Just heard on the radio news that he’s going to have to appear in court to answer charges on misconduct in public office for the £350m a week to EU lie. His representative is reported as saying the trial is just a politically motivated stunt - oh, the irony😏
Its' great innit. Does teh CPS take over or still privately funded?
In other news, "Court Artist buys big box of yellow crayons"
His representative is reported as saying the trial is just a politically motivated stunt – oh, the irony😏
It pains me that I may be turning into a conspiracy nut but it does feel all a little too perfectly timed to ruin his chances of being forced into going down with his ship again.
Last time round his buddy Gove, "knifes him in the back" saving both of them from a spot of political harikari. Now he's got a possible court case with potential to bar him from sitting as an MP to ruin his leadership bid. In both cases he comes out looking better to his supporters yet avoids all responsibility for brexit.
I'll just repost here what I posted in the EU thread as it's exactly the same response...
It’s a solid case I think…
The second sentence on the bus ‘let’s give it to the NHS instead’ was simply misleading as it was a suggestion rather than a promise or a statement of intention. So not technically a lie.
The first part of the sentence however! ‘we give the EU 350m a week’ is what the case cites, as abuse, as that’s a gross figure before taking into account rebates and mutually beneficial expenditure that goes towards continental security, science projects, environmental projects and many other things that are hard to quantify in terms of gross UK membership fees.
Of course the right wing press won’t mention that.
BoJo certainly won’t, he’s a disaster capitalist.
Anyone regognise this pequliar couple? They weren’t happy being photographed together.
Is that Boris Johnson meeting Nigel Farage? Boris Johnson who criticized Jeremy Corbyn for meeting former IRA commander Martin McGuinness? In case anyone is unsure who Boris Johnson is, he's the one here meeting former IRA commander Martin McGuinness
Seems it's been brewing for a little while now.
‘we give the EU 350m a week’ is what the case cites, as abuse, as that’s a gross figure
I might be wrong but I believe the case says the figure is essentially made-up with no basis in fact. A gross figure would be very easy to defend I imagine, its a provable amount and has an obvious factual basis, I may be wrong mind.
[How much do you earn? You're not likely to take your employer to court for advising you of your gross salary (if you reflexively give a net figure I think you're the only person on the planet)]
Is it the case started by this fella? LINK
Yes that's the one.
It pains me that I may be turning into a conspiracy nut but it does feel all a little too perfectly timed to ruin his chances of being forced into going down with his ship again.
Yup, been running for an age
Timing seems "useful". The claim was so easily proved wrong that a) Farage tried to distance himself from it and b) this Eurosceptic decided to vote Remain!
Must be a lot of other politicians expecting a knock on the door if lying and misleading the public are an offence....
Likely outcome if found guilty?
Would Aaron banks pay his fine?
wonder if Banski might have other issues?
https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1133609232274776064
as for Borris, hes a liar & an arse, not sure if this will help or hinder him, its more exposure after all.
I think Id like to have seen him billed for teh Garden Bridge fisaco more
Likely outcome if found guilty?
Potentially life in prison.
in practical terms I think you'd be looking at a couple of years suspended (I believe allowing him to remain as an mp) and a nice big fine followed by years of appeals, political martyrdom and a glorious return to the fold in a few years to resurrect the Conservative Party.
Much as I think it's a bit amusing and could do with doing over something (the lying by politicians of every flavour really needs to be brought into check and an example prosecution isn't a bad idea) I can't help feeling it's a bloody stupid thing to do in this case, it's yet another brick in the wall between leave and remain.
An MP telling lies?
I'm shocked.
If every MP that lied ended up in court we'd soon run out of them.
wonder if Banski might have other issues?
From the bbc
Not sure arron banks qualifies as a foreign official.
Not sure arron banks qualifies as a foreign official.
Didn't he used to be some kind of ambassador for Belize?
Didn’t he used to be some kind of ambassador for Belize?
Nah that is Ashcroft.
