The Big Red Bus

[Mfatic]

The reason IMO while this case will fail, is that the 350M claim, is pretty much the amount that the UK is due to pay under EU rules. (VAT, GNI, Customs contributions etc): £357M a week. The figure after the rebate is 250M, and after all other grants and funds is 170M. There is a strong argument that the 250M figure should have been used. All other grants and funds are tagged for specific projects, so they could not be spent on the NHS for example.

All of the above was widely reported and challenged during the campaign. The 350M was a "sexing up" of the facts and we have seen plenty of MPs and PMs sex up facts to support their case. e.g. WMD in Iraq. We then have high test of misconduct : https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office I don't think a campaign full of sexed up facts amounts to misconduct.

There is a strong argument that the £250M should have been used.
To use a higher amount was not 'sexing up'. It was then and now a proven inaccurate figure. That's not 'sexing up', that's deliberately misleading.

To use the WND/Iraq argument as an example of sexing up and comparing it to the £350M claim is not relevant.
The WMD/Iraq argument was an argument based on probability, intelligence, etc, not on proven facts.
The £350M lie was a distortion of proven facts. It was not an accidental exaggeration, it was not 'sexed up', it was not based on probability or suspect intelligence.
As you say, using exaggerations and 'sexed up' information may not amount to misconduct, but to knowingly use the wrong information could amount to misconduct, if the person was in public office, and if his opinion could have an influence on the outcome. But that is for the court to decide.

 

[Mfatic]

Your not getting me on that one.. Next thing I know, I'll be before a court

You can't be prosecuted for believing a lie. If you are concerned that you could, does that indicate that you did believe the lie?
You can't be prosecuted for not believing a lie either.

You know, and I know, that you cannot answer without admitting that you did believe the lie, or you did not believe the lie.
If you did more fool you. But you claim it didn't influence your vote. So your vote was not based an any economic rationale?

If you did not believe the lie, did you not believe it knowing that it was a lie? Otherwise, why did you not believe it?
If you did not believe the lie, you still voted for the outcome, knowing full well that the campaign was lying? And that still did not influence your vote?

If as you say, you had no idea if the figure was right or wrong, you were under the impression that it would not all go into the NHS. How much did you think might go into the NHS? If it didn't influence your vote, did you give it much consideration anyway?

Yet you were so interested in it, that you started a discussion to see if anyone else believed it?

 

[motorbiking]

And Bozza knew it. The £350 mill lie should not have been used.

Yep - and I don't get why they didn't.. 250M or even 170M is enough to grab the desired headline.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yep - and I don't get why they didn't..

Like many people here they don't give a stuff about truth and facts.

 

[motorbiking]

As you say, using exaggerations and 'sexed up' information may not amount to misconduct, but to knowingly use the wrong information could amount to misconduct, if the person was in public office, and if his opinion could have an influence on the outcome. But that is for the court to decide.

Read the charging standard - you'll find plenty of issues with the case. You don't need to be legally minded to understand it. He needs to be more than a public officer, he needs to have committed the misconduct acting as such and that is assuming the campaign even amounts to misconduct.

Pay particular attention to the comments in

• Seriousness of the neglect or misconduct

You also have to consider if the figure of £350M vs £250M made any material difference to the campaign. i.e. would a correction have changed a single thing.

Lastly you have a very serious challenge that the rebate is not guaranteed. It is a concession negotiated as part of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) every seven years and must be unanimously agreed.

Without it our obligation is to pay... around £350M a week, which is money we could spend on the NHS.

 

[JP_]

I saw the bus. I believed the claim that we'd save £350 million a week, at the time it did not even occur to me that this might be a lie.

But at no point did I believe any Tory government would invest that money back into the state - that I knew was a blatant lie!

If they said "let's fund our offshore funds, second homes, backhanders, bribes, and bail out failing businesses that we own shares in" then that, I'd believe.

 

[Brigadier]

Read the charging standard - you'll find plenty of issues with the case. You don't need to be legally minded to understand it. He needs to be more than a public officer, he needs to have committed the misconduct acting as such and that is assuming the campaign even amounts to misconduct.

Pay particular attention to the comments in

• Seriousness of the neglect or misconduct

You also have to consider if the figure of £350M vs £250M made any material difference to the campaign. i.e. would a correction have changed a single thing.

Lastly you have a very serious challenge that the rebate is not guaranteed. It is a concession negotiated as part of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) every seven years and must be unanimously agreed.

