Paid Members Carbomb Posted August 2, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted August 2, 2023 (edited) Heh, met @Frankie Crisp there for a pint before a Palace game - can see his influence at work there! Edited August 2, 2023 by Carbomb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted August 2, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted August 2, 2023 Who would have thought there'd be somebody even worse at pulling a pint and looking like a normal person than Keir Starmer? The look on that person's face in the background says everything. I'd only pay for a half if that got served to me, or at least insist he waste another half barrel topping it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted August 3, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted August 3, 2023 The photo's a fake, one on the right is genuine.   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2023 Share Posted August 9, 2023 This parliamentary debate on 23rd October, about a proposal to make it a criminal offence to lie in the House of Commons, should be amusing. And by amusing I mean depressingly futile, in part because I suspect our media will let it fly under the radar due to the dismissive way in which it's treated, rather than reporting on the dismissive way in which it's treated. The debate is, after all, merely fulfilling an obligation 'forced' by a petition. Can't be letting the plebs think they write the script. Nonetheless I'm glad it's on record as having reached this stage, even if that record has to be actively sought out by more determined historians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRooster Posted August 9, 2023 Share Posted August 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Uncle Zeb said: This parliamentary debate on 23rd October, about a proposal to make it a criminal offence to lie in the House of Commons, should be amusing. And by amusing I mean depressingly futile, in part because I suspect our media will let it fly under the radar due to the dismissive way in which it's treated, rather than reporting on the dismissive way in which it's treated. The debate is, after all, merely fulfilling an obligation 'forced' by a petition. Can't be letting the plebs think they write the script. Nonetheless I'm glad it's on record as having reached this stage, even if that record has to be actively sought out by more determined historians. The problem is, it’s almost impossible to prove that someone has knowingly lied. They could genuinely believe a falsehood, misspeak or be a bit all over the place. Even when you’re certain someone has lied, it’s so difficult to prove that they actually did that making it a criminal offence to do so in the Commons would be slightly pointless. It may even have the unintended consequence of making them look honest for that very reason (eg. If they were to win a case, as it can’t be proved beyond reasonable doubt), adding credibility to their lie. A better solution would be to reform HoC rules surrounding lying; which, these days, have ended up protecting liars and punishing those bold enough to call them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2023 Share Posted August 9, 2023 13 minutes ago, RedRooster said: A better solution would be to reform HoC rules surrounding lying; which, these days, have ended up protecting liars and punishing those bold enough to call them out. That definitely needs to change. But while I agree it can be difficult to prove intent, that doesn't prevent purjury laws from existing. Just treating the Commons like a courtroom in that sense would be an improvement that doesn't require novel, mind-bending redefinitions of what constitutes a lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRooster Posted August 9, 2023 Share Posted August 9, 2023 7 minutes ago, Uncle Zeb said: That definitely needs to change. But while I agree it can be difficult to prove intent, that doesn't prevent purjury laws from existing. Just treating the Commons like a courtroom in that sense would be an improvement that doesn't require novel, mind-bending redefinitions of what constitutes a lie. That’s fair; but perjury prosecutions - and convictions - are incredibly rare. If, for example, Boris Johnson had been pulled up for his repeated falsehoods and a good lawyer managed to successfully make the case that Johnson didn’t mean to lie and it was all a big accident, GB News, newspapers and other right wing grifters would pounce on the verdict. They’s present it as evidence Johnson wasn’t dishonest and perhaps even as evidence that he told the truth, even though that wasn’t the actual verdict. My preference would be for HoC reform, where the burden of proof would be much lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted August 9, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted August 9, 2023 It reminds me of one of my pet obsessions, the David Irving/Deborah Lipstadt/Penguin books trial over Irving being called a holocaust denier. There's a point in the trial, very well portrayed in the movie Denial, where the defence think they have him pretty much nailed on, they've convinced the judge that he's a racist, a holocaust denier and an antisemite, but then the judge asks the question, "but is he an honest antisemite?". That is to say, if he genuinely believes what he says, even if his beliefs are informed by antisemitism, then he isn't lying or willfully misrepresenting the facts. It then became a case of proving through his work that he was consciously publishing things he knew to be untrue, not correcting "mistakes" in subsequent editions once they had