Is that Boris Johnson meeting Nigel Farage?
Yes, not so much a meeting by the looks of it, but a jolly good drinking season between mates!
Until they saw someone taking a pic, and then they got all upset.
Banks claimed to have traveled on a Belizian passport in his Brexit bad boy book, but then downgraded it to an ID card when challenged by Cadwalladr, he had that because he was apparently Belize's Honorary Consul to Cardiff?!!?
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/controversial-ukip-funder-brexit-supporter-14877587
I hate to say it but the whole thing could quite easily be spun to his advantage in the leadership run off, seeking to try and martyr him and claim he's only a target for the lefties because of "being willing to stand up and be counted" or some other such toss...
This is the kind of thing that actually has the potential to play well for some of the target market...
I might be wrong but I believe the case says the figure is essentially made-up with no basis in fact. A gross figure would be very easy to defend I imagine, its a provable amount and has an obvious factual basis, I may be wrong mind.
I'm sure that might well be correct. I didn't want to say as much as I've not seen the figures.
It's as best dishonest and probably a complete lie.
Hopefully the fat pig will be stung up for this. There was no honest intention in that first part of the sentence on the bus, and he can't be nailed for the second part as it was a suggestion rather than an outright lie.
Let's hope the courts do thier jobs.
we give the EU 350m a week’ is what the case cites, as abuse, as that’s a gross figure
So in other words, we
- do
give 350m a week to the EU? Getting a bit like the old Eastern Europe round these parts, isn't it my red Socialist friends. Lose a democratic vote? Use the legal system against your opponents. Stay classy.
So in other words, we do give 350m a week to the EU?
erm no we dont, the rebate is deducted before we transfer anything but yeah other than that, carry on
Eastern Europe round these parts, isn’t it my red Socialist friends. Lose a democratic vote? Use the legal system against your opponents
You've got that a bit wrong.
A) you don't loose a democratic vote. If there's any possibility of that you...
B) The legal process is used to prevent your opponents standing in a democratic contest,by using it first you ensure (A)
the rebate is deducted before we transfer anything but yeah other than that, carry on
But on paper it goes something like:
-£350mil contributions
+100mil rebate
Net - 250mil
I expect there's rather more to the court case than that or it won't last long. Especially given the rebate is against last year's payment so in year 1 we didn't get a rebate so really it's not deducted straight away, it's deducted 12 months later.
Yes it's spliting hairs but I really really hope the legal arguments have more to them than that.
Ok,
So I have long petitioned for this self same action to be brought against LyingBloHard and the rest of the right wing lying nut jobs.
His day will come in court, and I hope he’s true to form and lies whilst in the dock.. as is typical of a Tory.
I will be celebrating this out come.
And hope the CPS continues its course to bring to court the others (NF is also facing campaign fraud)
Stay classy.
It's either factually correct or a lie.
'giving' 350m to the EU was a statement (the first part of the sentence). That would need to be qualified by taking into account rebates and various other gains the UK gets from membership.
That's provable one way or another.
The suggestion of giving 350m to the NHS... the second part of the sentence was a simple (dishonest but not technically a lie) suggestion.
There are plenty of grammar nerds on here, even to the layman it was a misleading sentence.
The first part is in court for being an outright lie, the second part was misleading at best, and intended to rile up the electorate.
Three thoughts:
1. The unexplained wealth order for anyone that can bothered to use google before spreading fake news related to the wife of a jailed Azerbaijan banker.
2. The £350m is misleading as the actual figure is £250m a week.
3. The incredible new Royal Papworth Hospital that’s just opened cost £165m to build. At that rate the EU net payment would fund one new hospital a week with £105m in spare change.
That Boris is a complete tool is undeniable but the question of whether we really get value from the net £250m a week is highly relevant.
We’re told it’s the cost of participating in the free market yet Japan and Canada how both concluded extensive free trade agreements with the EU that doesn’t require them to pay anything at all for the “privilege” of being allowed to sell goods and services to EU member states (and vice versa).
