# Boris Johnson to be sued for misconduct in public office



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Interesting one. On Friday last an application was filed for a summons against Boris Johnson on three counts of misconduct in a public office regarding allegations of false misleading claims made abusing public trust. Video announcement (click) here outside Westminster Magistrates Court:



............. *Crowdfunder*


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

People need their heads testing if they contribute towards this by way of crowd funding, complete waste of time and (their) money...


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

leopard said:


> People need their heads testing if they contribute towards this by way of crowd funding, complete waste of time and (their) money...


Why's that? There have been plenty of successful crowd funded actions in the past.


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

All politicians lie, even your vegan lot on the left :lol: Singling out Johnson for alleged misdemeanour(s) is probably no more than a publicity stunt on behalf of the remoaners. Johnson's defence will no doubt rebuff with dozens of reasons, notwithstanding his legislative immunity whilst in office.

The only winners throughout all this will be the legal teams working for both sides.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

There have been too many lies coming from politicians. Boris Johnson is just a famous example but with a nitorious lie that may have a huge effect on all of us.

If you are a company director and you lie to shareholders you can goto jail. If we lie to police or the courts we can be sent to jail for perverting the course of justice.

Why can't politicians be held to account?

Misconduct in public office is an old common law offence and is not defined in any statute. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence defines that a public officer - wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty and/or wilfully engages in misconduct to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification.

It's for the courts do decide. The idea driving the case is not vexatious but to set a case precedent in common law that promotes better behavior by our politicians. Common law is built on precedent and this could set a better standard for the future.


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

As a "Brexiteer" - I have absolutely no problem with sending Boris Johnson to Jail.


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

John-H said:


> It's for the courts do decide. The idea driving the case is not vexatious but to set a case precedent in common law that promotes better behavior by our politicians. Common law is built on precedent and this could set a better standard for the future.


We'll see


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

I can't speak for the UK or Europe, but I do know in the US, many law schools require a course in ethics. The fact they have to even teach it in the first place speaks volumes about the legal profession and of those they spawn into politics.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

If they start jailing politicians for making false misleading claims they will have to build a lot more jails that's for sure I'd say alteast 90% of them will be going to jail


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

^^^^^^^
Lol, this.


----------



## jjg (Feb 14, 2010)

YELLOW_TT said:


> If they start jailing politicians for making false misleading claims they will have to build a lot more jails that's for sure I'd say alteast 90% of them will be going to jail


I would willingly contribute to any crowd fund to build more prison capacity just to put away 'deserving' MP's


----------



## Yashin (Sep 10, 2016)

I was lied to in 1997 by Tony "don't mention the Iraqi war" Blair.

He told me "Things... can only get better".

They subsequently got worse.

Warm the cells up.


----------



## Bazile (Apr 16, 2019)

Well, this guy raised £171k so far with a month and a half left to reach the £500k goal. Do you think he'll make it? haha


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Bazile said:


> Well, this guy raised £171k so far with a month and a half left to reach the £500k goal. Do you think he'll make it? haha


£500k is a stretch target. He only needed £100k to goto court and was hoping for £250k. He's currently awaiting the decision of Westminster magistrates to allow the prosecution.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Good news about to break on this


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

John-H said:


> Good news about to break on this


How so ?

If you mean those crazy lefty remainers who gifted money towards the crowd funding nonsense are to get a refund then no and Boo


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

I think the UK should start putting them in old transport hulks and ship them off to Australia. It worked before.


----------



## Iceblue (Jul 20, 2018)

No that won't work as we got petty thieves and vagrants which are a lot more worthy bunch


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

In the words of Private Prosecutor Marcus J Ball...



Marcus J Ball said:


> We've bloody done it! We've got into court! I'm so happy!
> 
> Thank you all so much!


The court case is set for May 14th 1:30pm.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MarcusJBall

He's asking for help through his crowd funder.

"I've put myself in huge debt to get us this far because I believe in this work and we didn't have enough funding. I need you to help me now! Repeat, we are out of money!"

