The offence of misconduct in public office carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

[Freggyragh]

Looks like Johnson’s QC ‘s argument isn’t that unicorn salesman Johnson was telling the truth, or even trying to tell the truth, but instead he’ll will be fighting his case on the argument that Bullshit Johnson had every right to lie through his teeth:

“The application represents an attempt, for the first time in English legal history, to employ the criminal law to regulate the content and quality of political debate. That is self-evidently not the function of the criminal law.”

[Non-Believer]

I wonder if the topic title could apply over here....?

[John Wright]

2 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I wonder if the topic title could apply over here....?

We don’t have the offence.

[Non-Believer]

18 minutes ago, John Wright said:

We don’t have the offence.

Probably just as well for some...

[woolley]

45 minutes ago, John Wright said:

We don’t have the offence.

Well. We don't have a law against it.

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, Freggyragh said:

Looks like Johnson’s QC ‘s argument isn’t that unicorn salesman Johnson was telling the truth, or even trying to tell the truth, but instead he’ll will be fighting his case on the argument that Bullshit Johnson had every right to lie through his teeth:

“The application represents an attempt, for the first time in English legal history, to employ the criminal law to regulate the content and quality of political debate. That is self-evidently not the function of the criminal law.”

Just for posterity....

[woolley]

Firstly, I hold no brief for the buffoon Johnson. However, this case is clearly politically motivated and will only benefit lawyers. It would seem that arguments will be based on the concept of control. Johnson's case will be that the amounts that Britain gets back from the EU budget are not under UK control and therefore cannot be deducted from what the UK sends in the first place. It will probably also bring in the point that this was a separate, extraordinary campaign being fought on an issue divorced from the public office he held concurrently.

More generally, "politician tells lie in campaign". Well, shock, horror; hold the front page. Is there a politician that hasn't? An easy example would be the disingenuous statement made by every chancellor at every budget that he has "taken millions out of paying tax altogether" by raising tax free allowances without pointing out that it's the same "millions" every year who have been brought back in by fiscal drag. Then of course there is Mr Blair.

[Non-Believer]

Generally agreed. But...IF this is pursued (and the bringer appears, on the face of it to be doing for moral reasons, at present) and is successful, it could well be a landmark case.

Why should politicians be allow to mislead, lie, be economical with the truth and engage in mendacity? In this day and age? Any other walks of life or man in the street can be brought to task for such (except lawyers...  ), it's continually expected for people to rise above such practice and to be honest. Database checks for employment can confirm. But not in pursuit of political gain apparently.

And then we could make sure that it's adopted on the Island. Misleading Tynwald? Not any more. Completely spurious Budget figures? Bit passé now.

I watch with interest.

 

[woolley]

Yep. I wouldn't hold your breath though.

[Freggyragh]

Forget the circa £4B per year that the UK public sector gets back from the EU for CAP payments and regional grants for poor areas, and forget all the circa £1.5B in private sector research grants, which admittedly are awarded by specialist EU bodies outside of U.K. public sector control. The rebate that the U.K. gets is calculated on receipts from the previous year. The full £350M per week is a gross calculation, but the rebate rate is then applied before any money is sent to the EU, so the amount actually sent to the EU is much less. Johnson lied, knew he was lying and continued to lie after it was pointed out that his figures deceitfully ignored the circa £5B rebate knocked off the UK’s bill before any money was sent. 

I’m surprised your response to a politician with access to the figures chose to lie in a referendum campaign based on wildly optimistic promises. I can’t understand why now you know you’ve been lied to (not just this case, but the easy trade deals baloney and all the rest) you’re not angry with the people who lied to you, instead of engaging in whataboutary. And yes, Blair should be held to account too. 

 

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

Firstly, I hold no brief for the buffoon Johnson. However, this case is clearly politically motivated and will only benefit lawyers. It would seem that arguments will be based on the concept of control. Johnson's case will be that the amounts that Britain gets back from the EU budget are not under UK control and therefore cannot be deducted from what the UK sends in the first place. It will probably also bring in the point that this was a separate, extraordinary campaign being fought on an issue divorced from the public office he held concurrently.

More generally, "politician tells lie in campaign". Well, shock, horror; hold the front page. Is there a politician that hasn't? An easy example would be the disingenuous statement made by every chancellor at every budget that he has "taken millions out of paying tax altogether" by raising tax free allowances without pointing out that it's the same "millions" every year who have been brought back in by fiscal drag. Then of course there is Mr Blair.

And "Secondly".....?

The charge is "Misconduct in Public Office" and has nothing actually to do with politics. It's just in this case it's been levelled against a politician for lying instead of someone, say, giving out juicy government contracts to their Lodge mates. Personally I think it should have been trotted out after Johnson helped put Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe into an Iranian prison.

But there's no law against stupidity. Just as well or Tynwald would become an echo chamber.....

[woolley]

Well I am not stupid enough to believe anything that comes out of a politician's mouth, so I guess that is why I'm not angry at being misled. I had all the figures too. All I am saying is that if we are going to start prosecuting every politician that ever told a lie, or was economical with the truth, we won't have many politicians, whatever their cause. Do you see the case actually going anywhere?

[woolley]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

And "Secondly".....?

 

All the rest of it after that sentence. Christ you're hard work.

[Freggyragh]

Do I see the case going anywhere? Yes. I can’t see how he’s not guilty. He didn’t massage, or misrepresent figures, he lied. He lied to win a referendum which if acted on would break up the U.K. and make everyone except the billionaire class poorer. He did it because he works for the owners of the Daily Telegraph. 

[P.K.]

43 minutes ago, woolley said:

Well I am not stupid enough to believe anything that comes out of a politician's mouth, so I guess that is why I'm not angry at being misled. I had all the figures too. All I am saying is that if we are going to start prosecuting every politician that ever told a lie, or was economical with the truth, we won't have many politicians, whatever their cause. Do you see the case actually going anywhere?

Not sure how far the legalities might stretch.

Personally I think we should be able to expect a higher standard of behaviour from our elected than that as demonstrated by Farage, Gove and Johnson.

They first off played the financial bullshit card = Loser...

Then they unashamedly played the racist card = Winner!

I thought the scene setting by Farage of desperate people trying to find safety as a new nadir for UK politics. Disgusting would be my description.

But as the UK as a nation is quite racist it got them over the line....

So if this legal action might make some up their game, and God knows they need to, then all well and good.