1. The unexplained wealth order for anyone that can bothered to use google before spreading fake news related to the wife of a jailed Azerbaijan banker.
That's not the new ones issued against the 3 properties though is it but the ones currently being tested and filed last year?
Yes it’s spliting hairs but I really really hope the legal arguments have more to them than that.
Legal arguments are often all about splitting hairs. The first line on the bus is arguably true (pre rebate) If they'd put £250 mil it would have been better but either would serve the purpose. The second line is exactly what it says. The case is a political stunt and will go nowhere.
How many new hospitals could we have built for the combined cost of the ongoing Brexit process, the unbuilt Garden Bridge, the snap election and the DUP bung?
In other words, we could probably have had 6 or 7 new hospitals and possibly a couple of schools AND enjoyed the benefits of staying in the EU.
The bigger lie was that it was the EU stopping us investing in public services, rather than our own politicians...
2. The £350m is misleading as the actual figure is £250m a week.
It's either the truth or a lie, as it was phrased as a statement of fact, not a suggestion. There's no misleading.
The second part of the sentence on the bus is missleading and not technically a lie as is was a suggestion rather than a promise.
Use the legal system against your opponents.
It's why we have a legal system - don't break the law and you won't have a problem.
If every MP that lied ended up in court we’d soon run out of them.
Or they'd stop lying? Because like many 5 year olds are taught; actions have consequences.
I would suggest a few of them going to jail would do wonders for the disenfranchised who just see a political elite who can do and say whatever they want.
Can they send down Farridge too?
NF is being investigated..
“2. The £350m is misleading as the actual figure is £250m a week.“
“It’s either the truth or a lie,”
The £350m is in the Office of National Statistics Pink Book - which I suspect means the court case won’t last long.
Meanwhile, the motivation behind the case becomes clearer...
https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/campaigner-stop-lying-politics-lied-political-campaign/
https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/embarrassing-anti-boris-pitch-raise-2-million-gullible-remainers/
For clarity - again - Boris is still a grade A tool - I have no time for him.
I would suggest a few of them going to jail would do wonders for the disenfranchised who just see a political elite who can do and say whatever they want.
The difficulty there is a lot of the disenfranchised of whom you speak like bojo and Farage and the rest who do a very good job of marketing them selves as anti-establishment. Jailing them will make the issue worse not better.
The smarmy man behind the case
I find it difficult to put much stock in "news" that resorts to calling people names in the first sentence.
So in other words, we do give 350m a week to the EU?
Say you get a quote for a new front door, and the salesman says "it'll be £350, but we've got a special on at the moment so we can do it for £250," have you paid £250 or £350? When your mates come round to visit and say "nice door, what did that cost?" and you reply "£350" would you consider that to be an honest answer or a lie? If the former, you have a promising career ahead of you as a Tory politician.
If we're being pedantic - and court cases like this can often boil down to semantics - then if we gave the EU £350m and they gave us £100m back then it could be argued that the claim is factually correct, if misleading. But we don't, we "send the EU" our contribution with the rebate already applied so it is quite literally factually incorrect however you slice it. The claim is that we sent £350m to the EU and the simple fact is that we do not. That's what will get him nailed to the mast, assuming the Teflon Tosspot doesn't weasel his way out of it somehow.
1 Boris is a complete mercenary ****, just like all the big hitter Leavers.
2 He won't go down for anything in this court action, I'd bet on it.
3 I can't believe some people are still justifying the £350 million figure as anything remotely real. This country is truly doomed.
Say you get a quote for a new front door, and the salesman says “it’ll be £350, but we’ve got a special on at the moment so we can do it for £250,” have you paid £250 or £350? When your mates come round to visit and say “nice door, what did that cost?” and you reply “£350” would you consider that to be an honest answer or a lie? If the former, you have a promising career ahead of you as a Tory politician.
