The Big Red Bus

Did you believe The Big Red Bus.


  • Total voters
    19
Your confusing me now
Let's recap...
I don't understand, why was he not found guilty.

It is not (per se) an offence to lie. If you take an oath in court, then yes, you have committed an offence.

Boris lied because he knew the figure he kept on repeating was false. However politicians put information (true or false) into the public domain to be debated. It can not be construed as "misleading the public in a public office" because everyone has the right to decide the merits of the information based upon what they believe to be true individually.
 
Sponsored Links
Was it a tennis court?
It is a place where people play tennis. Usually marked out with lines denoting the service area and doubles perimeters etc. A net is strung across the middle to a pre determined height.
 
He is out of pocket and that will hurt. However, the judges have yet to disclose their reasons for dismissing the case and settle costs. It is unlikely that those that brought the prosecution will have to stump up all of Boris's costs, but the lawyers involved may incur the wrath for their frivolous action. However, the first judge thought that it should proceed further, hence Boris hiring expensive council.

Boris can sue for what he likes, but would be reckless to do so in his current position.

Why do you think it unlikely he cannot claim costs for a wrongful prosecution?
Why do you think he cannot claim damages for being wrongfully accused of a criminal offence?

A bit of light reading for you:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/23
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted

Hint: its not about the truthfulness of a political campaign, it never was.
 
Why do you think it unlikely he cannot claim costs for a wrongful prosecution?
Why do you think he cannot claim damages for being wrongfully accused of a criminal offence?
Why have you imagined any of the above?


Hint: Read my posts - thoroughly.
 
Sponsored Links
Im not a fan of Boris, but do think the court case a bit of a waste of time.

An excuse for lawyers to make money.

The courts would be rammed with cases if a case was broight every time a politician issued alternative facts.
 
Why do you think he wont get all his costs? Not trying to trap you - just wondering your thoughts.
 
Why do you think he wont get all his costs? Not trying to trap you - just wondering your thoughts.
Costs will be debated I'm guessing when the judges rule why they dismissed the case. Questions will likely be asked by both parties.
Did Boris need to hire a top legal defence team? Are their fees proportionate/relevant?
 
Why do you think it unlikely he cannot claim costs for a wrongful prosecution?
Why do you think he cannot claim damages for being wrongfully accused of a criminal offence?

A bit of light reading for you:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/23
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted

Hint: its not about the truthfulness of a political campaign, it never was.

I took noseall's statement "he would be reckless to sue, in his current position" as meaning exactly that ; suing part of the electorate would not endear himself to them, and would likely damage the tories, of whom he is hoping to be chosen as leader.
 
That's not really how it works.. There isn't an offence of bringing vexatious criminal prosecutions. His legal team could face sanctions, but only if they kept going with it. He will likely have to pay Bojos costs, his own costs and given that he keeps making allegations, pay for the defamation claim.
There may not be a criminal offence of vexatious litigation but if Balls is judged to be a vexatious litigant then he could be subject to civil proceedings by Boris Johnson for reputational damage or libel maybe.
However I don't believe that will happen as Johnson doesn't need anymore distractions from his campaign to lead the Tory party.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top