Politics Politicians being taken to court for alleged lying

[Frank Bunn]

Boris Johnson is facing three allegations of “misconduct in public office” relating to his claims during the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign and the lead up to the 2017 general election that he repeatedly “lied and misled the British public” by claiming that the cost to the UK of EU membership was £350 million a week. The case is a private prosecution by Marcus Ball who raised more than £250,000 in crowdfunding pledges to pay for his “Brexit Justice” campaign.

District judge Margot Coleman has ruled there is a prima facie case. The court will hold a preliminary hearing and the case will then be sent to the crown court for trial. The maximum sentence for such a crime is life imprisonment.

If the case succeeds I think it would set a very damaging precedent. Politicians have a long history of being economic with the truth, and the public is very wise to it. But if political opponents start taking each other to court for alleged mistruths there would be an endless stream of court cases. How many treasurers have promised a budget surplus that never happened? These matters belong in the cut and thrust of political debate not the courts.

The timing and motivation of this private prosecution is suspect given that Theresa May has resigned and Boris Johnson is vying for leadership with a view on a Brexit that the complainant opposes.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe...-campaign-lie-be-a-crime-20190530-p51sks.html

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/marcus-ball-v-alexander-boris-de-pfeffel-johnson/

 

[Bradesmaen]

Dated 20th of Feb before May resigned. Yep, it's all about hating Boris, not about the truth at all. Another sorted special.

 

[sprockets]

So leave it be because there's so much of it? mkay...

 

[Frank Bunn]

So leave it be because there's so much of it? mkay...

Do you think Wayne Swan should be facing life imprisonment for his declaration that his budget had delivered a surplus? Or for Labor's repeated failed targets with the NBN roll out?

Why did this guy not take Tony Blair to court for his lies around the Iraq War?

It's not like he's making a stand on principle. He's misusing the law to gain advantage for his own political purposes.

 

[sprockets]

Do you think Wayne Swan should be facing life imprisonment for his declaration that his budget had delivered a surplus? Or for Labor's repeated failed targets with the NBN roll out?

Why did this guy not take Tony Blair to court for his lies around the Iraq War?

It's not like he's making a stand on principle. He's misusing the law to gain advantage for his own political purposes.

Life imprisonment? Not really but I don't have all the facts. But we're talking in general and we shouldn't really have to vote for the 'least bad' party come election time, which is the current system/level of politics. If they lie to us they should be prosecuted.

 

[HairyO]

Life imprisonment? Not really but I don't have all the facts. But we're talking in general and we shouldn't really have to vote for the 'least bad' party come election time, which is the current system/level of politics. If they lie to us they should be prosecuted.

What penalty?

 

[M Malice]

The transport to the Trials with the politicians and defense teams aboard.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Boris Johnson is facing three allegations of “misconduct in public office” relating to his claims during the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign and the lead up to the 2017 general election that he repeatedly “lied and misled the British public” by claiming that the cost to the UK of EU membership was £350 million a week. The case is a private prosecution by Marcus Ball who raised more than £250,000 in crowdfunding pledges to pay for his “Brexit Justice” campaign.

District judge Margot Coleman has ruled there is a prima facie case. The court will hold a preliminary hearing and the case will then be sent to the crown court for trial. The maximum sentence for such a crime is life imprisonment.

If the case succeeds I think it would set a very damaging precedent. Politicians have a long history of being economic with the truth, and the public is very wise to it. But if political opponents start taking each other to court for alleged mistruths there would be an endless stream of court cases. How many treasurers have promised a budget surplus that never happened? These matters belong in the cut and thrust of political debate not the courts.

The timing and motivation of this private prosecution is suspect given that Theresa May has resigned and Boris Johnson is vying for leadership with a view on a Brexit that the complainant opposes.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe...-campaign-lie-be-a-crime-20190530-p51sks.html

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/marcus-ball-v-alexander-boris-de-pfeffel-johnson/

No political debate is too difficult to follow imo and pointless in following if there is no truth behind the statements. Already they rely on releasing budgets based on best possible forecasts. Why not release the forecast modelling with pessimistic, realistic and optimistic assumptions and show the working out?
I would love accountability for the s**t that gets said.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Do you think Wayne Swan should be facing life imprisonment for his declaration that his budget had delivered a surplus? Or for Labor's repeated failed targets with the NBN roll out?

