Who next for Tory Leader/PM?

[I1L2T3 10]

2 hours ago, JamesR123 said:

1) Yes it is.

 

2) I refer to most people by their given names.  Those who I don't refer to by their given name, I refer to by the name they ask me to use.  Are you a teenage boy?

I’m personally happy to call him by his first name if you let me tag Racist on the front

 

Racist Boris

 

There you go. Nice name

[El Cid 215]

3 hours ago, Mister Gee said:

Just watched Marr on catch up. Raab told Marr "I'm a details guy." 

 

He also said at least 3 times, I am also a solicitor

[Mister Gee 813]

8 minutes ago, El Cid said:

He also said at least 3 times, I am also a solicitor

When I was younger I thought you had to be smart to be a solicitor but having met a few you clearly don't. I sometimes think I'm in the wrong game but I sleep comfortably every night.

[ez8004 10]

1 hour ago, Mister Gee said:

When I was younger I thought you had to be smart to be a solicitor but having met a few you clearly don't. I sometimes think I'm in the wrong game but I sleep comfortably every night.

Surely if he was any good, he would have been a barrister, no?

 

Also, back on topic.  I don't think Boris will actually make it to the final 2.  How many MPs actually will support him?  The ERG might support him assuming Jacob Rees-Mogg doesn't run, so that is 70 votes.  So where will the rest come from?  Not all Brexit leaving MPs are as hard core as the ERG.  In fact, I would say the vast majority are not.  A moderate like Jeremy Hunt will most likely make it to at least the final 3.  Sir Graham Brady will be a surprise to many purely from backbench support from most neutrals.

[John 11]

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

 

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

[Top Cats Hat 10]

An interesting one this.

 

He is clearly guilty but the courts aren’t going to throw a politician under the bus for deliberately telling lies as the repercussions are huge.

 

On the other hand, a jury fed up with the current political situation may well be minded to find him guilty.

 

A positive spin off of this high profile case is that the £350 million claim will very publicly be exposed as a lie, particularly as a significant number of people still believe it, even three years later.

[Pettytom 1]

6 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

An interesting one this.

 

He is clearly guilty but the courts aren’t going to throw a politician under the bus for deliberately telling lies as the repercussions are huge.

 

 

They might do.

 

A big red one with fibs on the side of it.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

The problem Johnson has is that he kept repeating the lie even after the Advertising Standards Authority very publicly described the claim as misleading, so the ‘I didn’t know’ defence won’t fly.

 

By the way, this won’t be a trial about whether the claim was true or not but whether Johnson was making the claim in an official capacity as a public figure rather than a private citizen.

[Yeah but 0]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

An interesting one this.

 

He is clearly guilty but the courts aren’t going to throw a politician under the bus for deliberately telling lies as the repercussions are huge.

 

On the other hand, a jury fed up with the current political situation may well be minded to find him guilty.

 

A positive spin off of this high profile case is that the £350 million claim will very publicly be exposed as a lie, particularly as a significant number of people still believe it, even three years later.

If its not 350 million then how much is it? has this court given a figure?

[nightrider 13]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The problem Johnson has is that he kept repeating the lie even after the Advertising Standards Authority very publicly described the claim as misleading, so the ‘I didn’t know’ defence won’t fly.

 

By the way, this won’t be a trial about whether the claim was true or not but whether Johnson was making the claim in an official capacity as a public figure rather than a private citizen.

Yes, but he has a defence in that he did not make the statement as part of his public role apparently. i.e. he was not employed n public office to campaign for the leaver campaign. A prominent legal expert has explained this better in a blog (which I lost the link to). So don't count on him being convicted. Even if he is it will just be "fake news" to hard core brexiteers.

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

(...)

He is clearly guilty but the courts aren’t going to throw a politician under the bus for deliberately telling lies as the repercussions are huge.

(...)

I'd certainly like this case to set a useful precedent, with the legal test hinged upon the characterisation of the statement as a lie, and the deliberate character of the delivery.

 

That way, it would maintain a degree of permissible fuzziness for politicians, but draw a line in the sand distinguishing them from snake oil merchants like Farage, Fox, Johnson and so many others.

1 hour ago, Pettytom said:

They might do.

 

A big red one with fibs on the side of it.

Liked 

[taxman 12]

A former deputy attorney general has said "Freedom of political debate forms the bedrock of any democratic system. Clearly, if politicians were exposed to prosecution for the statements that they make in campaigns, that would have a chilling effect on our politics and undermine democracy."

 

It may well have a chilling effect on democracy...it might force politicians to tell the truth.