A Remainer taking Johnson to court is a sinister attack on our freedoms


Blackleaf
+1
#1  Top Rated Post
It used to be merely annoying when the Remainers came up with yet another ruse to try and overturn the democratic decision made in June 2016.

But the decision by a Remainer to take Boris Johnson to court - at a moment which seems perfectly timed, with Johnson running to be PM - for no reason other than he "told lies" during the EU referendum (if we are going to send politicians to court for telling lies our courts would be constantly full of them) - means that the Remainer assault on democracy and refusing to accept the referendum is now becoming seriously sinister.

Basically, Remainers have been unhappy that, during the referendum campaign, the Leavers had a big red bus saying we send £350 million a week to the EU and that, outside the EU, we could save that money and spend it on the NHS instead. Remainers have often said that the message on the bus was a lie - now Johnson is being hauled up in court because of it.

In fact, it seems the Remainers ARE right. The UK does NOT send £350 million a week to the EU. It actually sends £363 million a week to it...

STEPHEN GLOVER: Putting Boris in the dock over his EU claims isn't just dotty. It's a deeply sinister attack on our freedoms

By Stephen Glover for the Daily Mail
30 May 2019

This time next year, will Boris Johnson be installed in No 10 as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Lord of the Treasury?

Or will he be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, dispensing coffee in the prison canteen and running journalism lessons for fellow jailbirds while waiting for his next visit from the ever-loyal Jacob Rees-Mogg?

I suppose the first outcome is rather more likely. But that we can imagine the second eventuality illustrates the sheer madness of yesterday's ruling that Boris must be carted off to court to answer charges of misconduct in public office.

In particular, he is accused of lying when, during the run-up to the June 2016 referendum and before the 2017 General Election, he claimed Britain gives the EU £350 million a week. The Leave campaign's bus carried a similar slogan.


Will Boris Johnson be installed in No 10 as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Lord of the Treasury?

Farce

If the charges are upheld, Boris faces unlimited fines or any term of imprisonment at the discretion of the court.I wonder whether, if he were to emerge blinking from the prison gate in five years' time, the Brexit saga would still be driving us mad.

So what WAS truth of £350million claim?

The decision to haul Boris Johnson before a court hinges on the repeated claim that leaving the EU will save Britain £350million a week.

Remainers jumped on the number, saying it was an estimated gross figure that did not include rebates the UK receives from Brussels.

In 2016, no one knew for sure what Britain's contributions were because the data is published in arrears. The £350million was based on a Treasury estimation.

When the figure was again quoted in 2017, Sir David Norgrove, chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, accused Mr Johnson of a 'clear misuse of official statistics' confusing gross and net payments. 'It also assumes that payments currently made to the UK by the EU, including for example for the support of agriculture and scientific research, will not be paid by the UK government when we leave,' he wrote.

The gross figure we gave to Brussels in 2016 was actually £363million a week but does not include the rebate Margaret Thatcher successfully negotiated for Britain in 1984. However, the way the rebate is calculated has changed and the amount differs every year.

Remainers argued that the amount paid to Britain by the EU – around £4.5billion in 2016 – brought the total down further to a net £181million a week. Nigel Farage accepted after the referendum that £350million a week would not be available after Brexit.

What began as a serious political debate about the future of our country has descended first into acrimony and then into chaos before taking on the character of a full-blown farce.

The instigator of the latest episode in the farce is Marcus Ball, described in court papers as the applicant, while the proposed defendant is none other than Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

Mr Ball is a Remainer activist who has been plotting a private prosecution against Mr Johnson (I must try to stop calling him Boris) after taking exception to the outcome of the referendum. He has raised hundreds of thousands of pounds through crowd-funding to bring his case.

If you had asked sensible people whether a 29-year-old businessman and entrepreneur — namely Mr Ball — could successfully land Mr Johnson in a court of law on a criminal charge, they might have recommended a strong cup of tea and a long lie-down.

But they would have reckoned without District Judge Margot Coleman, who yesterday ruled that Mr Johnson will be 'sent to Crown Court for trial' to answer Mr Ball's extraordinary charges. This is a serious business.

One might have hoped that a judge, even one not many rungs from the bottom of the judicial ladder, would have regarded Mr Ball's application as politically driven, vexatious and slightly dotty. But no.

