BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

What on earth is wrong with him paying himself for organising this? It's not as though you can do that sort of thing in your spare time.

Well I suppose nothing except it did say the following on the crowdfunding page:

'This is a non-profit campaign. The people involved are volunteering their time freely.'

That seems fairly unambiguous.

ETA
The above is from an earlier link to the mail online. I haven't personally seen the page.

I wonder if any of the crowd funders are considering legal action given what he has allegedly done with £24k of their funding after claiming it was all not for profit?

Jez mon

Stevo 666 wrote:

sungod wrote:

it's about time all politicians, whether leave, remain, left wing, right wing, or fruitcake, who lie while in public office were held accountable, prosecuted if there's sufficient evidence, and if found guilty, face serious consequence, not just the typical slap on the wrist, jail them

If you did that, the House of Commons would be like the Marie Celeste.

So should politicians just be free to lie without consequences?

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

sungod wrote:

it's about time all politicians, whether leave, remain, left wing, right wing, or fruitcake, who lie while in public office were held accountable, prosecuted if there's sufficient evidence, and if found guilty, face serious consequence, not just the typical slap on the wrist, jail them

If you did that, the House of Commons would be like the Marie Celeste.

So should politicians just be free to lie without consequences?

I only commented on the consequences.

sungod

Stevo 666 wrote:

sungod wrote:

it's about time all politicians, whether leave, remain, left wing, right wing, or fruitcake, who lie while in public office were held accountable, prosecuted if there's sufficient evidence, and if found guilty, face serious consequence, not just the typical slap on the wrist, jail them

If you did that, the House of Commons would be like the Marie Celeste.

actually i think there're a fair number of decent ones in there, of all persuasions, but yes, there'd certainly be a significant thinning out, which would be a good thing

top up with new blood as the bent ones get sent down, after a while we stabilise or run out, there're too many anyway

Stevo_666

sungod wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

sungod wrote:

it's about time all politicians, whether leave, remain, left wing, right wing, or fruitcake, who lie while in public office were held accountable, prosecuted if there's sufficient evidence, and if found guilty, face serious consequence, not just the typical slap on the wrist, jail them

If you did that, the House of Commons would be like the Marie Celeste.

actually i think there're a fair number of decent ones in there, of all persuasions, but yes, there'd certainly be a significant thinning out, which would be a good thing

top up with new blood as the bent ones get sent down, after a while we stabilise or run out, there're too many anyway

True, but telling porkies is an almost implicit part of the political process, especially when they make claims about what they will do if elected. This extends to the 'door knockers' as well as the high profile lot as far as I can see.

Jez mon

Stevo 666 wrote:

sungod wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

sungod wrote:

it's about time all politicians, whether leave, remain, left wing, right wing, or fruitcake, who lie while in public office were held accountable, prosecuted if there's sufficient evidence, and if found guilty, face serious consequence, not just the typical slap on the wrist, jail them

If you did that, the House of Commons would be like the Marie Celeste.

actually i think there're a fair number of decent ones in there, of all persuasions, but yes, there'd certainly be a significant thinning out, which would be a good thing

top up with new blood as the bent ones get sent down, after a while we stabilise or run out, there're too many anyway

True, but telling porkies is an almost implicit part of the political process, especially when they make claims about what they will do if elected. This extends to the 'door knockers' as well as the high profile lot as far as I can see.

I think the trouble is getting the line between spin and outright lie. I'd argue that much of the remain campaign was more spinney than lie-y. It was also amplified to a tremendous degree by the media.