If we’re being pedantic – and court cases like this can often boil down to semantics – then if we gave the EU £350m and they gave us £100m back then it could be argued that the claim is factually correct, if misleading. But we don’t, we “send the EU” our contribution with the rebate already applied so it is quite literally factually incorrect however you slice it.
Only the comparison falls down in as much as the sales man tells you it's 350 a week for a new door, and 350 a week next week ad infinitum, only next year, y you can take £100pw cash back against the 350pw you paid this year off your payment assuming you paid in full last year. If you don't pay in full in year 1 you won't get your [full] 100pw rebate in year 2 and so on.
So did you pay 350 a week in year one or 250? are you getting 100 off this year's payments or is it (a rebate) against what got paid last year and you really are paying 350, just there's credit applied in arrears?
And that's the thing it's a rebate against monies paid, not a reduction in our fees owed. So yes we only actually send 250 (and the bus did say send) but that's not what we're "paying".
We pay a bill of 350 with 250 cash and 100 credit note effectively but we're paying 350. I guess the argument is if we'd get the rebate if we didn't pay, eg. if the EU paid us back 100mil in any given month if we paid nothing over that month.
I don't know the answer, it's semantics at best.
What's clear to me is that we don't pay 250 a week, at best, we pay something which tends to 250 over a very long time.
Cheddar is quoting Guido Fawkes..
Lol, that place is more batshit than mumsnet..
“2. The £350m is misleading as the actual figure is £250m a week.“
“It’s either the truth or a lie,”
The £350m is in the Office of National Statistics Pink Book – which I suspect means the court case won’t last long.
Meanwhile, the motivation behind the case becomes clearer…
For clarity – again – Boris is still a grade A tool – I have no time for him
As your source is a supposedly smashing down the establishment independent thinker who has been blogging in support of the Tory leadership bid of an old Etonian who is the subject of this very thread, and who you describe as a grade A tool, I'm not sure why you're bothering to link to it as some sort of "proof".
I would imagine that if your claims are correct you could come up with more trustworthy sources?
The £350m is in the Office of National Statistics Pink Book – which I suspect means the court case won’t last long.
I suspect if there was nothing more to it then the judge would've ruled that there's no case to answer. Oh, and if you're relying on Paul Staines for your news, it's time to stop and have a think.
3 I can’t believe some people are still justifying the £350 million figure as anything remotely real. This country is truly doomed.
I don't think anybody is. Only that the figure exists in relation to our EU contribution. And that lawyers will use that fact in defence.
An interesting aspect of the whole Boris Johnson persona thing is the obvious contradiction it throws up.
It is a documented fact that the electorate has become increasingly disillusioned with politicians in recent decades. The single greatest criticism appears to be that politicians lie extensively.
Now Johnson is infamous for being a renowned liar, even by the standards of the political classes. Remarkably he has even been sacked from the Tory front bench for being a liar. Only a spectacular liar could be sacked from his job by a fellow politician from his own party for being a liar.
And yet despite all that Johnson appears to be one of the most popular politician with the electorate, how can that be possible? It completely contradicts what the public claim they want from a politician.
I guess the truth lies in the fact that his popularity in solely based on his appearance in TV programmes such as HIGNFY and the 'amusing' way he walks around with unkempt hair. He has never been exposed to any meaningful scrutiny.
Which is why I believe that if he does ever become leader of the Conservatives the intensive scrutiny he will undoubtedly be exposed to will destroy him. His past will come back to haunt him, his lies, his reckless vanity follies such as the Garden Bridge and the disastrous routmaster buses, his inability to provide any coherent political arguments, and his complete lack of idealogical commitment to anything. Ruffling up the hair and chuckling in an endearing way won't be enough.
In reality Boris Johnson isn't really a politician. He is just an attention-seeking clown who has simply used politics to satisfy his huge ego, provide the intense limelight that he undoubtedly craves, and also huge financial rewards.
