Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
you wait a little bit, after May, that will be first brexit offspring.
I think the Mail overstepped the mark with that headline and May should make that clear. I think they should be allowed to report on cases such as those brought by Gina Miller, but not with the sort of headline that we have seen.
It isn't acceptable to distort facts in order to stir up ill feeling, whether that be against the judges, Gina Miller or indeed the news paper itself.
I know that old tom is a decent sort and that is why he will publish the link to The Daily Mail article regarding a polish immigrant killing a dog. He is certainly not the sort of guy who will subscribe to the idea of fabricating sensational headlines in order to make a point.
Give it up tillson it's getting stale, tom told you why
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
I do hope that you aren't suggesting that the Daily Mail never ran such an article and that the whole exercise was a tissue of lies fabricated by old tom? Calculated and intended to deceive! Never, I say never!!!
No one has had more to say about this sort of behaviour that old tom and I will not have you insult him in this way.
old tom, read this and defend yourself against this outrage.
Looks like the courts are going to be busy...the CPS is considering a complaint that vote leave made 'knowingly misleading' assertions of fact. It wont affect the referendum result but could result in criminal prosecutions against Boris Johnson and/or Michael Gove.
The director of public prosecutions is considering a complaint that voters were misled by the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns, in contravention of electoral law.
The complaint about “undue influence” on the referendum campaign has been submitted by an independent group, spearheaded by Prof Bob Watt, an expert in electoral law from the University of Buckingham.
Though most cases require a police complaint before evidence can be considered by theCrown Prosecution Service, under the 1983 Representation of the People Act the DPP can consider cases of election offences when they are referred to her office directly.
A CPS spokesperson said: “We can confirm that this letter has been received and we are currently considering its content.” The complaint is being considered by the special crime team, which deals with all election offences.
Under electoral law “undue influence” is considered a corrupt practice and includes the use of “a fraudulent device or contrivance” to “impede or prevent or intend to impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise”.
The evidence submitted to the DPP cites a 1992 case where members of the Liberal Democrats produced a leaflet headed “Labour News”, with quotes from Labour politicians and purporting to set out Labour policies in Tower Hamlets.
That leaflet was deemed by the courts to be an attempt to mislead voters, though the law at the time did not consider that to be an offence. However, the law was changed by the Electoral Administration Act of 2006, which made an attempt to mislead voters an offence of “undue influence” – although Watt said that had not been tested by the courts so far.
Watt and his colleagues who have prepared the case say it centres on “instances where the leave campaigns continued to make assertions of fact that were knowingly misleading”, including the oft-cited claim of the EU costing the UK £350m a week.
That claim, made by Vote Leave, was contrary to evidence from the Office for National Statistics, Watt said. Other instances cited to the DPP include alleged misrepresentations on pro-Brexit leaflets that Nissan and Unilever supported leaving the EU.
hehe!!!!!!
KudosDave
The director of public prosecutions is considering a complaint that voters were misled by the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns, in contravention of electoral law.
The complaint about “undue influence” on the referendum campaign has been submitted by an independent group, spearheaded by Prof Bob Watt, an expert in electoral law from the University of Buckingham.
Though most cases require a police complaint before evidence can be considered by theCrown Prosecution Service, under the 1983 Representation of the People Act the DPP can consider cases of election offences when they are referred to her office directly.
A CPS spokesperson said: “We can confirm that this letter has been received and we are currently considering its content.” The complaint is being considered by the special crime team, which deals with all election offences.
Under electoral law “undue influence” is considered a corrupt practice and includes the use of “a fraudulent device or contrivance” to “impede or prevent or intend to impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise”.
The evidence submitted to the DPP cites a 1992 case where members of the Liberal Democrats produced a leaflet headed “Labour News”, with quotes from Labour politicians and purporting to set out Labour policies in Tower Hamlets.
That leaflet was deemed by the courts to be an attempt to mislead voters, though the law at the time did not consider that to be an offence. However, the law was changed by the Electoral Administration Act of 2006, which made an attempt to mislead voters an offence of “undue influence” – although Watt said that had not been tested by the courts so far.
Watt and his colleagues who have prepared the case say it centres on “instances where the leave campaigns continued to make assertions of fact that were knowingly misleading”, including the oft-cited claim of the EU costing the UK £350m a week.