Let's examine the veracity of what Mr Johnson and the Leave bus claimed about £350 million a week. Is it true? Not really. Very roughly, the UK pays the equivalent of this figure to Brussels but, give or take varying amounts in different years, gets a rebate of around £100 million a week.


The instigator of the latest episode in the farce is Marcus Ball (pictured at Westminster Magistrates Court)

In fact, to be pedantic, it does not happen like that. The money isn't sent to Brussels only for Whitehall to wait for part of it to be sent back. A net figure, which amounts to very approximately £250 million a week, is agreed.

This is nonetheless an enormous sum of money which would have made a big impression on people's minds. Why couldn't the Leave campaign settle for that? It is a great mystery. It's stupid to bend the truth when it is so striking.

Various people have been blamed — foremost among them Dominic Cummings, the maverick campaign director of Vote Leave — for this foolish and unnecessary travesty of what was accurate.

What is certain is that Mr Johnson did not dream it up himself. He simply seized the incorrect figure with relish, and repeated it. But so did many others including Michael Gove and Andrea Leadsom, both of them candidates, along with Mr Johnson, for the Tory leadership.

Of course, it was unwise of him to do this, the more so as he has earned the reputation, not entirely undeserved, of sometimes being a bit free and easy with the truth. People will have to make up their own minds as to how serious this particular lapse was.


What began as a serious political debate about the future of our country has descended first into acrimony

To my view, it shows Boris Johnson being typically broad-brush, and ignoring what seems to him boring detail as he works up an argument. This is a tendency he will have to watch if he becomes prime minister — or he will become badly unstuck.

But it should be no business of the courts to turn it into a question of law. If every politician who had ever told a whopper were prosecuted, we would have to build a lot more prisons.

One should also note, in a spirit of fairness, the false predictions — I won't call them lies — of some Remainers before the referendum, most notably the then Chancellor, George Osborne.

Charge

He assured us that a Leave vote would cause a recession, a rise in unemployment of 500,000 over two years, and a sharp contraction in the size of the economy. None of these things happened.

Wild statements were made on both sides in the course of electioneering. I'm afraid politicians of all hues perennially tell fibs when trying to get our vote. This undoubtedly happened in the run-up to the referendum.

Yet it seems almost certain that neither Mr Johnson nor Mr Osborne nor anyone else was breaking the law.

Judge Coleman rightly cited the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which 'observed as long ago as 1998 that the Government does not participate in general elections or referendum campaigns'.

In other words, although he was Mayor of London until May 2016, Boris Johnson was not campaigning on behalf of the Government but as a politician seeking public support.

Unfortunately, having observed this important distinction, the judge then proceeded to ignore it, and despatched Mr Johnson to the Crown Court to answer the serious charge of misconduct in public office.

By the way, it is worth noting that Tony Blair's spin doctor, Alastair Campbell — much in the news at the moment — was responsible for the famous 'dodgy dossier' in February 2003 which plagiarised excerpts from a 12-year-old thesis by an Iraqi dissident without attribution.

Punish

Spatchcocked together by Campbell's team, the dossier was represented by Mr Blair in the Commons as fresh work produced by the intelligence services, and approvingly cited by the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, at the United Nations.

I would have thought that if anyone had a serious case to answer about possible misconduct in public office, it is Mr Campbell rather than Mr Johnson.

Needless to say, we want politicians to tell the truth, whether they are governing us or electioneering. But it is a sinister development if the courts are to assess their veracity, and punish them if they are deemed to have erred. It's the role of the media to highlight mendacity — and ultimately for voters to decide what to do.

I assume Mr Johnson's lawyers will appeal, and I hope a more thoughtful judge will conclude that this is a politically motivated case which shouldn't come to court. There is a stark warning here about the inadvisability of the judiciary becoming involved in the political process.

As for Boris Johnson, I doubt this case will undermine his dream of becoming prime minister. But it will have served some purpose if it makes him more scrupulous than he has been about telling the truth.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ken-court.html
Last edited by Blackleaf; May 30th, 2019 at 05:19 AM..
 
Blackleaf
#2
A Remainer is taking Johnson to court over "lies" he told during the referendum campaign. But it wasn't just the Leavers who told lies. Shouldn't Remainer George Osborne be taken to court for the whoppers he told?