I personally welcome his prosecution. Not because I dislike him, but because it is long overdue that politicians are held for account of their lies. I don't think it will turn him into a "martyr", most people recognise that the courts and judiciary are not institutionally anti-Tory. I have no doubt that the prosecution will only be successful if it is proven that Johnson did indeed lie and is guilty of an abuse of the public’s trust.
I have always believed that if your politics don't reflect the truth you should change your politics, not the truth.
Nice try, you do realise of course that Guido Fawkes is also known as Paul Staines.
Why is this relevant?
I guess the truth lies in the fact that his popularity in solely based on his appearance in TV programmes such as HIGNFY and the ‘amusing’ way he walks around with unkempt hair. He has never been exposed to any meaningful scrutiny.
This. He was on the last leg years ago, hair was perfectly fine then, seconds before going live, he scruffed up his hair. Utter charlatan, couldn’t happen to a nicer bloke.
it may be my recollection being wrong but isn't part of it that the £350M bus fact was pretty well rebuffed by 'experts' (ah, problem spotted) but rather than correct the information or issue a retraction, he/they continued to spout it ad infinitum
in her written ruling, District Judge Margot Coleman said: "The applicant's case is there is ample evidence that the proposed defendant knew that the statements were false."
He's up on three counts, including during the period of the GE 2017 when he continued to use the 'fact'
All politicians lie, it's in the JD.....it's the continuation even when found out. Even the bloke that made up stats on the spot about the 80% level of support for Teresa's deal backtracked on that......who was he again?
he/they continued to spout it ad infinitum
A big part of the problem for the remain argument (and the court case is another example) is *we* kept spouting it ad infinitum every time there was a debate, there we went blah blah 350mil to the EU every week blah blah. Yes we decried it as false time and again but we kept bringing the sodding thing up, and all BJ and the rest had to do was grin, point to leave, thank you.
And low behold 3 years down the line and 350mil is in the bloody news again. And what will a huge number of people take away from that? "Bloody hell 350 million is a lot of money, you could build 2 hospitals for that*" if we're very very lucky maybe they'll think "Bloody hell 250 million is a lot of money you could build a hospital for that*"
*of course you can't heat them, staff them, feed the patients etc.
Elected politicians are allowed to lie and the public will just have to suck it up. Ask Alistair Carmichael.
Elected politicians are allowed to lie
Pretty much this although there are specific circumstances where they're not, but they don't seem to apply in this case:
(Ignore the political stuff, if you wish, the legal aspects are discussed sensibly AFAICT.)
Equally..... is there not a case to say that they shouldn't lie, that we've had enough, and much like a referee saying 'right....next one that steps out of line goes in the book' .... Boris is the one that an example gets made of. Tough on Boris - maybe but I won't honestly shed a tear whoever it is.
Politics has the chance to change, the 2 party system, coalitions vs outright rule, why not really change it starting now?
why not really change it starting now?
I think the reason that no true democracy in the world makes it an offence for Politicians to lie (except in specific circumstances) is that if you do that you'd be allowing the police and courts to be sole arbiters of what politicians say. That's fine until Roland Freisler is the judge and Heinrich Himmler is head of the Police.
We'll all just have to keep listening to More Or Less and googleing facts the Politicans state.
We’re told it’s the cost of participating in the free market
No, it's our contribution to the cost of running the stuff that all EU countries use, including us (formerly). Regulatory bodies, EU civil service and all the rest of it.
Japan &co don't pay into the budget but they also have to spend on all their own regulatory bodies and can't share any of the EU's. This stuff really is not that difficult to understand. You pay your club subs to get the benefits and facilities.
If Bojo loses this landmark court case and any subsequent appeals I don't think he can appeal to the European Court of Justice,which coincidentally has a budget of £350million per year.An appeal to the European Court of Human Rights might be an option though.
Is anyone here surprised that a Brexiteer is having a problem with the definition of the truth?
I’m fing not.
This is for the good of politics & you can’t see past your own narrow take on the World then you’re no more than a **** oxygen thief.