That claim, made by Vote Leave, was contrary to evidence from the Office for National Statistics, Watt said. Other instances cited to the DPP include alleged misrepresentations on pro-Brexit leaflets that Nissan and Unilever supported leaving the EU.
hehe!!!!!!
KudosDave
There's plenty of badness in the Daily Mail, you can find it most days, especially in the reader's comments section.
For that reason, there is no necessity to publish Daily Mail articles that have never existed. What is the point in doing that?
Well it did some good as it brought you back into the debate for one thing, wearing your caped crusader persona.
how cool is this???
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/07/india-deserves-apology-for-atrocities-under-britains-colonial-ru/
so, dear jingoistic and otherwise sadly very challenged brexiters, by leaving the EU you've really set Britain free from "foreign control". personally I'd like to see how far submarine may's self interest will go, what would she not sacrifice to hold on to her position? some public supplication would be a great start. im sure it will be music to brexiteers ears.
I can imagine Boris would respond something like this
"I categorically deny any and all cases of alleged transgressions on my part, I have in all instances been misquoted, and at the same time ask for several thousand other cases to be taken into consideration as they were simply jokes (ala the bent bananas) or prize winning (as in the poem about the Turkish premier)"
and more visas
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-offers-concessions-to-india-on-visas-after-row-on-trade-mission-a3389141.html
in amore serious vein (than enjoying the sight of submarine may thoroughly dragging the scarps of integrity that's left through mud), I think this is a good idea, however, I can imagine the average brexiteer might not like it once an innovative nation of 1.3 billion offloads some of very underpaid, ambitious, driven talent into the uk market
And why would we need immigrants from India rather than stay with the EU?
It looks as though she has utterly given up on this immigration thing and is now just trying a sort of slave trade, dumping the ones she thinks undesirable for ones that might turn a profit as a means of not increasing numbers.
This is not going to go down well with the Brexiters is it? instead of people coming in to do menial jobs the "taking back of control" means all the good jobs go to these favoured immigrants?
perhaps tillson would care to offer his wisdom on this development?
One might equally ask, why do you keep going on about it?
Is it because you still can't come up with a reasoned argument in favour of this Brexit nonsense?
Just a diversionary tactic?
That is of course those among them able to comprehend what is going on and see the implications.
So to be fair it will only bother a handful, and pass over the heads of the majority in the upper atmosphere.
Boris could always claim...'I saw red' !!!
Now where else have we seen public institutions trying to act 'against the vote of the people',at least they wont have 600,000 emails to trawl through.
.....you could see a possible email....dont worry Michael,I know the £350 million is wrong and there is no chance this will end up with the NHS but the people are so gullible and anyway there is no chance we will win,Bojo.....
Now where else have we seen public institutions trying to act 'against the vote of the people',at least they wont have 600,000 emails to trawl through.
.....you could see a possible email....dont worry Michael,I know the £350 million is wrong and there is no chance this will end up with the NHS but the people are so gullible and anyway there is no chance we will win,Bojo.....
That's a piece of news that has escaped me but I can understand that there may well have been offences committed in the kind of lie-laden presentation promulgated by the pro-'Brexit' brigade.
From the outset, I have believed that the kind of descriptive language used by Farage, Johnson and several other 'Brexit' spokespersons was completely beyond the pale. That their message was so warmly received by some of the nastiest, racist groups and pseudo-political movements in the country was telling enough that this was no ordinary political situation.
I would dearly love to see some of the fascist rabble-rousers found guilty of offences under electoral law and locked up for their wilful attempt to mislead the people though lies and distortion of facts.
Tom
The problem Tom is that the lies have been going on for Forty Plus years, haven't they?
That is a big element but a lot of what has gone on before could be passed off as political hyperbole, something all politicians are guilty of on a regular basis. Where this differs is in its scale and intent particularly with the inherent racism in much of the language used by the prime movers of the 'Leave' campaign.
Such deliberate denigration of the peoples of 27other nation states in speeches littered with huge, deliberate lies, while possibly being seen as an extension of the element I mentioned, is more in keeping with the work of Joseph Goebbels and his theory of the 'big lie'. I know that you are very familiar with that and although I'm repeating something I have made reference to previously, it does no harm to include it here again:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Of course, there are some who simply refuse to believe the evidence of their own eyes and ears and referring to such material is simply wasted on those.
Tom