Boris Johnson ordered to appear in court over £350m claim

...and the latest theatrical twist from those whinging remain tw@ts that haven't quite figured out what losing a referendum means ....

...perhaps if he loses he can appeal to the European Court of Justice....

 

So Boris Johnson's now one of history's traitors, up there with Guy Fawkes and Benedict Arnold I see.
President Guy Verhofstadt is printed on future Euros, he's got a tomb and a monument somewhere one day?

 

Good idea...being able to take lying politicians to court charged with misconduct in public office. It likely won't stop them lying through their teeth (though we can always live in hope)....if nothing else, it will hit their bank balances a bit...and it will give lawyers and courts plenty of work for the forseeable future, . Shame the media only prints the political propaganda and aren't in public office...we could try the same on them. .

 

He's going to the Crown Court. If found guilty I think that has a minimum sentence of 6 months.

I think the difficulty before has been that they just pretend they were mistakes. This time they have recordings of him saying the correct amount so hope that can prove it was deliberate. I agree that Politicians lying to get people to vote the way they want, particularly over such a dynamic situation as this and even more when such Politicians are now demanding as their choice something they never said during the Referendum, No Deal which all economies say will have us on a downward trajectory we may never get out of.

You are right, his conviction is going to keep the courts and jails full for a long time.

 

As they say, at least Guy Fawkes was the only person in parliament with good intentions.

How on earth has it got to court? If you believe in something and tell others as advice, where's the criminality in that? It's only advice, it's up to the person to make their decision.

At the end of the day, quitting the EU, canceling the EU membership direct debit and scrapping foreign aid, £350m is more than achievable.

 

The comedy show continues

 

They have a recording of Johnson saying the correct amount of money that the UK pays the EU. Hence they do not think he believed what he said. Because of this they believe it is quite clear that Johnson knew he was being untruthful when he said it was £350m a year. Given that it appears that Johnson was deliberately lying to the British people. One cannot pretend to believe in Democracy if one has no problem with Politicians getting the vote of the people, particularly in something as important as this, by deceiving them. It goes again to freedom of information being one of the fundamentals of a democracy. If people do not have the correct information they cannot give an informed choice. While the usual excuse is that it was a mistake or they did not mean to give that impression, given that they have evidence that Johnson knew the correct amount of money the UK pays the EU while telling people it was considerably more, they believe they can prove he was deliberately deceiving them to get them to vote the way he wanted and has a case to answer.

If he is found guilty, this could set a precedent which will start to bring us out of the world of spin our politics has been in since the 80's and make a move back to genuine democracy.

 

Still, it beats colluding with the Russians.

 

That is just a meaningless attempt to distract from the subject of the thread. See Rule 5 of the forum rules

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?help/terms

 

Is that the basis for a law suit? I mean Tony Blair and his band of brothers lied over the basis of going to war in Iraq which resulted in and indeed continues to cause the deaths of...well...hundreds of thousands?? And yet nothing was done; yes there was a fabrication of an enquiry which provided a veneer of authenticity to the escapade but if we are to prosecute politicians who play fast and loose with the truth then where will that lead? I mean politicians will massage the truth in order to obtain an outcome. All one has to do is look at political manifestos, and if one is to believe everything you read in them then fine, However, I would suggest that those that do are deluding themselves.
Calling on the law to adjudicate on the speeches and soundbites given on the hustings is just fanciful and would call into law a precedent which would tie up the courts and the election process until there were no elections because everything uttered, written or implied would be subject to legal review.

The majority of the British people neither understand the issues or are indeed capable of understanding the issues in such a complex situation as Brexit or indeed in the running of a country. By implying that government policy or political aspirations are conducted within the auspices of the people understanding and giving informed consent is just laughable.

 

The Judge at the Magistrates court believes it does

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-jo...ver-alleged-eu-referendum-misconduct-11730747

People have done everything they can think of to get Blair and Bush arrested. I think they even made an application to the ICC. Possibly this is the way to go about it. The thing appears to be that you have to be able to prove that it was deliberate lying not the 'mistake' they always claim. Given that they have recordings of Johnson giving the correct amount we pay the EU it is argued it was not a mistake but a genuine intention to deceive.

The Judge does not agree with you. One would hope it might start making politicians less dishonest. We now expect spin. That was not what it was like when I started voting. We did not just believe anything a politician said.

The lack of knowledge on what the situation is, is why it is imperative that Politicians do not deliberately lie. Without informed opinion a vote means nothing on any democratic level. There is the old saying that a democracy gets the Government it deserves. Tocqueville imagined Democracy would work by people talking about things in for instance the pub and that is what it was like when I was young. Democracy only works if people keep themselves informed. There is no question that people's lack of interest in politics has had a part in the stealth removal of it replacing it with a Plutocracy. However this case is about Politicians deliberately deceiving ignorant people by not telling them the truth in order to get their vote.

