UKC

Suprised this hasn't got going on here.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/07/brexit-cps-considers-compl...

Glad it's not me making that call, but then it always suprised me that nobody had called out the main 'leavers' by asking them why they were not suing for slander/libel given virtually all the remainers had said they lied in the campaign.

In reply to ian caton:

No doubt there will be a counter claim from the Remainers, maybe not though, because they don't moan as much.....

In reply to Jim 1003:

Ha, ha
































http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-j...

In reply to ian caton:

There's absolutely no way they will make lying in elections a criminal offense, otherwise every election from now on will end in a flurry of court cases.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


What a shame that we live in a world where that's true.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I am no expert, but it would appear from the piece that it is a criminal offence within certain criteria and has been for some time.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It will be interesting to see the outcome. The article I read gave an opinion that the infamous £350 million for the NHS could fall foul of the law, as could the statement made that 'Turkey is joining the EU'. I have no idea; but these claims did seem qualitatively different from the modelling from economists suggesting negative impacts from a leave vote. Id like to see orbornes use of the treasury report taken to task too though, as it seemed a case of cherry picking the most extreme scenarios and presenting them as the most likely outcomes.

There was a sense as the campaign progressed that the claims being made were becoming more and more detached from likely reality, and progressively more divisive, so maybe this will give pause for thought in any future campaigns.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Yep, by the end exit was promising a utopian land of milk and honey and remain was predicting a total breakdown of society and a plague of locust.
Both sides lied and twisted the truth to breaking point just like every election promise.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


I think it would be hard to claim that such things were "undue influence", since, however loudly they were proclaimed, the Remainer's opinion that they were a pack of lies was also proclaimed loudly. That's just normal politics now!

The Remainers keep arguing that they lost because people believed all the Brexiter's lies. Well, how do they know they were believed?

In reply to Dax H:

I think the argument is that these are different from broken manifesto promises; these refer to things within the power of the people making the claim that should happen, though sometimes don't (events dear boy, events, etc)


The claims being challenged presented as fact things outside of the gift of the people making the cclaims to give, and that were not going to happen in any imaginable scenario (there was no imaginable future in the real world where the 350 million was going to be spent on the NHS, and those making the claim knew that)

I have no idea whether the case will succeed, and would be happy enough if a similar remain claim was tested too, as this is a point of process for me, rather than the result.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Some tactics cut through, irrespective of their truth, and drown out any challenge to them. I think it's daur enough to rule some things out of bounds in campaigns, as being factually wrong, but likely to have significant influence.

Trump repeatedly stating as fact that Clinton is a criminal would come in the same category for me.

And it's not a party point, or remain/leave point; I think orbornes use of extreme scenarios to exaggerate the likely economic impact should be held to account too.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


But if you start down that route you're going to instantly have a large number of gray-area issues. Do you really want a commission in each election pronouncing on what is or is not factually wrong?

And, wouldn't Trump proclaiming that he is being censored for not being allowed to state that Clinton is a {xxxxx} be even more damaging?

I think that in such cases you really do have to allow the two sides to speak, and to point out the flaws in each others' speech.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Osbourne, of course, may yet be right.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The law bans "a fraudulent device or contrivance" as it is which seems reasonable - more than a lie.

In reply to ian caton:

Interesting!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yet in a court of law if a judgement is made on the basis of untruthful evidence there are grounds to have the judgement overturned. Isn't the principle the same?

In reply to ian caton:

So their case stands on something which was not deemed to be an offence, ok, best of luck with that.

In reply to Big Ger:


Not in 1992, but has been an offence since 1996.

In reply to The New NickB:

You've got to remember, Nick, that the law doesn't interest many Brexiters, because they want to undermine it as far as possible and take it into their own hands. I predict very nasty paramilitary groups springing up soon in the UK, as in the US.

In reply to The New NickB:

Yes, sorry, I should have read on. Though the law, untested, and as it stands, doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation that this has any chance of success.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


youtube.com/watch?v=9EH1G4EwljM&

In reply to Big Ger:

I agree, I doubt it will succeed

But the possibility of prosecution may make campaign managers pause before running adverts that could be held to be 'fraudulent devices or contrivances' in future; and that would be useful in itself.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Agreed.

In reply to Coel Hellier:




Yes, I see your points. I hope that this is a 'shot across the bows' that just concentrates people's minds in future campaigns, rather than wanting people actually locked up, and future campaigns having to get official clearance before running ads

But I have less faith than you that reasoned debate has much power to act as a corrective to the more extreme statements. Trumps strategy for example is clearly to repeat the lie often enough that it becomes the truth for those that follow him. Alongside the 'rigged election' claims, we appear to be in conspiracy theory territory, and that sort of belief isn't one you can debate people out of. Nor will people stop believing it once the election is over; if anything, a narrow trump loss will further reinforce his supporters views, and further fracture American society along race lines.

The progressive coarsening of political debate, with fewer and fewer things 'unsayable' worries me, as it will be hard to reign this back in, and I think real damage is being done to the cohesiveness of society by it. Perhaps the potential for criminal sanctions for going too far, even if these are never successfully used, will helpa llittle; but it's not going to address why this is happening in the first place so it's not really a solution, I'd accept that.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


It's the focus group tested sound bite that has the power e.g. Take back control.

In reply to Jim 1003:

I love your irony, have a like