+1 with ernie. Boris is fing despicable & needs to be held to account.
most people recognise that the courts and judiciary are not institutionally anti-Tory
Remember the Daily Mail "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" headline from not all that long ago, with a photo a half a dozen judges who had the audacity to rule that parliament was sovereign?
That’s fine until Roland Freisler is the judge and Heinrich Himmler is head of the Police
+1. As much as I want to go to Boris's sentencing for the comedy value - this probably sets a dangerous precedent.
Looking forward to the courts being full of politicians up on "misleading" charges ...
"WMDs in 40 minutes" didn't get Tony time ... and that was a huge porky ...
Yes I remember the Daily Mail headline Cougar, and to be fair it's a good point. But I'm still not convinced that most people think the courts and judiciary are institutionally anti-Tory. Any more than I'm convinced that Daily Mail headline writers speak on behalf of most people. Or even believe what they say.
As much as I want to go to Boris’s sentencing for the comedy value – this probably sets a dangerous precedent
The problem about lying is that the more people get away with it the more they do it, it's one of life's lessons.
I personally believe that it is long overdue that politicians be held accountable for their lies. If this prosecution is successful it could result in cleaner and fairer politics.
Remember politicians at the present can't tell straight forward lies about their opponents, there is no reason why this can't be extended to facts and figures. And also remember that we're not talking about small inconsequential lies here, we're talking about major disinformation and abuse of the public's trust.
Where do you draw the line? Or wouldn't you - would you be happy to let politicians lie about unemployment figures, or homelessness, or security threats, etc ?
why isn't it Blowjo as he does suck the proverbial ? :/
I personally believe that it is long overdue that politicians be held accountable for their lies. If this prosecution is successful it could result in cleaner and fairer politics
Until the far right Infiltrate the judiciary. It's not like they haven't already with the police. As much as they do a valuable and dangerous job, do you seriously trust coppers to moderate politics?
But I’m still not convinced that most people think the courts and judiciary are institutionally anti-Tory.
If anything probably the opposite, but most actual tories think as little of Boris as we do but recognise his voter appeal so put up with him to a greater or lesser degree.
Putting him in the dock isn't anti tory, won't be seen as anti tory or anything of the sort, the people Boris apeals to are disenfranchised voters, "your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. [s] Send these [/s] , the[politically] homeless" who somehow identify with the rich, privately educated self serving snake oil salesman as a representative of the common man. It's the same with trump, the people who most identify with him are the ones he screws over most and represents the least, and by and large they do think the judiciary is anti poor hardworking folk who struggle to get by day to day and at best thinks of them as a number.
Yes I remember the Daily Mail headline Cougar, and to be fair it’s a good point. But I’m still not convinced that most people think the courts and judiciary are institutionally anti-Tory.
My point was more that I've long since given up any hope in putting any trust into what people think. We're in the middle of a propaganda war, you only have to look at the EU thread to see how effective this has been in certain quarters. We're in a time where "people" believe that a vote is undemocratic and think that 80% of voters voted for brexit in the Locals. Hanging your hat onto what people "think" is a very risky prospect indeed.
do you seriously trust coppers to moderate politics?
Not really, but not because I trust the courts any more.
We are not talking about "moderating" politics. We are talking about politicians being held legally accountable for abuse of public trust. We talking about politicians deliberately lying (allegedly) and misusing official statistics.
If government ministers are legally entitled to lie how much faith can you have in the Freedom of Information Act?
It's obvious that the line has to be drawn somewhere, the question is where? In this particular case the courts will be deciding. They will decide whether it amounts to the abuse of the public's trust. And quite right too.
BTW I have no idea how you think the far right will infiltrate the judiciary. If that becomes a problem then it will have to be tackled. In the meantime don't look for solutions to problems that don't exist and are unlikely to exist in the near future.
* edited because the paragraphs somehow got mixed up.
We are not talking about “moderating” politics. We are talking about politicians being held legally accountable for abuse of public trust. We talking about politicians deliberately lying (allegedly) and misusing official statistics.
