Chindie Posted June 5, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 5, 2019 The latest wheeze amongst the mentalists is to seriously push the idea of proroguing Parliament. Which would turbocharge a constitutional crisis. Also raises this point (best ignore who's saying it, it's not the point - play the ball...) That this is being seriously suggested by people that want to be PM should have the Press screaming from the rooftops. But no. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xann Posted June 5, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 5, 2019 4 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said: Lol. But I would take that with a pinch of salt - if a half intelligent person asked ANY politician about details of their politics/agenda, I think they would cope just as poorly. Problem is that Gove, May, Corbin or any other 'top' politician would never allow themselves to be questioned this way. Politics overall is in a very poor state and it's more about catchphrases rather than concrete facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakotaDakota Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 On 05/06/2019 at 14:04, ml1dch said: Hearing delayed after the judge recused herself to avoid accusations of a conflict of interest. I imagine had Ed Miliband's wife found against him, Johnson wouldn't have taken the decision with good grace. Case now thrown out completely by the high court for being politically motivated nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 7, 2019 Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said: politically motivated nonsense Was that the actual ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakotaDakota Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, bickster said: Was that the actual ruling? pretty much : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/07/boris-johnson-has-misconduct-allegations-quashed-high-court/ Mr Darbishire submitted the judge's decision was an error of law and said the attempt to prosecute Mr Johnson was "politically motivated". He told the court: "This case clearly represented on the face of it - I will be neutral - a politically-originated ... attempt to prosecute a senior politician using a common law offence for false statements in the course of public debate, a use to which that offence had never been put in this country or any common law jurisdiction." He added: "Standing on the hustings is not the exercise of state power, and doing something naughty on the hustings is not capable of being an abuse of state power." The barrister said an attempt to use the criminal justice system for "a political purpose" was an "extremely grave and troubling thing to do". In written submissions before the court, he said: "In drawing upon freely-available public statistics for the purpose of a political argument, Vote Leave, and those who supported and spoke for that campaign, were clearly not acting as public officials, nor exercising any public power. "They made no claim to special knowledge of the sums expended by the UK, they exercised no official power in promoting that message and the assessment and publication of the level of the UK's total EU spending formed no part of Mr Johnson's official duties." He added: "It is abundantly clear that this prosecution is motivated by a political objective and has been throughout." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 7, 2019 Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said: pretty much : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/07/boris-johnson-has-misconduct-allegations-quashed-high-court/ Mr Darbishire submitted the judge's decision was an error of law and said the attempt to prosecute Mr Johnson was "politically motivated". He told the court: "This case clearly represented on the face of it - I will be neutral - a politically-originated ... attempt to prosecute a senior politician using a common law offence for false statements in the course of public debate, a use to which that offence had never been put in this country or any common law jurisdiction." He added: "Standing on the hustings is not the exercise of state power, and doing something naughty on the hustings is not capable of being an abuse of state power." The barrister said an attempt to use the criminal justice system for "a political purpose" was an "extremely grave and troubling thing to do". In written submissions before the court, he said: "In drawing upon freely-available public statistics for the purpose of a political argument, Vote Leave, and those who supported and spoke for that campaign, were clearly not acting as public officials, nor exercising any public power. "They made no claim to special knowledge of the sums expended by the UK, they exercised no official power in promoting that message and the assessment and publication of the level of the UK's total EU spending formed no part of Mr Johnson's official duties." He added: "It is abundantly clear that this prosecution is motivated by a political objective and has been throughout." That is an utterly bizarre ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 13 minutes ago, bickster said: That is an utterly bizarre ruling. Bear in mind, that quote isn't the judge's ruling it's the submission from Boris's lawyer. Clearly the judge agreed with it, but it's not the judge's words. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 7, 2019 Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Bear in mind, that quote isn't the judge's ruling it's the submission from Boris's lawyer. Clearly the judge agreed with it, but it's not the judge's words. I was wondering why they were quoting a barrister but that the judge agreed with it is still utterly bizarre. Mr Johnson took his Foreign Secretary cap off and claimed to have no knowledge of government when he made the pronouncement and this claim was motivated by politics which apparently should have no place in a court room... really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 They are thick as mince Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 1 hour ago, bickster said: That is an utterly bizarre ruling. Claims to be avoiding setting a dangerous precedent by setting a dangerous precedent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 2 hours ago, ml1dch said: Bear in mind, that quote isn't the judge's ruling it's the submission from Boris's lawyer. Also apparently, in the skeleton argument from Johnson's side was the following submission: Quote It is possible that the political campaign statements of a Member of Parliament may be given weight because of their source. A listener might conceivably say, "Because this man is an MP, I trust what he is saying about immigration statistics/climate change/literacy measures." Whether that is true to any extent of the Claimant is doubtful given his public profile. That seems to be his own side advancing the case that no one should trust a word Mr Johnson says. These words may get repeated in election hustings over the next couple of weeks. Quote above from this tweet: 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 Pretty damning stuff. "Of course people didn't believe what my client said. Nobody believes anything that he says" 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 7, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 7, 2019 My client is so untrustworthy, your honour, that the man on the Clapham omnibus wouldn't possibly believe him. ... Why yes, he did have those words on the side of a bus, but the bus is merely a vector of his words and therefore the bus also can't be trusted. ... Why did they put it on the bus then? Er... ... And yes I do believe my client wishes to be Prime Minister, though this case has no bearing on that, or vice versa. This argument will have no impact on his standing as a Prime Ministerial candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: Pretty damning stuff. "Of course people didn't believe what my client said. Nobody believes anything that he says" Good of the barrister there to correctly acknowledge that Boris really belongs to the light entertainment industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Good of the barrister there to correctly acknowledge that Boris really belongs to the light entertainment industry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 (edited) Anyway, I look forward to all the conservatives launching similarly stout defences of Nicolas Maduro's next GDP statistics on the grounds of the sanctity of free speech. Edited June 7, 2019 by HanoiVillan 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 8, 2019 Moderator Share Posted June 8, 2019 Quote Everything you think you know about Leavers and Remainers is wrong A new study reveals that Remainers care much more about remaining than Leavers do about leaving — and it could have grave consequences for Labour and the Tories. It is commonly assumed that Leave supporters want to leave the EU — regardless of the type of Brexit — more than Remain supporters want to remain. But a new YouGov survey of over 1,600 British citizens carried out by academic researchers shows it is wrong. In fact, the opposite is true. While 33 per cent of the country now want a no-deal Brexit, 42 per cent say it is their least-favourite outcome. Our survey also shows that support for the Brexit Party is higher among financially comfortable voters — adding to previous research showing that support for no-deal is also higher in that group. Remainers care more about remaining than Leavers do about leaving (regardless of the Brexit outcome) The survey asked respondents to rank the following potential Brexit outcomes in order — no-deal, Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, a softer Brexit and remaining in the EU. It then asked people how much they preferred each option to the one ranked below it. For example, someone who had ranked no-deal as their first choice and May’s deal as their second choice was then asked whether they preferred no-deal “a bit”, “a fair amount” or “a lot” more than May’s deal. Over two-thirds (69 per cent) of respondents who gave Remain as their first choice preferred remaining a lot compared to their most preferred Leave option (in most cases, this was a softer Brexit). By contrast, only a third (35 per cent) of people who gave Leave as their first choice preferred their least preferred Leave option “a lot” compared to remaining. This is an important finding. Why? .... more on link New Statesman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 11, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11, 2019 Seems opposition parties are putting together a motion to legislate against no deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts