- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,110
- Reaction score
- 2,737
- Country
It can be both silly.
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.
It can be both silly.
That's not 'proof'...I posted it - see the blurb on his now deleted funding page, reported on the video I linked.
The fact that he started a funding campaign to 1. prosecute falsehoods
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!
selective quoting is sillyAnd you don't like that.
Simples...The fact that he started a funding campaign to 1. prosecute falsehoods presented by leave (not remain), 2. Use the (hopefully successfull) prosecution to get the results of the referendum reviewed in law and 3 once nullified, cancel leaving the EU.
At no point was he campaigning for a re-run.
Given the above - how can you argue he is an independent fighter of truth and justice and not someone seeking to cancel Brexit?