The Big Red Bus

[motorbiking]

And your proof of that is?

Would you say the same if a case was mounted against a remain politician?

Yep - wrong law, wrong process.

Regardless of your guess, are you in favour of politicians being allowed to lie with impunity?

Plenty of ways to get rid of them, when they screw up. I think there needs to be a dishonest intent, exploitation of power, privilege etc. before we start crying criminal.

btw plenty of interviews with Ball to conclude he's a Remainer.

 

[ellal]

Yep - wrong law, wrong process.

That's not proof, that's your opinion...

Wrong of course, but you are entitled to that opinion

 

[motorbiking]

It is my opinion that he is a remain campaigner, not a fighter of truth and justice.

 

[Notch7]

Notch considers a right-wing newspaper to be a better source of party policy, than that party's manifesto or speeches made by its leader.

Oh dear JohnD is confused, he thinks Sharon Hodgson, Labour MP is not a person but a right wing newspaper

 

[Notch7]

Ah, so now you are claiming that a tweet or two constitutes official policy

During an election campaign when Labour were trying to buy student votes?

Yup

 

[motorbiking]

3m10s

 

[ellal]

It is my opinion that he is a remain campaigner, not a fighter of truth and justice.

As I said, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it...

But it is up to the judiciary to determine what is correct under law...

And you'll note it is UK law that will decide this...
(Gina Miller had to use the law to confirm parliamentary sovereignty if you recall)

Unless of course blow job appeals it to the European court...

Now wouldn't that be ironic

 

[motorbiking]

English Law.. and no its up to government to pass laws and the judiciary to interpret them. This is exactly my point. If you want to change the law, start a campaign to get a new lying politician act on to the statute books.

 

[noseall]

Sharon Hodgson

Did she write the Labour manifesto? I bet she has an opinion on it though.

 

[transam]

And your proof of that is?

Would you say the same if a case was mounted against a remain politician?

Should this case succeed it could be ground breaking, and make politicians accountable for the lies that they tell !

It won't succeed tis doomed to fail

Who cares I say ? Transam gives not a fig

 

[JohnD]

This is exactly my point.

No it isn't.

It is my opinion that he is a remain campaigner, not a fighter of truth and justice.

i.e. would a correction have changed a single thing.

Lastly you have a very serious challenge that the rebate is not guaranteed.

A case that will fail, with costs being awarded IMO

He did declare that he was taking £2k a month as costs. Not stealing or embezzlement, but certainly needs independent scrutiny to maintain credibility.

Not quite the definition of expenses though is it?

You have been busy attacking the motives and moral rectitude of the campaigner, and claiming that he has a poor case. Not proposing an alternative way of trying to get politicians to be more truthful. More pushing the Wail's case that Buffoon should be able to get away with it.

This campaigner's view is that lying to win an election is already against the law, and he intends that the courts will enforce it.

he has more chance that way, than trying to get 325 turkeys to vote for roast potatoes and bread sauce.

 

[ellal]

If you want to change the law, start a campaign to get a new lying politician act on to the statute books.

But the judiciary has already decided that there is a case to answer under existing law...

How far it gets is anyone's guess, but money usually talks

Unless of course the judiciary decides to make a stand based on a legal basis!

 

[motorbiking]

Why not use the Fraud Act, it fits just as well. I wouldn't charge £50K to write an essay on why Bojo is guilty of Fraud, using the same logic as Balls did.

@JohnD For the record:

1. Its the wrong law and wrong approach
2. He's not an independent fighter of truth and justice.

Both Point 1 and point 2 are my points. I have no difficulty with accountability. I do have difficulty with the constant misrepresentations, and the persistent misuse in a law context of the meanings of words which are at the core of serious allegations. Though it is amusing seeing people pretend to know a subject they are clueless on.

 

[noseall]

If the case was deemed frivolous it would not have got this far. The fact that it has been referred to crown court suggests it has some merit.
I personally don't believe it will get much further but it is interesting none the less.

 

[ellal]

It is my opinion that he is a remain campaigner, not a fighter of truth and justice.

He's not an independent fighter of truth and justice.

One minute an opinion, the next a 'factual' statement...

Which is it?