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/BrexitJusticeProsecution


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

> The following is a statement from our solicitors which was released yesterday:
> 
> 'Further to a hearing today, the court has determined that a public hearing will take place on Thursday 23 May 2019 at Westminster Magistrates Court, when the Judge will consider an application to issue a summons against the proposed defendant, Mr Boris Johnson MP, for the offence of misconduct in public office.
> 
> ...


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

He's not bothered in the slightest. Just to put the boot in...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48299424

Johnno for PM would be a refreshing alternative says I


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

:lol: I don't stutter as much. Accept when I .. I .. I'm err .... when I'm doing Boris Johnson impressions! :roll: Oh for a moment there I thought you were being kind :lol:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

*Boris Johnson to appear in court over Brexit misconduct claims*



> Judge Coleman ruled: "The allegations which have been made are unproven accusations and I do not make any findings of fact. Having considered all the relevant factors I am satisfied that this is a proper case to issue the summons as requested for the three offences as drafted. The charges are indictable only.
> 
> "This means the proposed defendant will be required to attend this court for a preliminary hearing, and the case will then be sent to the crown court for trial. The charges can only be dealt with in the crown court."


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... uct-claims


----------



## jjg (Feb 14, 2010)

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

See Johnson will be appearing at court over his clueless comments. :lol:


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

What a joke of all the bull shite and lies MPs talk these muppets think this is the one to challenge, what about going after MR Blair and his government for the lies that were told to get us to go to war with Iraq


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

So, every time a politician says something in public that turns out to be untrue, they are liable to a private prosecution? Well the courts are going to be _very_ busy.
It certainly sets a precedence. Labour and Lib-Dems in particular should be worried. They both said they respected the results of the referendum in 2016. They clearly they lied.
If they can all face court action over allegedly claiming inaccurate figures then I want Gormless George Osborne, the Governor of The Bank of England, Ed Miliband, David Cameron and all the other lying pr1cks in court too for telling us we were all going to be £2,500 a year worse off, our economy would crash, and every British citizen would have a shorter lifespan. Oh and also for telling us we'd leave on 29 Mar 2019.


----------



## cheechy (Nov 8, 2006)

Stiff said:


> So, every time a politician says something in public that turns out to be untrue, they are liable to a private prosecution? Well the courts are going to be _very_ busy.
> It certainly sets a precedence. Labour and Lib-Dems in particular should be worried. They both said they respected the results of the referendum in 2016. They clearly they lied.
> If they can all face court action over allegedly claiming inaccurate figures then I want Gormless George Osborne, the Governor of The Bank of England, Ed Miliband, David Cameron and all the other lying pr1cks in court too for telling us we were all going to be £2,500 a year worse off, our economy would crash, and every British citizen would have a shorter lifespan. Oh and also for telling us we'd leave on 29 Mar 2019.


How do you know you're not 2500 a year worse off? It was an estimate and I guess maybe it was out for some and not for others. I know for instance that when I buy from europe and the US the bill is around 15% higher so I'm spending 100s more a year than I used to. Does that count?

All we know is that Bojo either knowingly or without checking facts decided to soundbite to gain hate votes early in the campaign.

At least it worked with you


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

cheechy said:


> How do you know you're not 2500 a year worse off?


Is that a serious question? Lol



cheechy said:


> It was an estimate and I guess maybe it was out for some and not for others.


Well it would be wouldn't it? :roll:



cheechy said:


> All we know is that Bojo either knowingly or without checking facts decided to soundbite to gain hate votes early in the campaign. _Just as they all did._


Fixed it for you.



cheechy said:


> At least it worked with you


Wrong. As mentioned earlier in the thread, I couldn't vote due to a logistical error.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I think everyone respected the vote initially but Vote Leave were later found to have cheated and broken campaign spending limits by around 10% on dubious social media advertising, when the result was a swing of less than 2%. Had the vote been legally binding it would have been annulled by the courts but it was only advisory and stands only by the Prime Minister's political decision to uphold it. If with later such knowledge you no longer respect the Prime Minister's decision that doesn't make you a liar.

We are currently losing about £500m p/w compared to where we would have been when we fell from the fastest growing economy in the Eurozone to the lowest since 2016. Which is actually not far off the estimate.