Coffee House

Boris Johnson’s court appearance is nothing to celebrate

Ross Clark



Ross Clark
29 May 2019
The Spectator

I have often wondered what would happen if politicians were bound by the same rules as advertisers, or if manifestos were brought within the scope of the trading standards laws. What if we could take legal action against a government for failing to provide the extra NHS beds or school places they had promised?

Given the propensity for governments to excuse themselves from their own legislation when it suits them – Blair’s government simply passed a clause excluding political parties when Labour’s women-only shortlists fell foul of sex discrimination legislation – it is hard to imagine such a law being passed by Parliament.

But on 14th May, Westminster Magistrates heard an attempt to create one through political precedent. The court considered a case brought by a private prosecutor Marcus Ball, and crowdfunded through £370,000 of donations, to try to prosecute Boris Johnson for misconduct in public office on the basis that he allegedly made statements he knew to be false during the Brexit referendum campaign – in particular the old chestnut about Britain sending £350 million a week to the EU. Now, Boris Johnson has been ordered to appear in court.

I am sure that to Ball and his donors it all seems a good wheeze, but they should beware what they wish for. Perhaps they honestly believe that the Leave campaign had a monopoly on questionable claims made during the campaign, but if so they are deluding themselves.

Boris surely won’t be the last politician to get marched into court to explain himself. Next in the dock, surely, will be George Osborne for his claim that a vote for Brexit would result in unemployment rising by between 500,000 and 800,000 within two years (in the event unemployment fell to a 45 year low). And what about Nick Clegg who claimed in 2016 that the brief disappearance of Marmite from the shelves in 2016 in a contractual dispute between the manufacturers and Tesco was a foretaste of food shortages to come if we leave the EU without a trade deal? Both claims might struggle to stand up to examination that they were based on sound facts and reasoning.

If we are going to conduct politics in the courts there is really no end of possibilities, but it is clear who would have the upper hand: people with the funds available to fight such cases.

Ball and his cronies might be satisfied with themselves for having raised £370,000 for their cases, but that is a pitiful sum compared with the funds which large corporations would have available to fight such cases, should they be minded to do so.

Does Ball really fancy the prospect, say, of an oil company taking an MP to court for making the false claim – not substantiated by scientific evidence – that hurricanes have got stronger thanks to climate change?

We exempt politics from laws which protect us from commerce for a reason – if we fought politics in the courts we would hand huge power to the wealthy. It is the Left, at present, which seems keenest to use the courts to further their aims. But ultimately the winners would be billionaires and multinational corporations.


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/0...-to-celebrate/

Coffee House

The £350m line on the Brexit bus WAS wrong. The real figure is HIGHER

Steerpike




A Vote Leave battlebus outside Parliament. Image: Jack Taylor/Getty Images

Steerpike
31 October 2017
The Spectator

The most regular attack-line used against leading Brexiteers is that they misled the public over how much money could be used to fund the NHS if Britain left the EU. Throughout the referendum campaign, Vote Leave said that we send £350 million a week to Brussels – a gross figure, applied before a rebate etc. But no one knew the real 2016 figure because the data is compiled in arrears.

Only today do we have the data, published by the Office for National Statistics. Its figures show…

Payment to Brussels, net of rebate and money returned to the UK: £9.4 billion a year, or £181 million a week.

Payment to Brussels, net of rebate: £13.9 billion a year, or £267 million a week.

Gross payment to Brussels: £18.9 billion a year, or £363 million a week.


As far as the average voter is concerned, £181 million and £350 million both sound like a lot of money. Either would get the point across, with the same force. So why did Boris use the gross figure, when the convention is to use the net figure? Simple: it drives the other side quite loopy. They threaten to sue. And as they explode with anger, the discussion turns to how much of British money is spent to the EU – a conversation subject that suits Brexiteers. This tactic worked so effectively in the referendum because their opponents rose to the bait every time.

Was the £350m figure misleading? Yes, if it was spoken of as the net figure. Would the lower figure have been fairer, and got the point across just as well? Of course. But it would not have been as effective as a campaigning tool, because it would have generated less fuss.

In elections, politicians frequently use valid-but-misleading figures, seeing if the other side will make a fuss and take the bait. It’s seen as rough and tumble of democracy: if one side misleads, the other side can call them liars and voters decide. In 2005, Gordon Brown falsely accused the Tories of planning to ‘cut’ £35 billion a year from services. Here’s the poster.