Given the rebate never gets sent to Brussels, the 350 million isn't even the money we'd now get full control over. If Boris had said we send over 100 million a week, he wouldn't be in this trouble now, and it still sounds like absolute f tons.

bobmcstuff

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

sungod wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

sungod wrote:

it's about time all politicians, whether leave, remain, left wing, right wing, or fruitcake, who lie while in public office were held accountable, prosecuted if there's sufficient evidence, and if found guilty, face serious consequence, not just the typical slap on the wrist, jail them

If you did that, the House of Commons would be like the Marie Celeste.

actually i think there're a fair number of decent ones in there, of all persuasions, but yes, there'd certainly be a significant thinning out, which would be a good thing

top up with new blood as the bent ones get sent down, after a while we stabilise or run out, there're too many anyway

True, but telling porkies is an almost implicit part of the political process, especially when they make claims about what they will do if elected. This extends to the 'door knockers' as well as the high profile lot as far as I can see.

I think the trouble is getting the line between spin and outright lie. I'd argue that much of the remain campaign was more spinney than lie-y. It was also amplified to a tremendous degree by the media.

Given the rebate never gets sent to Brussels, the 350 million isn't even the money we'd now get full control over. If Boris had said we send over 100 million a week, he wouldn't be in this trouble now, and it still sounds like absolute f tons.

There's a big difference between what they would like to do when elected and what they actually can do. Which probably explains some of the gap, for some politicians at least.

bobmcstuff

Also as to him being in a bit of a mess... I am not sure how much of this is actually bad for him.

All of his base is on his side already, they will believe the case is rubbish and will have bought into the claims the first time around 3 years ago. So all this is doing is reminding them of this, which is probably just helping Boris' campaign.

Assuming he doesn't end up in prison or something.

rjsterry

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

What on earth is wrong with him paying himself for organising this? It's not as though you can do that sort of thing in your spare time.

Well I suppose nothing except it did say the following on the crowdfunding page:

'This is a non-profit campaign. The people involved are volunteering their time freely.'

That seems fairly unambiguous.

ETA
The above is from an earlier link to the mail online. I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Did it? I couldn't see it. It says they publish details of spending on legal fees and other reasonable expenditure, and on the published spreadsheet it says that he claims living expenses as he is working full time on this. The cupcakes that the DM, Telegraph and Express claim to have "revealed" are also listed on the spreadsheet as a thank you gift for the legal team. As I said, I'm not keen on the idea of prosecuting campaign slogans but this seems a pretty weak attack from Johnson supporters and a really lazy day at the office for the 'journalist".

robert88

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

What on earth is wrong with him paying himself for organising this? It's not as though you can do that sort of thing in your spare time.

Well I suppose nothing except it did say the following on the crowdfunding page:

'This is a non-profit campaign. The people involved are volunteering their time freely.'

That seems fairly unambiguous.

ETA
The above is from an earlier link to the mail online. I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Having followed his campaign since day 1, I understand he was of no fixed abode for much of time, being put up by friends and supporters without employment. Presumably he had to use money to pay for food and other life sustaining essentials and £24k isn't huge amount if it covers the period from July 2016 up to today. I'd say that was a bargain. Probably wouldn't cover a gutter press journos bar bills for a year.

It came as no surprise to me that in this political climate the first thing his opponents would do was mount a smear campaign. It is a race to the bottom these days after all.

WHatever the outcome of the case for the egregious Johnston, it will put on record a lot of what went on during the Brexit campaign and also the importance of national health funding at a time when Farage would dearly love us all to have to take out insurance, no doubt through a company of a fellow Brexiteer?

darkhairedlord

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

What on earth is wrong with him paying himself for organising this? It's not as though you can do that sort of thing in your spare time.

Well I suppose nothing except it did say the following on the crowdfunding page:

'This is a non-profit campaign. The people involved are volunteering their time freely.'

That seems fairly unambiguous.

ETA
The above is from an earlier link to the mail online. I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Did it? I couldn't see it. It says they publish details of spending on legal fees and other reasonable expenditure, and on the published spreadsheet it says that he claims living expenses as he is working full time on this. As I said, I'm not keen on the idea of prosecuting campaign slogans but this seems a pretty weak attack from Johnson supporters.

Johnson wasn't just an mp. He was also the mayor of London.

