...That people in public office are now allowed to lie...
Unfortunately, that's just as worthy as the Trump case where he was kinda, sorta, but not absolutely cleared of guilt...That people in public office are now allowed to lie, openly and without - it would seem - running the risk of being held responsible for barefaced lies, is frightening indeed, and it's surprising that Slobodan would appear to be lauding such behaviour as a freedom of speech issue. Oh well, live and learn; perhaps it's the Floridian humidity to blame. It's the kindest explanation I can come up with in the circumstances. To me, it's the sort of political whitewashing one might expect to hear about in China or Russia.
Now!?How about from the down of the mankind? In a democracy, it is punished or not by voting, not jail. The opposite indeed invokes Soviet Russia and China.
The difference lies in being given licence to lie and just lying.That's kinda crucial, don't you think?
No, I do not. Freedom of speech implies a license to lie.
In a democracy, it is punished or not by voting, not jail.
Depends on the lie. Sometimes it's electioneering bs, sometimes it's a crime. You can't possibly be saying that politicians are above the law.
Which law criminalizes political lying?
Libel. You may not claim your opponent is corrupt without proof for example. Or better, you can claim it, but freedom of speech isn't going to protect you. However, a true politician will cunningly say "I suspect you of yada yada, and I will proof it bla bla" and then the damage is also done without the actual claim.
Try some water or tonic with it next round!
Rob, good whisky deserves to be enjoyed neat
Unfortunately, that's just as worthy as the Trump case where he was kinda, sorta, but not absolutely cleared of guilt...
It would be prudent to withhold comment until the judgment of the Divisional Court is handed down; at present, we have only the decision, without the reasons. Johnson's argument was simply that the charge - misconduct in public office - was misconceived and the prosecution both politically-motivated and vexatious. The earlier District Judge's decision, which is available here, made no sense.Jeremyedit: added link to DJ's judgment
In Europe we analyse the career of the overwhelming favourite to become Britain’s next prime minister. Boris Johnson has assumed different guises at different times. As mayor of liberal, cosmopolitan London in 2008-16 he preached the virtues of immigration and the single market. As a leading light in the Leave campaign he effortlessly switched to criticising migration and warning of the dangers of Turkish membership of the EU, which he had previously advocated. Today he talks up the prospect of leaving the EU without a deal. As the Brexit saga drags on, Britain is growing ever more polarised. In a starkly divided country, which gallery would Mr Johnson play to?
The article might be behind a paywall, but I thought the illustration speaks for itself:https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/06/20/which-boris-would-britain-get
Rob - my Plan B is to move to Ireland. Have you thought of that?
Yes, like the left in the US promised to move to Canada. Nobody did.