been pointed out to him, misrepresenting data, and providing inaccurate and dishonest translations from the original German to "prove" his points. But that took teams of lawyers and historians several years to prove beyond reasonable doubt that's what he was doing. It's near impossible to prove that somebody is willfully lying without that degree of work, even when it seems bleedingly obvious. They can always suggest that it was an honest mistake, a slip of the tongue, a rhetorical device, and so on. I don't think it means that efforts shouldn't be made to punish liars in the commons, but I'm not sure this is what will get there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2023 Share Posted August 9, 2023 24 minutes ago, BomberPat said: not correcting "mistakes" in subsequent editions once they had been pointed out to him Current rules/guidelines/gentlemen's agreements have it that an MP should correct the record in the Commons at their earliest opportunity when they've said something they later discover to be incorrect. After being called out on their demonstrable falsehoods, Tories haven't been doing that, but they get away with not doing it because it's only a principle and they have none. If it were law, that would be an open and shut case regardless of original intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted August 9, 2023 Share Posted August 9, 2023 12 hours ago, BomberPat said: It reminds me of one of my pet obsessions, the David Irving/Deborah Lipstadt/Penguin books trial over Irving being called a holocaust denier. There's a point in the trial, very well portrayed in the movie Denial, where the defence think they have him pretty much nailed on, they've convinced the judge that he's a racist, a holocaust denier and an antisemite, but then the judge asks the question, "but is he an honest antisemite?". That is to say, if he genuinely believes what he says, even if his beliefs are informed by antisemitism, then he isn't lying or willfully misrepresenting the facts. It then became a case of proving through his work that he was consciously publishing things he knew to be untrue, not correcting "mistakes" in subsequent editions once they had been pointed out to him, misrepresenting data, and providing inaccurate and dishonest translations from the original German to "prove" his points. But that took teams of lawyers and historians several years to prove beyond reasonable doubt that's what he was doing. It's near impossible to prove that somebody is willfully lying without that degree of work, even when it seems bleedingly obvious. They can always suggest that it was an honest mistake, a slip of the tongue, a rhetorical device, and so on. I don't think it means that efforts shouldn't be made to punish liars in the commons, but I'm not sure this is what will get there. This is going to become a HUGE part of the Trump Jan 6th trial. It will be extremely easy to prove that Trump was trying to overturn the election results.  But the defence will argue that he GENUINELY believed the election had been stolen from him, and try and make the case about that - whether his belief was genuine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted August 10, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted August 10, 2023 4 hours ago, Loki said: This is going to become a HUGE part of the Trump Jan 6th trial. It will be extremely easy to prove that Trump was trying to overturn the election results.  But the defence will argue that he GENUINELY believed the election had been stolen from him, and try and make the case about that - whether his belief was genuine. He was asking for votes to be “found” on tape https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/03/trump-georgia-raffensperger-call-biden-washington-post And that’s just the first thing I thought of, they can’t say he genuinely believed it had been stolen if he himself was trying to ask someone to lie about the number of votes surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 If/when the prosecution prove that Trump committed a crime, it becomes irrelevant if he genuinely believed he won or not. Of course he's a rich guy in the US and a former President on top of that, so fuck knows how it'll all actually go down. A general belief going around seems to be that they only have to nail him on one thing to sink him. What's the charge count currently on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyattSheepMask Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 5 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said: He was asking for votes to be “found” on tape https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/03/trump-georgia-raffensperger-call-biden-washington-post And that’s just the first thing I thought of, they can’t say he genuinely believed it had been stolen if he himself was trying to ask someone to lie about the number of votes surely? Didn’t check Space though did he  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 2 hours ago, The King Of Swing said: A general belief going around seems to be that they only have to nail him on one thing to sink him. What's the charge count currently on? 78. A charge for every year he's spent on this planet, plus one more for luck. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-01/all-the-charges-trump-now-faces-and-all-the-prison-time-too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted August 10, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted August 10, 2023 (edited) EDIT: No idea how this got here. Edited August 10, 2023 by jazzygeofferz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.