 

I can't see this harming Boris. One politician calling another a liar is like one tart calling another tart a prostitute. It will just bounce off him. On the other hand, during the referendum campaign the remainers swore holes through pewter pots that if we so much as thought about Brexit the economy would collapse and tens of millions would be unemployed. So if anyone cares to gather together the collected works of George Osborne, Mark Carney etail, then the boot might end up on the other foot.

Overal I can't see that Marcus Ball will be making many friends on either side with this case

 

We have been ploughing millions, possibly billions into Brexit which could have been better spent. We have not put Brexit into being yet but peope are not seeing us the most reliable to invest in and other issues. Here is one example

Brexit shutdown slashes UK car production by 45%

never mind a No Deal Brexit

As far as the outcome of a no deal Brexit, the expected decline in living standards is 10% - not sure over how many years that is.

Now Venezuela is supposed to have had a 20% decline in the last year. That might give you a bit of an idea of what sort of future we may have on a no deal Brexit.

 

Alexa; you do realise there was life in the UK before the EU?
What's wrong with WTO trade again?

 

of course they would its their job unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary and it would be a very brave justice to deny the summons...its simple procedure at this stage nothing more

 

Given that I was an adult when we joined of course I am. We were called the sick man of Europe.

This also has nothing to do with the OP.

 

You asked if there was a case to answer. The judge said yes. It is fascinating that a Politician deliberately lying to deceive you to get your vote does not bother you and others in this thread.

 

The judges haven’t said anything a magistrate has simply done his job. It can still thrown out as vexatious or no case to answer the CPS could step in and not proceed. As I said this isn’t even the beginning it’s just simple procedure as this stage. Don’t read too much into it.

 

Ah, so you are saying Sky News is lying

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-jo...ver-alleged-eu-referendum-misconduct-11730747

Oh it is the beginning but you are correct that at the Preliminary hearing he could be let off (with a good bribe). What he is being charged with has a maximum sentence of life in Prison.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430

and whatever happens it will have no effect on the 2016 Referendum.

 

..who cares what sky news thinks....its just crap reporting.

Try this. In order to start the proceeding an "information" has to be laid in front of a Magistrate's court either in writing or orally... in this case it was in writing. The procedure is laid down in part 7 of the criminal procedures rules when someone wants a summons issued they need to lay down this "information" in order for the magistrate to issue the summons. The summons is generally issue because that is the general principle (because the system is laughable really) unless it is judged to be "frivolous" or "vexatious". Since the prosecution is being brought by Marcus Ball the director of Brexit Justice Limited which was set up 2016 (we'll get to that in a second), a company established for seemingly the specific and sole purpose of bringing an action against Johnson. Now bear in mind that the specific tests involved are pathetically low this all adds up to a slam dunk that the summons would proceed.

which is an interesting comment because I am sure that this is going to be one of the main arguments against the action....was he acting in public office...was Johnson really solely responsible for that bus campaign or just singled out for political reasons...etc. etc. etc.? If you remember your law there is the consequences of Carlill to consider, were his comments "mere puff"? There are so many arguments that can be brought to bear which will all have to be legally reviewed I would be amazed if the CPS doesn't take it on and discontinue it. Remember the company was established in 2016 and only now starts the action as Boris starts his bid at PM...hmmmm

anyway good bribe or not it seems to me that the position of the Criminal Division is to say “We have extremely shoddy procedure which is patently open to abuse, but this case cannot be abuse of process because our procedure is so bad”.

 

More trumped up charges based on vague broadly worded laws. This is the sort of thing that happens in Banana Republics.

This just underlines the importance of judicial discretion. The reality is that things are not all run by the written law.

 

Yeah, I'm wondering, what does this story have to do with antisemitism in Labour?

Time to stop deflecting from Jeremy Corbyn being a racist extremist.

 

Johnson tries to get his misconduct charges dismissed

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/04/boris-johnson-seeks-dismissal-of-misconduct-charge

Basically it looks like he is trying to avoid justice by making it too expensive for the man bringing it to afford.

Equal justice for all?

 

...it was a Company formed in 2016 ostensibly founded specifically for the purpose of prosecuting Boris Johnson. The Company has employed legal counsel and Barristers who would have gone through all this with them prior to the Information being lodged with the Magistrate in order to start the proceedings.
Do you think Mr. Johnson is not entitled to a legal defence?

 

Apparently the British judiciary is still working ...
Hopefully he will end up in jail, even though he will receive the status of a martyr for the pro - Brexit people despite his proven and evil lies.

P.S.
Mabye the judicary in the US works well too ... and Trump will face the same for his "Mexico will pay the wall" lie when in fact only the US taxpayers in bleeding for his useless monument?