Yes we are, because we would be asking the police, the cps and the judiciary to decide what is and isn't a lie and what is a misuse of an official statistic. Misuse is a very broad term.
The only way to deal with is is to counter lies through public discourse or disenfranchise those that are not capable of critically appraising what they are told.
BTW I have no idea how you think the far right will infiltrate the judiciary. If that becomes a problem then it will have to be tackled. In the meantime don’t look for solutions to problems that don’t exist and are unlikely to exist in the near future
In the same way it has happened in the past and is currently happening elsewhere in the world. In the same way that the police have had/potentially still have issues with it.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/rise-of-the-far-right-is-a-global-security-threat.html
'On Tuesday, the New York Times published a disturbing story on what the Freedom Party has been up to since then. Shortly after the party came to power, the Interior Ministry asked the anti-extremism unit of the domestic intelligence service to hand over the names of informants who had infiltrated the far-right community; the leader of that unit refused, and a few weeks later, “armed police burst into her office and carted away years’ worth of domestic files as well as intelligence from allied nations."
Now you're just being silly womble, it's nothing like Austria here.
It's not as if people in this country would turn out in any number to vote for a single issue xenophobic right wing party in an election such that they become the main party is it? I mean just look at the recent European elections, oh hang on.
Well the euro elections are silly anyway, no one cares about them and given we're leaving is just a protest exercise. At least in a real GE the two main parties would have a majority and never side with a reprehensible right leaning homophobic mysogynistic by bunch of nationalists just to get their arses around the top table would they? Oh, it seems they did.
oops
In the same way it has happened in the past and is currently happening elsewhere in the world.
I'm not aware that it has ever happened in the past. When did the far-right infiltrate the judiciary in the Uk? The 'elsewhere in the world' example you give is Austria. In that situation the Interior Minister was a member of the Austrian Freedom Party, whose first leader was a former Nazi minister and SS officer.
When here in the UK we have a Home Secretary who is a member of the BNP or EDL I will worry about infiltration of the judiciary by the far-right. In the meantime don’t look for solutions to problems that don’t exist and are unlikely to exist in the near future.
Anyway getting back to Johnson's alleged lies I guess the reality is that the private prosecution will almost certainly fail. If an attempt to prosecute Tony Blair for telling a bunch of lies to the British people to justify starting a war in which tens, if not hundreds, of thousands died failed, then what hope for a figure written on the side of a bus?
Still, nevertheless I welcome it and hopefully the fact that it's gone much further than would normally be expected will make politicians think twice about causally misusing official statistics.
I'm reminded of a situation many many years ago when some local authority councillors were hauled before the courts for allegedly overspending. I can't remember the precise details but it was at the time when the Tory government were at war with Labour local authorities over spending. I don't think it was Liverpool or Lambeth though, the famous two.
The Labour councillors defence lay heavily on the claim that they were obliged to carry out the policies as they had been election commitments and they had a clear mandate for the people, and that to do otherwise would betray the trust placed upon by the electorate. The judge rejected that defence claiming that the "public expected politicians not to carry out their promises".
Now whatever the rights and wrongs of that particular case what the judge was clearly doing was to legitimise politicians right to lie to the general public, which quite frankly was appalling. It would obviously be hugely beneficial if we were now to see a different attitude prevail.
Sorry server error recurred before I could edit the grammar
I’m not aware that it has ever happened in the past. When did the far-right infiltrate the judiciary in the Uk? The ‘elsewhere in the world’ example you give is Austria. In that situation the Interior Minister was a member of the Austrian Freedom Party, whose first leader was a former Nazi minister and SS officer.
When here in the UK we have a Home Secretary who is a member of the BNP or EDL I will worry about infiltration of the judiciary by the far-right. In the meantime don’t look for solutions to problems that don’t exist and are unlikely to exist in the near future.
See dangeourbrains response - just because it hasn't happened here yet doesn't mean it won't. That is some kind of logical fallacy and smells a bit of British exceptionalism. The far right in the US have already infiltrated the police, the military, civil service and now government.
