you are in court or being questioned is not a crime, nor should it be. We all lie all the time.

I trust you speak for yourself.

rick_chasey

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So we'll just leave it to those with enough money to try which ever politician they see fit for lying?

This is nonesense and should be thrown out. Lying unless you are in court or being questioned is not a crime, nor should it be. We all lie all the time.

I trust you speak for yourself.

Who knows, I'm probably lying.

bobmcstuff

Stevo 666 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

FT this morning suggesting a 2nd ref has become more likely, for the following reasons:

- No-deal likely to be blocked by Parliament
- Revoke isn't possible given the current mandate
- New PM unlikely to be able to renegotiate anything meaningful
- Holding a general election in the current climate would be suicide for both Cons and Lab

Nobody wants a referendum either, but it's starting to be seen as the "least worst" option, i.e., the only way out that's left.

I would add to that another extension is also looking reasonably likely IMO.

Yes, I agree - I think it would end up being needed to support any election/referendum regardless, and possibly even to allow no-deal preparation if they take it too close to the line.

bobmcstuff

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So we'll just leave it to those with enough money to try which ever politician they see fit for lying?

This is nonesense and should be thrown out. Lying unless you are in court or being questioned is not a crime, nor should it be. We all lie all the time.

In a free society, anyone can bring a case against anyone for any reason. All it needs to go forward is for a judge to decide there is prima facie evidence - as they have in this case. Johnson (or anyone else facing such a trial) would only be convicted if the case was proven. Again, I don't see the issue...

As for the bit in bold - presumably you are speaking for yourself...

On the contrary, I think anyone who says they never lie is, in fact, lying... even if they only tell white lies.

There is really good evidence for this as well.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga ... s-science/ - 3rd google result.

Two decades ago DePaulo and her colleagues asked 147 adults to jot down for a week every instance they tried to mislead someone. The researchers found that the subjects lied on average one or two times a day. Most of these untruths were innocuous, intended to hide one’s inadequacies or to protect the feelings of others. Some lies were excuses—one subject blamed the failure to take out the garbage on not knowing where it needed to go. Yet other lies—such as a claim of being a diplomat’s son—were aimed at presenting a false image. While these were minor transgressions, a later study by DePaulo and other colleagues involving a similar sample indicated that most people have, at some point, told one or more “serious lies”—hiding an affair from a spouse, for example, or making false claims on a college application

There's loads of research on this.

coopster_the_1st

£350 million is backed up in Table 9.9 of the ONS Pink Book, revealing total debits from the UK to the EU amounted to 19.1bn

Don't think this case will get very far.

Looks like 'peak' remoaner from the Losers to me.

slowbike

bobmcstuff wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So we'll just leave it to those with enough money to try which ever politician they see fit for lying?

This is nonesense and should be thrown out. Lying unless you are in court or being questioned is not a crime, nor should it be. We all lie all the time.

In a free society, anyone can bring a case against anyone for any reason. All it needs to go forward is for a judge to decide there is prima facie evidence - as they have in this case. Johnson (or anyone else facing such a trial) would only be convicted if the case was proven. Again, I don't see the issue...

As for the bit in bold - presumably you are speaking for yourself...

On the contrary, I think anyone who says they never lie is, in fact, lying... even if they only tell white lies.

There's loads of research on this.

I do it quite frequently now - with a pre-schooler about, you almost have too - I do try and tell him the truth, but let's be honest "Daddy where are you?!" being shouted as you've only just told him where you're going and gone out the room deserves an answer of "In the Space Rocket" ... clearly it's not the truth - but it's not a lie ... it's just a game.

I don't recall lying to anyone in the office today - or yesterday - so "We all lie all the time" is perhaps a bit of a lie?

morstar

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

rick_chasey

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Next time however...

rjsterry

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

That seems to have been lost on a few of the supporters of the action.

morstar

Rick Chasey wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Next time however...

But as others have stated, I don't have an issue with politicians being expected to campaign on verifiable facts rather than blatant lies.

That still leave enormous scope for ideology and political persuasion. It will be an interesting test case.

If I lie in business, I expect to be at risk of being held to account. No different.

If I argue that I think our business is best served by course of action 'A' and I anticipate 'x' results, I may get sacked if I'm wrong but I would not expect to be prosecuted (unless negligent). Likewise a politician.

This is not an infringement on free speech and should not be feared by anyone acting with integrity IMHO.

imposter2.0

Coopster the 1st wrote:

£350 million is backed up in Table 9.9 of the ONS Pink Book, revealing total debits from the UK to the EU amounted to 19.1bn

Don't think this case will get very far.

Looks like 'peak' remoaner from the Losers to me.

Regardless of how you calculate the amount, I suspect it had more to do with the implied promise of another £350m per week for the NHS. Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of EU structural funding (ie not you) would probably get that...

mr_goo

Rick Chasey wrote:

But yes, it's disappointing you need money to make the constitutional appeal.

Ergo the average citizen has no power to change anything. Money talks.

Why isn't anyone taking Cameron or Osborne to court over their threat that leaving the EU will crash the property market. Where is the verifiable evidence for that?

imposter2.0

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

But yes, it's disappointing you need money to make the constitutional appeal.

Ergo the average citizen has no power to change anything. Money talks.

The guy who brought the case raised £200k through crowdfunding - ergo anyone can do it.

morstar

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

But yes, it's disappointing you need money to make the constitutional appeal.

Ergo the average citizen has no power to change anything. Money talks.

Why isn't anyone taking Cameron or Osborne to court over their threat that leaving the EU will crash the property market. Where is the verifiable evidence for that?

As I said upthread. The guy who started the action looked into protagonists from both sides. They felt in all other cases, the evidence didn't support a strong enough case. With BJ, this was not the case.

morstar

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/BrexitJusticeProsecution

Read down to 'Why Boris Johnson'.

States their reasoning and also nicely has a picture of David Cameron. You need to read between the lines to make a connection as to why his picture is there.

shortfall

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Stevo_666

Shortfall wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Unsurprising really.