A young Nick Robinson was at the poster launch, for ITV. and made his name by pointing out that this is a lie (rather than an exaggeration). The Tories were planning to increase spending, just not by as much as Labour. Brown thought that, given he thought he’d outspend the Tories by £35bn, he could then say they’d cut. To compound the lie, Labour said this was “the equivalent of sacking every nurse, every teacher and every doctor’ in the country. As Robinson said: “you can’t cut money that hasn’t been spent”. But this is an election: a more competent Tory party could have exposed the lie. Interestingly, Blair used the Vote Leave logic: a row over a figure is good for hype. Blair later told Robinson that he was glad about the fuss, as it kept attention on the subject of Tory cuts.

No one accused Labour of winning that election due to that £35 billion figure, in the way that Vote Leave’s vanquished rivals bang on about the £350 million now. No one wrote ‘post truth’ books after that election. No one threatened to sue. It was a more grown-up age.

Is it valid to use a gross figure, the £350m figure, for EU payments in public debate? Of course. The UK is mandated to send that cash over: whether or not the rebate is applied at source is semantic. What happens is that we spend X, and our rebate is Y – giving us a net Z. But to say that we spend Z – ie, just give the net figure – would also be misleading as it disguises an important truth.

The UK does not control that ‘rebate’. It comes in forms of expenditure (farms, etc) that the UK cannot control. If you pay a guy £10 a week and he buys you £8 of things he thinks you need every week, how much are you paying him? £10 or £2? That’s what this boils down to. Both gross and net figures are valid. And while UK payments to the EU are obligatory, the rebate is a discretionary grant – as George Osborne once admitted. So to talk about the net figure can be misleading. Any single sentence summary of this situation will not be the whole story. As is so often true in politics.

Gross figures are used all the time. Staff salaries are paid net of tax, yet everyone refers to their gross pay. And what about taxation? That is routinely referred to in gross terms: ie, what we pay in. The lower-paid half of the country gets all of its money back (and more) in public services. So their net contribution is negative (and rightly so). But people still talk about the sum that’s taken from them. Those who advocate lower taxes emphasise – as Boris does – control. That people spend their own money better on themselves than the government does on their behalf. So the gross figure is, obviously, the most relevant.

If the emphasis is on control – as the Vote Leave campaign was – then the gross figure matters arguably more than the net figure.

Boris Johnson used a trick, but a valid trick. Given potency by the other side’s behaviour. After various pressure, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority himself belatedly weighed in on the debate a few weeks ago, saying Boris was wrong to quote this figure. In his opinion. But it’s only one opinion.

Another opinion is as follows: it was wrong because the real gross figure is £363 million a week. Let’s see if Boris can be made to offer an apology.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/1...ure-is-higher/
 
Tecumsehsbones
#3
So. . . suing Alyn Smith over his claims is good, and suing BoreJo over his claims is bad?
 
Blackleaf
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

So. . . suing Alyn Smith over his claims is good, and suing BoreJo over his claims is bad?


Yeah. Libel is illegal in England & Wales.
 
Blackleaf
#5
https://youtu.be/ZIhDvx72Dgw
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

So. . . suing Alyn Smith over his claims is good, and suing BoreJo over his claims is bad?

You call yourself a lawyer? Libel vs overstating a number during a campaign. Yep, there's a clear moral equivalency there.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

You call yourself a lawyer? Libel vs overstating a number during a campaign. Yep, there's a clear moral equivalency there.

We wouldn't need lawyers at all if we could only apply your evidence-free, politically motivated conclusions to everything.
 
Blackleaf
#8
TONY PARSONS Boris Johnson’s ‘lie’ was nothing compared to David Cameron’s promise that Brexit result would be FINAL



Comment
By Tony Parsons, Sun on Sunday Columnist
2nd June 2019,
The Sun on Sunday

ARE all the big fat fibbers of Project Fear going to be threatened with life imprisonment for the blatant lies they told during the EU referendum of 2016?

No, I didn’t think so.

Boris Johnson is facing three charges of misconduct for what was alleged on the big red Brexit bus Credit: Getty

Lest we forget, the British people were repeatedly told that if we dared to vote Leave, unemployment would immediately soar, the economy would collapse and the UK would be plunged into recession.

It did not happen. In fact, employment stands at a record high.

So — anybody going to be hauled off to court for telling the British people pro-Remain porkies? Anybody going to be threatened with jail time for the barefaced lies of Project Fear? No chance!