With the power that you want to give the judiciary, it would be of no use worrying about it once we had a far right home secretary - as it would be too late to do anything about it by then.
Policing politicians like this is so typical of fellow lefties, trying to control people this way never works out in the long run. It's a reactionary ideological move. Social/political control like this always, always backfires.
The alternative sends a message that they can all lie with impunity. Can't see that backfiring.
And they didn't think they could like with impunity in the past? If we are going to start going after liars, the b est answer is probably a decent evidence based/driven independent media that holds politicians to account - not a media that is politically motivated one way or another and driven by ideology like we have now. If we are going to have a purge we need to start there, but instead of a purge of one ideology in favour of another like in the pas,t we need to purge them all from the media and replace it with some kind of evidence based reporting and investigation at the forefront. It should be papers and the media that are punished for repeating politicians lies without criticizing them. Punishment of the media should be as decentralized as much as possible, through peer review - not through centralized courts so as to keep the power out of the hands of the political classes. Rule that all shareholder/owner ties in the media to politics is a conflict of interest and introduce laws like the insider trading and corruption laws in the finance world etc.
Personally, I would much rather have lying money oriented self serving politicians than ideologically driven true believers who have a legislative avenue into controlling and defining the "truth".
Be careful what you wish for, the parallels in the thinking of the left and right with the left and right of the 30's is becoming spookier by the day.
Yes we are, because we would be asking the police, the cps and the judiciary to decide what is and isn’t a lie and what is a misuse of an official statistic. Misuse is a very broad term.
This.
Be careful what you wish for, the parallels in the thinking of the left and right with the left and right of the 30’s is becoming spookier by the day.
And this.
Normally when people make these kind of statements people are over egging the pudding. In this case it's a direct parallel with the end of the Weimar republic. People are saying our politicians are crap (because they lie) and it would be better to have unelected people in control of what elected people say. Sacrifice democracy for 'better government'.
Democracy *can* function in spite of politicans lying. Democracy *can't *function if unelected people can put politicians in prison for a catch-all like "misuse of statistics" or lying.
There's a reason no democracy in the world has this kind of legislation.
The alternative sends a message that they can all lie with impunity. Can’t see that backfiring.
The safeguard against that is the Politician's opponent will point out the lie as will Facebook and "More or Less" on the wireless box.
Digression: The 350 million bus is a classic example. The only reason we've ever heard it is because it's debunked about 20 times a day for years. I assume all the busses had vaguely true stuff written on them this time because the media has largely ignored them. A debunked lie is 10,000 more newsworthy than an undisputed fact. Trump used the same technique to get his message viral on a fraction of the communication budget of Clinton. People now know that the number sounds big. South of £350M, but big sounding. If you want to attract attention to a news-story, put a typo in it and let the pedants send it viral. If you want a number out in the open, release an exaggerated number and watch the debunkers publicise the accurate number for you. (Sorry for the digression.)
There’s a reason no democracy in the world has this kind of legislation.
Johnson's being prosecuted under existing legislation in our democracy. From the CPS website:
The offence is committed when:
a public officer acting as such;
wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself;
to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder;
without reasonable excuse or justification.
I assume if Johnson had just spouted the usual throwaway political lie and moved on, he wouldn't be in this position, but the sustained nature of his repeated deception has opened him up to the accusation he has wilfully misconducted himself "to such a degree" that it constitutes an abuse of the public's trust.
Johnson’s being prosecuted under existing legislation in our democracy.
Yup, that applies to people holding public office acting in that capacity as discussed in detail in the link I posted above, harmless to democracy because if you're haven't got a government role it doesn't even apply to you. (...and almost certainly didn't apply to Boris in the referendum campaign which is why we can be fairly certain this prosecution is going nowhere.)
"and almost certainly didn’t apply to Boris in the referendum campaign "
The district judge did address this point in her decision.