Without it our obligation is to pay... around £350M a week, which is money we could spend on the NHS.

M'lud

 

[festive]

Oh this is funny 2 people voted yes

I have a good idea who one of them was

 

[Bodd]

You can't be prosecuted for believing a lie. If you are concerned that you could, does that indicate that you did believe the lie?
You can't be prosecuted for not believing a lie either.

You know, and I know, that you cannot answer without admitting that you did believe the lie, or you did not believe the lie.
If you did more fool you. But you claim it didn't influence your vote. So your vote was not based an any economic rationale?

If you did not believe the lie, did you not believe it knowing that it was a lie? Otherwise, why did you not believe it?
If you did not believe the lie, you still voted for the outcome, knowing full well that the campaign was lying? And that still did not influence your vote?

If as you say, you had no idea if the figure was right or wrong, you were under the impression that it would not all go into the NHS. How much did you think might go into the NHS? If it didn't influence your vote, did you give it much consideration anyway?

Yet you were so interested in it, that you started a discussion to see if anyone else believed it?

In all trufulness my thoughts at the time were.

In the blue corner we had David Cameron the PM and the British government backing remain.

In the Red corner we had
Boris and Co backing leave

How could Boris and Co say we will give this money to the NHS. They had no authority to make this happen. Am I right in believing that Boris was not even in the cabinet, not sure if Gove was either. I'd didn't even know who Gove was. So no I never believed they could make this happen and any body who did was foolish. Bear in mind non of us knew David Cameron would resign, I thought he would do the right thing and carry us through all this, as I liked him as our PM.

 

[Mfatic]

Read the charging standard - you'll find plenty of issues with the case. You don't need to be legally minded to understand it. He needs to be more than a public officer, he needs to have committed the misconduct acting as such and that is assuming the campaign even amounts to misconduct.

Pay particular attention to the comments in

• Seriousness of the neglect or misconduct

You also have to consider if the figure of £350M vs £250M made any material difference to the campaign. i.e. would a correction have changed a single thing.

Lastly you have a very serious challenge that the rebate is not guaranteed. It is a concession negotiated as part of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) every seven years and must be unanimously agreed.

Without it our obligation is to pay... around £350M a week, which is money we could spend on the NHS.

It is already recognised that he wasn't acting in a public officer role when he made the statement.
The court will decide if he, as a public officer, influenced the campaign because, as a public officer, people would expect him to know the true figure.
I suspect the comparison of £350M to £250M will likely be taken into account, should he be found guilty when sentencing him, not in the consideration of whether he is guilty or not.

While it is true that the EU Budget, and thus the rebate amount is calculated every 7 years, the next Budget will be for the 2021 -2027 period., and the UK would veto any attempt to remove the Rebate. So it is not likely to affect the rebate in any way.

The British government has resisted campaigns to abolish the rebate and the UK has a veto on any decision by the EU to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate​

Also, the MFF has no effect on the historic payments, which was not £350M.

 

[Bodd]

It is already recognised that he wasn't acting in a public officer role when he made the statement.
The court will decide if he, as a public officer, influenced the campaign because, as a public officer, people would expect him to know the true figure.
I suspect the comparison of £350M to £250M will likely be taken into account, should he be found guilty when sentencing him, not in the consideration of whether he is guilty or not.

While it is true that the EU Budget, and thus the rebate amount is calculated every 7 years, the next Budget will be for the 2021 -2027 period., and the UK would veto any attempt to remove the Rebate. So it is not likely to affect the rebate in any way.

The British government has resisted campaigns to abolish the rebate and the UK has a veto on any decision by the EU to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate​

Also, the MFF has no effect on the historic payments, which was not £350M.

Do you suspect he will be jailed?

 

[Mfatic]

Do you suspect he will be jailed?

Only if he's found guilty.
Do you think he will be?

 

[Bodd]

Only if he's found guilty.
Do you think he will be?

I think he will be found guilty. I think a jail sentence is extreme. Also think he's the wrong man for PM and can't see him getting in. If he did however I would consider supporting him.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Also think he's the wrong man for PM and can't see him getting in.
If he did however I would consider supporting him.

Do you mean you are voting Conservative regardless of everything and anything?

 

[durhamplumber]

The whole shebang was a lie however and was shamelessly and repeatedly pushed in the direction of the gullible and the naïve,

Lol...I am neither,,I can asssure you of that!