This case however is about malfeasance in public office - specifically wilful misconduct and abuse of public trust whilst in office. The idea is to set a precedent in law to stop deliberate misleading dishonesty by politicians in future. Politicians have never been prosecuted for this before. Honesty seems a refreshing and novel idea in politics. I'm all for it.


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

John-H said:


> Good news about to break on this


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Good news about to break on this


That was an old quote but the fact that you have re-quoted it in the light of today's sad news of a setback to stop politicians lying says a lot about you :wink:


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

John-H said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> > John-H said:
> ...


As I said earlier of all the lies and bull politicians have told inc those leading to the Iraq war the fact that this is the one they have chosen to make a stand says a lot about them


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

YELLOW_TT said:


> As I said earlier of all the lies and bull politicians have told inc those leading to the Iraq war the fact that this is the one they have chosen to make a stand says a lot about them


That is incorrect. There have been many attempts to prosecute Mr Blair and all have failed. You have the problem regarding the intelligence advice given being believed and therefore there being no deliberate attempt to mislead Parliament. You can claim naivety or bad judgement but that's not an offence. Parliament backed the action. Your "preferred" prosecution involves complexity and doubt so is not the morally obvious and easy path they should have taken at all.

The reason they took Johnson to court is because of the ease of proving he knowingly lied. A completely different kettle of fish.

The reason why the current round of judicial review was thrown out was:

"The Uxbridge and South Ruislip MP's legal team argued that the offence of misconduct in public office was about the secret abuse of power and there was nothing secret about Mr Johnson's claim, which they said had been challenged during the campaign."

BBC News - Brexit: Boris Johnson £350m claim case thrown out by judges
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48554853

Tell me, do you think knowingly lying openly in public is Ok for a politician? It's Ok to mislead everybody? Just because it wasn't secret?


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

YELLOW_TT said:


> As I said earlier of all the lies and bull politicians have told inc those leading to the Iraq war the fact that this is the one they have chosen to make a stand says a lot about them


Exactly.



John-H said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> > John-H said:
> ...


Actually I was smirking at the rumours of future court proceedings over him using croud-funding to pay his own salary. I guess some of these self-professed, elite Remainers are a bit miffed they've given their money to someone to spend it slacks and Foie gras.

Are you going to ask for your money back John?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

If there was a shaking head in disdain emoji I would be using it now. I take it you like lying politicians? Is that the company you'd rather keep sweet? You'd rather be on the side that prevails than the right side of the morale argument?


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

John-H said:


> If there was a shaking head in disdain emoji I would be using it now. I take it you like lying politicians? Is that the company you'd rather keep sweet? You'd rather be on the side that prevails than the right side of the morale argument?


Lmao :lol: Good Job too, as everybody would be suing everyone.

Told you it was a no goer on page 1. You should hang your head in shame for believing the hype, perhaps a ' sheepish emoji ' may apply to someone in your predicament


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm reminded of a line from Black Adder about being up to our necks in gloaters.

All very sad to see people happy to be worse off. Just like Brexit really :roll:


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

John-H said:


> All very sad to see people happy to be worse off.


Yep, those crazee' crowdfunders


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > All very sad to see people happy to be worse off.
> ...


They don't deliberately show you up. That's more down to your own comments now isn't it? :wink:

What will you say if there's a successful appeal? It's not over yet as we are still awaiting the written judgement. A decision will be made in light of that.

I wonder if you will ever recognise and aspire to any positive development? Or can we say a leopard never spots its changes?


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

John-H said:


> What will you say if there's a successful appeal? It's not over yet as we are still awaiting the written judgement. A decision will be made in light of that.


There won't be and there's better ways for you and your deluded friends to throw their money away on rather than a worthless cause such as this. Be worthy, give to a nice charity 



John-H said:


> I wonder if you will ever recognise and aspire to any positive development? Or can we say a leopard never spots its changes?


I've been nothing but positive all along John... The outcome of The referendum and the recent results of the Brexit Party are two fine examples. We hear nothing but negativity about this from you on here.