And yet Boris Johnson has been ordered to appear in court because of the Brexit bus slogan stating that the UK was sending £350million a week to Brussels.

Boris faces three charges of misconduct in a public office for what was alleged on the side of that big red bus.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The case has been brought by a sad little man called Marcus Ball, who crowd-funded £500,000 to put Boris in the dock.

So was that bus slogan a lie? In fact, at the time of the EU referendum, we were actually sending MORE than £350million a week to our beloved masters in Brussels.

The figure was closer to £363million.

However, it is correct to state that the sum did not consider the almost £100million rebate that the UK claws back every week.

So the net figure was more like £250million every week — still quite a lot! And hardly a fabrication.

The Brexit bus statement is certainly truer than, say, George Osborne’s threat of soaring mass unemployment if we voted to Leave.

Michael Gove calls this court case an “attempt to criminalise free speech”. But it raises an interesting question — did YOU vote to leave because of that slogan on the side of the Brexit bus? Me neither.

The 17.4million who voted to leave all did so for their own reasons.

A longing to see the UK as a truly sovereign nation once more, making our own laws, controlling our own borders and free to forge our own destiny.

A deep distrust of the arrogant, unaccountable, unelected old geezers in Brussels who casually sneer at democracy and patriotism.

And the belief that this country would be better off trading with emerging economies such as China and India, rather than huddling together with a declining protectionist bloc in Europe.

TWISTING THE TRUTH TO SUIT YOUR ARGUMENT

Perhaps there WERE people who were swayed by the “£350million” slogan on the side of the big red Brexit bus.

But the idea that it clinched the referendum result is absurd, a fantasy of middle-class Remainers who still believe that 17.4million voted to leave because we are thick, ignorant peasants, easily led up the garden path.

So let’s all agree that the £350million isn’t the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In 2016, the UK’s gross contribution to the EU was £18.9billion per annum — actually MORE than £350million every week!

But, yes M’lud, it is also true that we were in receipt of a rebate that reduced that figure to £250million a week.

So the bus claim was still far more accurate than, say, David Cameron looking us in the eye and promising the result of the EU referendum was final. What a whopper that turned out to be!

Call the £350million cry a campaign slogan. Call it twisting the truth to suit your argument. But I can’t see how anyone can call it a “lie”, Your Honour.

Tony Blair once assured us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could obliterate us in 45 minutes.

Now that is what you call a lie.

Nobody has called on David Cameron to own up to his promise that the EU referendum result would be final Credit: Getty

Time to place your Brex

VOTERS in Peterborough go to the polls on June 6 to replace disgraced Labour MP Fiona Onasanya, who lost her seat after doing time for perverting the course of justice.

The bookies – the most reliable pundits on the planet – suggest this Peterborough by-election will give the Brexit Party its first MP with their candidate, Peterborough local Mike Greene.

Bookies are predicting that voters in Peterborough will give the Brexit Party its first MP to replace disgraced Fiona Onasanya Credit: AFP or licensors

His odds are 4/9 ON.

Labour are in second place with best odds of 6/4, while the Tories – who held the seat between 2005 and 2017 – are a long shot at 33/1.

A Brexit Party MP will be the biggest earthquake in British politics for a generation.

The European Elections were just the starting gun.

The British people feel totally betrayed by the British establishment. And the people are about to take their revenge.


Mike Greene is odds-on to become the Brexit Party's first MP this week


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/919952...n-brexit-lies/
 
Blackleaf
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

You call yourself a lawyer? Libel vs overstating a number during a campaign. Yep, there's a clear moral equivalency there.

Libel is against the law in the UK.

A politician lying isn't - otherwise we'd have to build new courts.

Plus, Johnson's "lie" wasn't an overstatement, it was an understatement - the big red Brexit bus during the 2016 referendum campaign said we send £350 million a week to the EU. In reality, in 2016 we sent £363 million a week to the EU.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

You call yourself a lawyer? Libel vs overstating a number during a campaign. Yep, there's a clear moral equivalency there.

No the Bars of Maryland and the District of Columbia call me a lawyer.

The issue here is not who is right and who is wrong. That's for a court to decide. The issue here is that Blackshirt and his BNP buddies are saying that the courts should not be available to challenge den Fuehrer.

If you had studied law, you'd understand the distinction.
 