Why did this guy not take Tony Blair to court for his lies around the Iraq War?

It's not like he's making a stand on principle. He's misusing the law to gain advantage for his own political purposes.

Missing targets is not lying. That's just bad project management... what a ridiculous comparison. He deliberately lied after being corrected many times about the 350 million. None of them showed any remorse after the campaign when they came out and said "Oh yeah but the NHS won't get their 350m, whoops"

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

This is another persecution thread, but the issue of political accountability is a real one.

One head of state has been shown to be horrendously unethical, but he's part of the establishment, so it might be left to voters to hold him accountable.

Statutory bodies designed to police these things are far weaker in this field than in the corporate world, and that's a roll over.

 

[sprockets]

What penalty?

Depends on the actual crime and context.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Of course there's a very easy defence to this; Boris, Farage et al just have to produce the 350 million, economic miracle and general return to British supremacy they promised British voters.

That shouldn't be too hard, should it?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Of course there's a very easy defence to this; Boris, Farage et al just have to produce the 350 million, economic miracle and general return to British supremacy they promised British voters.

That shouldn't be too hard, should it?

Shouldn't the judgments for those things be at the ballot box not the courts?

 

[HairyO]

Depends on the actual crime and context.

Inflating numbers. Something every party does every time.

 

[sprockets]

Inflating numbers. Something every party does every time.

Which gets us back to my original point that our system forces us to vote for the 'least bad' party/politician.

 

[HairyO]

Which gets us back to my original point that our system forces us to vote for the 'least bad' party/politician.

Im not sure thats true. How many who complain about the bad candidates are members of a party and vote in pre-selections ?

 

[sprockets]

Im not sure thats true. How many who complain about the bad candidates are members of a party and vote in pre-selections ?

I'm a swinging voter so I won't be aligning myself with any party, but what you're suggesting is that people who don't agree with what a party's saying/doing or their policies should join that party to change the situation...

 

[HairyO]

I'm a swinging voter so I won't be aligning myself with any party, but what you're suggesting is that people who don't agree with what a party's saying/doing or their policies should join that party to change the situation...

Of course. Complaining while doing nothing about it is the same as holding back the ocean with your hands.

But only one of those 2 would get you labelled crazy.

 

[sprockets]

Of course. Complaining while doing nothing about it is the same as holding back the ocean with your hands.

But only one of those 2 would get you labelled crazy.

And how do you reckon someone joining a political party because they don't believe in what that party's doing or stands for will go?

 

[RupieDupie]

What is the point of an election campaign if there is no onus on telling the truth?

 

[HairyO]

And how do you reckon someone joining a political party because they don't believe in what that party's doing or stands for will go?

If none of the parties meet your needs then you have the choice of starting your own, or maybe just joining the one closest to your views and working on change.

In the US it happened for the worse with the Tea Party movement. An entire party leapt to the right.

In Australia you will see the Abbott replacement be a rich, moderate Liberal who believes in Climate Change.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Shouldn't the judgments for those things be at the ballot box not the courts?

For missing target or wrong forecasts yes.
For deliberate deception to win votes or gain advantage (eg manipulated video to make a candidate/ opponent appear intoxicated or hold a different position) that needs court and real legal consequences.

 

[sprockets]

If none of the parties meet your needs then you have the choice of starting your own, or maybe just joining the one closest to your views and working on change.

In the US it happened for the worse with the Tea Party movement. An entire party leapt to the right.

In Australia you will see the Abbott replacement be a rich, moderate Liberal who believes in Climate Change.

Sure... Start your own political party if you don't like the existing ones. I'll do that and the millions that agree the existing ones are no good will do it as well..... It'll achieve so much.

 

[Frank Bunn]

For missing target or wrong forecasts yes.
For deliberate deception to win votes or gain advantage (eg manipulated video to make a candidate/ opponent appear intoxicated or hold a different position) that needs court and real legal consequences.

A deliberate deception such as Treasurer Wayne Swan sending out leaflets to voters in his electorate claiming "we've delivered a surplus, on time, as promised"?

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...7ef5fb90a?sv=e0e35637184e6c6893580165aa75aa95

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The moment I see John Howard, Blair and Bush in a cell at the Hague , I’ll support this.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app