In fact I'd say you've got your knickers in such a twist because of the money you've wasted on this worthless goose chase is that you can't even quote the leopard phrase the correct way round. Settle down :lol:


----------



## E.L.Wisty (Sep 19, 2018)

The legal commentators don't seem to think the chances are good, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because IMO Johnson crossed a real line here and politicians are not being held accountable. (And that's not helped one jot by the electoral commission sitting on their hands when election malpractice is uncovered - they have one job and they aren't doing it [smiley=furious.gif] ). But it's not what misconduct in public office covers.

Unfortunately people will read this as "Johnson didn't lie" or "the brexit campaign figures were valid".

Refs:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen (unfortunately locked at the moment, which he occasionally does at w/e but a very good account to follow)
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham

Joshua Rozenberg did a good running coverage.
https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

E.L.Wisty said:


> Unfortunately people will read this as "Johnson didn't lie" or "the brexit campaign figures were valid".


I don't think they will at all.
I'm not a huge fan of BJ (well I am, but not this one) as I think he's a complete buffoon but I can't see what all this cuffufle will achieve. Being a self-centred, slimey, lying oaf is generally a prerequisite of becoming a politician and if Borris were to be found guilty it would immediately set a precedent for all the other snakes in the pit. And they can't be having that can they? 
Why hasn't something like this been attempted before? Seems to me that he's been nailed to the cross purely because he was backing leave and the democracy deniers want blood. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## E.L.Wisty (Sep 19, 2018)

But, in my view, that's somewhat missing the point in a similar way to people thinking he is innocent of lying to serve his own ends. It's unlikely, legally, that he has contravened the MCIPO law. But, and again in my view, I think it's inexcusable to promote barefaced lies and continue to do so despite being notified about it by multiple bodies including - notably - the ONS. There is not a law that prevents it (afaik). But shouldn't politicians be accountable? Spin is one thing. Argument and debate is one thing. But deliberate lying on a factual issue, not withdrawing it when challenged, this to me is where a line is crossed. The Electoral Commission don't seem to be interested (in anything).

We seem to live in an age when reason has left us. Apparently no-one seems interested in reason, or truth. I think it's a potentially very, very, dangerous time for democracy.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I agree. It was always a risky case because it has not been tried before but the principal of trying to create a precedent is worth supporting. Why should politicians be allowed to get away with bare faced lying when they have such a big influence on our lives and should be trust worthy regarding our money. Company directors can be prosecuted for lying, why not politicians?

Incidentally, you should find this a revealing insight into Marcus J Ball's motivation:


----------



## badger64 (Feb 17, 2019)

John-H said:


> I agree. It was always a risky case because it has not been tried before but the principal of trying to create a precedent is worth supporting. Why should politicians be allowed to get away with bare faced lying when they have such a big influence on our lives and should be trust worthy regarding our money. Company directors can be prosecuted for lying, why not politicians?
> 
> Incidentally, you should find this a revealing insight into Marcus J Ball's motivation:


but why do you never mention the outright lies and deliberate misinformation with project fear? politicians and pro eu business groups misleading the public who saw right through the deceit. what the leave campaign did with the bus was no worse.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

There's a difference between a prediction about the future and a statement of present fact that is knowingly false. Only one is called a lie. Also are you really suggesting that it's Ok for Boris Johnson to lie like that if you think others were lying too? This case is only superficially connected to Brexit anyway - the issue is one of misconduct in a public office by deliberately misleading the public by lying about official statistics. To have a wider debate about Brexit would be off topic.


----------



## badger64 (Feb 17, 2019)

the bus had 'we send the EU £350 million a week lets fund our nhs instead' nowhere does it say he would invest any specific sum just lets invest instead.
the then chancellor of the exchequer George Osborn said 'a vote to leave WOULD tip our economy into a year long recession with AT LEAST 500,000 job losses' how is this any different?


----------



## E.L.Wisty (Sep 19, 2018)

Because it was a deliberate lie. We do not send the EU £350m. And Johnson knew this. https://www.statisticsauthority.gov...stics-on-contributions-to-the-european-union/


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

John-H said:


> There's a difference between a prediction about the future and a statement of present fact that is knowingly false. Only one is called a lie.