Blackleaf
#11
I thought he was talking to me. That's why I replied to him. I was wondering why he called me a lawyer.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

I thought he was talking to me. That's why I replied to him. I was wondering why he called me a lawyer.

I understand. It can't be easy.
 
Blackleaf
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I understand. It can't be easy.

 
Blackleaf
#14
The High Court has thrown out an attempt to prosecute Boris Johnson over claims he lied during the 2016 referendum campaign by saying the UK gave the EU £350m a week.

The Tory leadership hopeful challenged a summons to attend court on three claims of misconduct in public office.

His lawyers said he denied acting improperly or dishonestly.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48554853
 
Tecumsehsbones
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The High Court has thrown out an attempt to prosecute Boris Johnson over claims he lied during the 2016 referendum campaign by saying the UK gave the EU £350m a week.
The Tory leadership hopeful challenged a summons to attend court on three claims of misconduct in public office.
His lawyers said he denied acting improperly or dishonestly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48554853

Sorry about your freedoms. No biggie. You weren't using them anyhow.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Sorry about your freedoms. No biggie. You weren't using them anyhow.

Yeah, that inconvenient judicial system ... do away with it for the sake of your "freedom".
 
Tecumsehsbones
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Yeah, that inconvenient judicial system ... do away with it for the sake of your "freedom".

That's what happened. They said the lawsuit's existence was an attack on freedom. The court took the suit (and then dismissed it). Since they chose to see the existence of the suit as the attack, the fact that the court considered it at all means the "attack on freedom" was successful.

And that, dear Blackshirt, is logic. I know you've never seen it before, so I thought I'd point that out.
 
Blackleaf
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

That's what happened. They said the lawsuit's existence was an attack on freedom. The court took the suit (and then dismissed it). Since they chose to see the existence of the suit as the attack, the fact that the court considered it at all means the "attack on freedom" was successful.
And that, dear Blackshirt, is logic. I know you've never seen it before, so I thought I'd point that out.

The attack on freedom wasn't successful. It was rightly chucked out of court, another bad day for out-of-touch, kale-munching, hipster, middle class Remainers.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The attack on freedom wasn't successful. It was rightly chucked out of court, another bad day for out-of-touch, kale-munching, hipster, middle class Remainers.

If you think that you will somehow be free without an effective judicial system, think again.
 
Blackleaf
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

If you think that you will somehow be free without an effective judicial system, think again.

Well Britain largely has an effective judicial system - except when it lets Eastern European child buggerers or women off the hook.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+1
#21
That's right.

You left school at 15.
 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

That's right.
You left school at 15.

You make it sound weird, when it's perfectly normal.

School leaving ages around the world vary from 10 (Pakistan and Bangladesh) to 19 (USA), which means the global average school leaving age is 14.5.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
-1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

You make it sound weird, when it's perfectly normal.
School leaving ages around the world vary from 10 (Pakistan and Bangladesh) to 19 (USA), which means the global average school leaving age is 14.5.

Of the 11 cousins on my father's side of the family, (grandchildren of immigrants from the UK ... not toffs) all of us have University educations, two with PhDs, (both were University professors...now retired), two "Masters". All of us have at least 16 years of formal education and most of us more than that.

Had my grandparents stayed in the UK, probably none of them would have had the chance to even attend post-secondary schools.
 
Blackleaf
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Of the 11 cousins on my father's side of the family, (grandchildren of immigrants from the UK ... not toffs) all of us have University educations, two with PhDs, (both were University professors...now retired), two "Masters". All of us have at least 16 years of formal education and most of us more than that.
Had my grandparents stayed in the UK, probably none of them would have had the chance to even attend post-secondary schools.

Why not?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The attack on freedom wasn't successful. It was rightly chucked out of court, another bad day for out-of-touch, kale-munching, hipster, middle class Remainers.

No, you and the guy you were quoting said that going to court at all was an attack on freedom. And they did indeed succeed in going to court. So the attack on freedom succeeded.

Try being a little less retarded next time.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#26
the Bars of Maryland and the District of Columbia call me a lawyer.

The Bars of Halifax call me a menace but that's another story.
 
Blackleaf
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

No, you and the guy you were quoting said that going to court at all was an attack on freedom. And they did indeed succeed in going to court. So the attack on freedom succeeded.

Try being a little less retarded next time.

The attack on freedom didn't succeed. The case was thrown out and Mr Johnson didn't step foot in a court.