Jez mon

bobmcstuff wrote:

Also as to him being in a bit of a mess... I am not sure how much of this is actually bad for him.

All of his base is on his side already, they will believe the case is rubbish and will have bought into the claims the first time around 3 years ago. So all this is doing is reminding them of this, which is probably just helping Boris' campaign.

Assuming he doesn't end up in prison or something.

He needs to get through the Conservative MPs before he can reach his base though.

I think this just reinforces what a liability he is to most of the Conservative MPs.

Jez mon

darkhairedlord wrote:

Johnson wasn't just an mp. He was also the mayor of London.

I don't buy into the "just an MP" thing.

They should all be held to the same standards.

rjsterry

darkhairedlord wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

What on earth is wrong with him paying himself for organising this? It's not as though you can do that sort of thing in your spare time.

Well I suppose nothing except it did say the following on the crowdfunding page:

'This is a non-profit campaign. The people involved are volunteering their time freely.'

That seems fairly unambiguous.

ETA
The above is from an earlier link to the mail online. I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Did it? I couldn't see it. It says they publish details of spending on legal fees and other reasonable expenditure, and on the published spreadsheet it says that he claims living expenses as he is working full time on this. As I said, I'm not keen on the idea of prosecuting campaign slogans but this seems a pretty weak attack from Johnson supporters.

Johnson wasn't just an mp. He was also the mayor of London.

And it is ironic that p***ing £40-odd million on a non-existent vanity project is considered worth nothing more than some harsh words, while a really obviously untrue campaign slogan that was called out repeatedly at the time deserves a court case.

darkhairedlord

rjsterry wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

What on earth is wrong with him paying himself for organising this? It's not as though you can do that sort of thing in your spare time.

Well I suppose nothing except it did say the following on the crowdfunding page:

'This is a non-profit campaign. The people involved are volunteering their time freely.'

That seems fairly unambiguous.

ETA
The above is from an earlier link to the mail online. I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Did it? I couldn't see it. It says they publish details of spending on legal fees and other reasonable expenditure, and on the published spreadsheet it says that he claims living expenses as he is working full time on this. As I said, I'm not keen on the idea of prosecuting campaign slogans but this seems a pretty weak attack from Johnson supporters.

Johnson wasn't just an mp. He was also the mayor of London.

And it is ironic that p***ing £40-odd million on a non-existent vanity project is considered of nothing more than some harsh words, while a really obviously untrue campaign slogan that was called out repeatedly at the time deserves a court case.

Hopefully they will pull him up that while in the dock.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

What on earth is wrong with him paying himself for organising this? It's not as though you can do that sort of thing in your spare time.

Well I suppose nothing except it did say the following on the crowdfunding page:

'This is a non-profit campaign. The people involved are volunteering their time freely.'

That seems fairly unambiguous.

ETA
The above is from an earlier link to the mail online. I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Did it? I couldn't see it. It says they publish details of spending on legal fees and other reasonable expenditure, and on the published spreadsheet it says that he claims living expenses as he is working full time on this. As I said, I'm not keen on the idea of prosecuting campaign slogans but this seems a pretty weak attack from Johnson supporters.

Johnson wasn't just an mp. He was also the mayor of London.

And it is ironic that p***ing £40-odd million on a non-existent vanity project is considered worth nothing more than some harsh words, while a really obviously untrue campaign slogan that was called out repeatedly at the time deserves a court case.

It might have been 'really obviously untrue to you'*, but in the febrile atmosphere of the Brexit campaign it was no such thing.

* or you might just be deceived by the line that the Johnston camp is taking.

rjsterry

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

What on earth is wrong with him paying himself for organising this? It's not as though you can do that sort of thing in your spare time.

Well I suppose nothing except it did say the following on the crowdfunding page:

'This is a non-profit campaign. The people involved are volunteering their time freely.'

That seems fairly unambiguous.