There's a difference between someone dying in an accident and someone dying from a stab wound. Only one is called a murder. They both achieve the same result at the end but in a different format.



John-H said:


> Also are you really suggesting that it's Ok for Boris Johnson to lie like that if you think others were lying too?


Are you really suggesting that it's Ok for others to lie like that if Boris Johnson was lying? 
Of course it's not ok but you can't just downplay one side when it works both ways. Then again, you've been doing it the whole time so why change now eh?


----------



## E.L.Wisty (Sep 19, 2018)

errrmmm....


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > There's a difference between a prediction about the future and a statement of present fact that is knowingly false. Only one is called a lie.
> ...


No they don't. Only one example has a murder involved who should face a charge of murder.



Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Also are you really suggesting that it's Ok for Boris Johnson to lie like that if you think others were lying too?
> ...


No obviously not. I wasn't even suggesting anyone else lied. I said they made predictions.



Stiff said:


> Of course it's not ok but you can't just downplay one side when it works both ways. Then again, you've been doing it the whole time so why change now eh?


It clearly doesn't "work both ways" as you put it. There is no justification in your implied argument that both sides are just as bad as one another so I can't complain about one side in particular. That's just a weak cop out argument. The reason this is so significant is because one side blatantly lied to such a great and obvious extent allegedly about a single important and influential fact, despite public information that was readily available to the contrary which he knew allegedly to be in contradiction to what he was saying. That's then a blatant and important lie and crucially with the evidence available to prove it - hence the court case.

Show me and present here the evidence of equal worth that the "other side" lied to an equally evidenced extent about a readily available public statistic where a case could be made to a criminal burden of proof and taken to a court case. 
Off you go.


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

John-H said:


> Show me and present here the evidence of equal worth that the "other side" lied to an equally evidenced extent about a readily available public statistic where a case could be made to a criminal burden of proof and taken to a court case.
> Off you go.


You're getting carried away. This was never a court case as it got thrown out :lol:


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

It's far from a 'cop out' as you put it and as far as I'm concerned it's still a valid argument. 
John, I could post a list of remains lies that would take up half this page but you'd probably go through each one meticulously finding arguments or links to denounce or spin them in some way, shape or form.
You just come across like a religious zealot, so devout to the cause that you'll defend to the death every critique against remain. Even you're old sidekick Spandex washed his hands of you because of your fanaticism and uncompromising attitude. And he was on your side, ffs.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Show me and present here the evidence of equal worth that the "other side" lied to an equally evidenced extent about a readily available public statistic where a case could be made to a criminal burden of proof and taken to a court case.
> ...


I'd be satisfied if you got anywhere near as close in argument. The funny thing is Leopard pretending to know more than a district judge and we haven't even seen the judgement yet :roll:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Stiff said:


> It's far from a 'cop out' as you put it and as far as I'm concerned it's still a valid argument.
> John, I could post a list of remains lies that would take up half this page but you'd probably go through each one meticulously finding arguments or links to denounce or spin them in some way, shape or form.
> You just come across like a religious zealot, so devout to the cause that you'll defend to the death every critique against remain. Even you're old sidekick Spandex washed his hands of you because of your fanaticism and uncompromising attitude. And he was on your side, ffs.


Predictable. My challenge still stands.


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

John-H said:


> Predictable.


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

Stiff said:


> It's far from a 'cop out' as you put it and as far as I'm concerned it's still a valid argument.
> John, I could post a list of remains lies that would take up half this page but you'd probably go through each one meticulously finding arguments or links to denounce or spin them in some way, shape or form.
> You just come across like a religious zealot, so devout to the cause that you'll defend to the death every critique against remain. Even you're old sidekick Spandex washed his hands of you because of your fanaticism and uncompromising attitude. And he was on your side, ffs.


Indeed, he mentioned in a previous post on the other thread that he just wanted to remain in Europe and didn't care what it does to British domestic politics as a result. That really negates the point of the argument for remaining in the EU, so people of that opinion might as well just emigrate.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Please keep on topic.


----------

