Boris Johnson - Indictment for Misconduct in Public Office

Sonic67

Johnson to appear in court over £350m claim

It is a private prosecution launched by campaigner Marcus Ball, who crowdfunded £200,000 for the case.

We are at peak snowflake.

Can we bring others to account now?

                                                                               

"No deal is better than a bad deal"

Iraq Inquiry - Home

"A vote to leave would cause a profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow. The central conclusion of the analysis is that the effect of this profound shock would be to push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment."

No we can't.

The court case that proves you can't sue politicians for breaking their election promises

Way back in 2004, Tony Blair had promised Parliament a referendum on whether Britain should ratify the new EU constitution.

That document died after “no” votes in France and the Netherlands, and by the time it reached Britain in late 2007, it had transmogrified into something called the Lisbon Treaty.

This time, both Blair and Gordon Brown made clear there would be no referendum – so a member of the public decided to sue the government for the breach of a promise.

The claimant’s case was simple. The promise to hold a referendum on the constitution necessarily implied a promise to hold a similar referendum on the new Lisbon Treaty.

By failing to introduce a referendum bill into Parliament, the government had betrayed not only Tony Blair’s pledge in Parliament but the Labour Party manifesto of 2005.

The government, of course, argued judges had no place in deciding that. “This case is politics dressed up as law,” said Jonathan Sumption QC (who is now a Supreme Court judge).

So there you have it: political promises of the kind each party makes in its manifesto are not legally enforceable. If you want to enforce them, you’ll have to use the ballot box – or run for Parliament yourself.

domtheone

Hmm.  Ok on your first point but the way they (Osborne and co) went about it, made it sound more like fact than fiction forecasts.

LMAO at the highlighted bit though.   Ridiculous.  Things just carried on more or less as normal, as some forecasts suggested.

edit:  As per Sonics post above.  Happens all the time.

This'll be laughed out of court.

weaviemx5

Isn't the point of the Johnson claim that he knowingly used 'tailored' figures to paint a different picture?  The payments/rebates we make to the EU are publicly available and proven, yet he deliberately chose to misrepresent the underlying figure.

In contrast, a manifesto pledge/political statement is, again, a prediction/suggestion/wish which is not legally enforceable.  That's my understanding anyway and, let's be honest, it's highly unlikely that anything other than a slap on the wrist and 'learnings' will be taken from this case.

springtide

Anything that talks about stuff in the future is a forecast or prediction by nature of not being able to see into the future.

Sonic’s posts are again predictions.

Sonic67

1. Until we've stopped funding the EU we can't give any of that money to the NHS or anything else.
2. The Foreign Secretary and the UK Statistics Authority: £350 million explained

"We could take back control of huge sums of money, 350 million pounds a week, and spend it on our priorities such as the NHS"

I don't get why people are so angry about this.

If someone asked me what I would do with £20,000 - I'd reply "I could get a decent second hand sports car for that."

The fact I'd then proceed to blow it all on crystal meth, midget hookers and jumping off the wardrobe dressed as batman is neither here nor there.

springtide

Osborne told us "here are the facts" when presenting the figures. It's a straight lie.

NHS funding will be increased by £394m by 2023/4.

Sonic67

You should read the case in detail.

It’s not about Brexit or the NHS

It’s about Boris stating a sum of money given to the EU which he knew was incorrect, deliberately to mislead the public

weaviemx5

If I asked you how much you were paid, you could quote before tax or after tax. Before tax, is your salary. After tax is what you actually get. Neither is wrong.

Even allowing for the rebate we still give £250 million a week.

Dominic Cummings: how the Brexit referendum was won | Coffee House

"Some people now claim this was cynical and we never intended to spend more on the NHS. Wrong. Boris and Gove were agreed and determined to do exactly this. On the morning of 24 June they both came into HQ. In the tiny ‘operations room’ amid beer cans, champagne bottles, and general bedlam I said to Boris – on day one of being PM you should immediately announce the extra £100 million per week for the NHS [the specific pledge we’d made] is starting today and more will be coming – you should start off by being unusual, a political who actually delivers what they promise. ‘Absolutely. ABSOLUTELY. We MUST do this, no question, we’ll park our tanks EVERYWHERE’ he said. Gove strongly agreed. If they had not blown up this would have happened."

The problem for the Remain Camp is they found it difficult saying it's not £350 million a week to the EU it's only £250 million because they knew the average person would say, "why the hell are we paying £250 million a week to the EU??? And this is Remains figures!"

Sonic67

Yes, but we don’t currently send £350 million per week to the EU, which is the point.

Sonic67

I do.
It's not.

If anything, it's about an upset remainer. No different to Gina Miller etc.