ETA
The above is from an earlier link to the mail online. I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Did it? I couldn't see it. It says they publish details of spending on legal fees and other reasonable expenditure, and on the published spreadsheet it says that he claims living expenses as he is working full time on this. As I said, I'm not keen on the idea of prosecuting campaign slogans but this seems a pretty weak attack from Johnson supporters.

Johnson wasn't just an mp. He was also the mayor of London.

And it is ironic that p***ing £40-odd million on a non-existent vanity project is considered worth nothing more than some harsh words, while a really obviously untrue campaign slogan that was called out repeatedly at the time deserves a court case.

It might have been 'really obviously untrue to you'*, but in the febrile atmosphere of the Brexit campaign it was no such thing.

* or you might just be deceived by the line that the Johnston camp is taking.

No, I clearly remember it being publicly called out as nonsense by numerous people and independent bodies at the time. People only 'believed' it because it fitted their pre-conceived narrative: any number on that bus would have been too much.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

any number on that bus would have been too much.

That's what is difficult to understand. The correct number of millions would have worked just as well, so why lie?

coopster_the_1st

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

any number on that bus would have been too much.

That's what is difficult to understand. The correct number of millions would have worked just as well, so why lie?

Is the gross figure incorrect?
Do you quote your salary as a net figure?

The gross figure was a genius bit of politics as it made the remain side constantly focus on the payment figure and the best they could do to argue it was quote the net figure which is also a very large number.

It also played to the leave campaign by highlighting the lack of control the UK has between the gross and net figure.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

What on earth is wrong with him paying himself for organising this? It's not as though you can do that sort of thing in your spare time.

Well I suppose nothing except it did say the following on the crowdfunding page:

'This is a non-profit campaign. The people involved are volunteering their time freely.'

That seems fairly unambiguous.

ETA
The above is from an earlier link to the mail online. I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Did it? I couldn't see it. It says they publish details of spending on legal fees and other reasonable expenditure, and on the published spreadsheet it says that he claims living expenses as he is working full time on this. As I said, I'm not keen on the idea of prosecuting campaign slogans but this seems a pretty weak attack from Johnson supporters.

Johnson wasn't just an mp. He was also the mayor of London.

And it is ironic that p***ing £40-odd million on a non-existent vanity project is considered worth nothing more than some harsh words, while a really obviously untrue campaign slogan that was called out repeatedly at the time deserves a court case.

It might have been 'really obviously untrue to you'*, but in the febrile atmosphere of the Brexit campaign it was no such thing.

* or you might just be deceived by the line that the Johnston camp is taking.

No, I clearly remember it being publicly called out as nonsense by numerous people and independent bodies at the time. People only 'believed' it because it fitted their pre-conceived narrative: any number on that bus would have been too much.

It's hardly surprising because given the level of coverage of EU matters over the years plus the apathy of voters they could feed any lie to their chosen audience. Combined with a deliberate ploy to discredit 'experts' as tools of the elite.

So yes, find a 'pre-conceived' narrative and if you have to lie to peddle it then so what, it's votes that count. Trump's been doing it for years and got away with it.

darkhairedlord

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

any number on that bus would have been too much.

That's what is difficult to understand. The correct number of millions would have worked just as well, so why lie?

Is the gross figure incorrect?
Do you quote your salary as a net figure?

The gross figure was a genius bit of politics as it made the remain side constantly focus on the payment figure and the best they could do to argue it was quote the net figure which is also a very large number.

It also played to the leave campaign by highlighting the lack of control the UK has between the gross and net figure.

We shouldn't be leaving the EU because one side had a better campaign. We should be leaving or staying based upon what is best for the UK.

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

any number on that bus would have been too much.

That's what is difficult to understand. The correct number of millions would have worked just as well, so why lie?

Is the gross figure incorrect?
Do you quote your salary as a net figure?

The gross figure was a genius bit of politics as it made the remain side constantly focus on the payment figure and the best they could do to argue it was quote the net figure which is also a very large number.

It also played to the leave campaign by highlighting the lack of control the UK has between the gross and net figure.

Not that I want to get into this again, but YES, THE GROSS FIGURE IS INCORRECT, WHEN STATED AS "WE SEND THE EU £350m PER WEEK".

But, like I say, it doesn't matter. Any big number would have done the job.

Ben6899

darkhairedlord wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

any number on that bus would have been too much.

That's what is difficult to understand. The correct number of millions would have worked just as well, so why lie?

Is the gross figure incorrect?
Do you quote your salary as a net figure?

The gross figure was a genius bit of politics as it made the remain side constantly focus on the payment figure and the best they could do to argue it was quote the net figure which is also a very large number.

It also played to the leave campaign by highlighting the lack of control the UK has between the gross and net figure.

We shouldn't be leaving the EU because one side had a better campaign. We should be leaving or staying based upon what is best for the UK.

You're wasting your time with someone who sees this whole thing as taking sides and points scoring.

robert88

By my rough estimation*, it means (taking only the net figure) that as soon as we stop paying the contribution the NHS budget can be increased from £125bn to £134bn.

Under the Johnston bus so to speak, it would be increased to £143bn.

Whatever is decided in court, reality will almost certainly prove that neither increase will be made and Johnston was deceiving the electorate.




* me? I am no expert, how dare you..

robert88

Robert88 wrote:

By my rough estimation*, it means (taking only the net figure) that as soon as we stop paying the contribution the NHS budget can be increased from £125bn to £134bn.

Under the Johnston bus so to speak, it would be increased to £143bn.

Whatever is decided in court, reality will almost certainly prove that neither increase will be made and Johnston was deceiving the electorate.




* me? I am no expert, how dare you..

That didn't take long..

US Ambassador to the UK Woody Johnson tells #Marr that the whole of the economy, including the #NHS, will be “on the table” in a future US-UK trade deal after Brexit

pblakeney

The sad part is that the above is neither news, nor new.
It has been known for some time and the process of selling off is already underway.

sungod

yep, successive governments have opened public sector to privatisation, companies from usa and elsewhere have been making profit at taxpayers' expense for years

care homes, prisons, probation service, army recruiting, umpteen bits of the nhs, disability assessment etc., typically quality suffers, people get abused, neglected, or even die

brexit will remove remaining eu protections, uk will be a usa vassal state, just what farage and his backers want, funny thing is it'll be the suckers who voted for it that suffer most

TheBigBean

Robert88 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

By my rough estimation*, it means (taking only the net figure) that as soon as we stop paying the contribution the NHS budget can be increased from £125bn to £134bn.

Under the Johnston bus so to speak, it would be increased to £143bn.

Whatever is decided in court, reality will almost certainly prove that neither increase will be made and Johnston was deceiving the electorate.




* me? I am no expert, how dare you..

That didn't take long..

US Ambassador to the UK Woody Johnson tells #Marr that the whole of the economy, including the #NHS, will be “on the table” in a future US-UK trade deal after Brexit

Not exactly what he said.

morstar

sungod wrote:

brexit will remove remaining eu protections, uk will be a usa vassal state, just what farage and his backers want, funny thing is it'll be the suckers who voted for it that suffer most

They do insist they know exactly what they voted for.

Which either makes them morons if they did...
Or lying morons if they didn't.

robert88

TheBigBean wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

By my rough estimation*, it means (taking only the net figure) that as soon as we stop paying the contribution the NHS budget can be increased from £125bn to £134bn.

Under the Johnston bus so to speak, it would be increased to £143bn.

Whatever is decided in court, reality will almost certainly prove that neither increase will be made and Johnston was deceiving the electorate.




* me? I am no expert, how dare you..

That didn't take long..

US Ambassador to the UK Woody Johnson tells #Marr that the whole of the economy, including the #NHS, will be “on the table” in a future US-UK trade deal after Brexit

Not exactly what he said.

You don't get off that easy pal. You are in the frame for when it goes tits up and that's the end of it.