Brexit: CPS considers complaint that leave campaigns misled voters

Brexit: CPS considers complaint that leave campaigns misled voters

Case argues Vote Leave and Leave.EU made ‘knowingly misleading’ assertions of fact, including claim EU cost UK £350m a week

The director of public prosecutions is considering a complaint that voters were misled by the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns, in contravention of electoral law.

The complaint about “undue influence” on the referendum campaign has been submitted by an independent group, spearheaded by Prof Bob Watt, an expert in electoral law from the University of Buckingham.

Though most cases require a police complaint before evidence can be considered by the Crown Prosecution Service, under the 1983 Representation of the People Act the DPP can consider cases of election offences when they are referred to her office directly.

A CPS spokesperson said: “We can confirm that this letter has been received and we are currently considering its content.” The complaint is being considered by the special crime team, which deals with all election offences.

Under electoral law “undue influence” is considered a corrupt practice and includes the use of “a fraudulent device or contrivance” to “impede or prevent or intend to impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/07/brexit-cps-considers-complaint-that-leave-campaigns-misled-voters

Ha, ha, ha - you can't keep a good remoaner down.

I'm getting mightily sick of it tbh.

If they try to reverse the vote I think they will have an awful lot of people in uproar and an awful lot of people, like me, who will probably never vote again.

eddie wrote:I'm getting mightily sick of it tbh.

If they try to reverse the vote I think they will have an awful lot of people in uproar and an awful lot of people, like me, who will probably never vote again.

No need to reverse the vote - just spin out the time and water down Brexit so that it is virtually meaningless.

Ziz wrote:

eddie wrote:I'm getting mightily sick of it tbh.

If they try to reverse the vote I think they will have an awful lot of people in uproar and an awful lot of people, like me, who will probably never vote again.

No need to reverse the vote - just spin out the time and water down Brexit so that it is virtually meaningless.

Same thing, different lie.

eddie wrote:

Ziz wrote:

No need to reverse the vote - just spin out the time and water down Brexit so that it is virtually meaningless.

Same thing, different lie.

Always follow the money - it is the only truth.

It's what will stop me voting again.
It's quite damaging to public confidence. I voted out (much to the dismay of some) simply because I didn't think the country was 'working' and I like change.
Now, had I voted to stay, I'd still be angry at the fact that the vote and the whole shabang, was just a fucking dirty big fat ludicrous lie.

eddie wrote:It's what will stop me voting again.
It's quite damaging to public confidence. I voted out (much to the dismay of some) simply because I didn't think the country was 'working' and I like change.
Now, had I voted to stay, I'd still be angry at the fact that the vote and the whole shabang, was just a fucking dirty big fat ludicrous lie.

Voting has value - but it is 6 of one and 5.99 of the other. As an ordinary citizen you have very, very little choice - and a very, very small voice - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't exercise it.

Oligarchs love it when people stop voting

Ben Reilly wrote:Oligarchs love it when people stop voting

Yes. The answer is not to stop voting, but to vote for someone completely different. I'd love to see a situation where an independent stood in each constituency and got voted into Parliament.

personally I recon we will, if the remoaners get their way, see an E.USSR army on our streets crushing all and any dissent......since it is likely that to stop te process via the various "trickey " being employed will likely result in civil disturbance

At the least, if you think the supposed (and largely manufactured) "spike" in racist crimes was bad...just see what will happen if the whingeing moaners...MOST of which couldnt be bothered to vote in the first place (and hence give legitimacy to their point) get their way...and for "certain" posters thats not an endorsement of that sort of thing, just a realistic prediction.......

Severe civil disobedience may well be met with a severe response by the authorities - it was always thus.

If politicians are going to disobey the democratic will of the people then they have no authority...

Tommy Monk wrote:If politicians are going to disobey the democratic will of the people then they have no authority...

They have police and guns and armies and jails though.

Tanks on the streets of Glasgow - The battle of George Square. The government brought in soldiers from England on stand-by and tanks were deployed around Glasgow's George Square



http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7850000/newsid_7859100/7859192.stm

Not the same thing but maybe the same could happen.

Ziz wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If politicians are going to disobey the democratic will of the people then they have no authority...

They have police and guns and armies and jails though.

Thats true, and judging by the attitude of the more rabid lefties on here they would love a chance to use em
then they could enforce their dream of a one party state

Ben Reilly wrote:Oligarchs love it when people stop voting

I had to look that word up, it sounds like some kind of Harry Potter character.

Ziz wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If politicians are going to disobey the democratic will of the people then they have no authority...

They have police and guns and armies and jails though.

Yeah... righto...

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Oligarchs love it when people stop voting

I had to look that word up, it sounds like some kind of Harry Potter character.

oligarch

cheif boss of the oligs......

Ziz wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If politicians are going to disobey the democratic will of the people then they have no authority...

They have police and guns and armies and jails though.

"THEY" also know that (for the moment at least), WE have a ballot box and could easily vote in a govt that decide that those who were involved in such action get a pay cut/removed from service with dishonour/ end up jailed...

Lord Foul wrote:

Ziz wrote:

They have police and guns and armies and jails though.

"THEY" also know that (for the moment at least), WE have a ballot box and could easily vote in a govt that decide that those who were involved in such action get a pay cut/removed from service with dishonour/ end up jailed...

Why would ordinary people want to oppose a government which sought to maintain order in the face of lawlessness?

Ziz wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Ziz wrote:

They have police and guns and armies and jails though.

"THEY" also know that (for the moment at least), WE have a ballot box and could easily vote in a govt that decide that those who were involved in such action get a pay cut/removed from service with dishonour/ end up jailed...

Why would ordinary people want to oppose a government which sought to maintain order in the face of lawlessness?

THAT depends on the reason for that lawlessness, whether such "lawlessness" had "just cause"

Lord Foul wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Why would ordinary people want to oppose a government which sought to maintain order in the face of lawlessness?

THAT depends on the reason for that lawlessness, whether such "lawlessness" had "just cause"

Many believed the general strike was a just cause but nothing much came of it. Generally, the British have no appetite for rabble politics but I'm happy for the far-right to test the water - gets them off social media for a bit at least.

pffft/...you need to study your history a bit more....

I think rather a lot came of the general strike in the subsequent years....

Ziz wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

THAT depends on the reason for that lawlessness, whether such "lawlessness" had "just cause"

Many believed the general strike was a just cause but nothing much came of it. Generally, the British have no appetite for rabble politics but I'm happy for the far-right to test the water - gets them off social media for a bit at least.

I would have to disagree with you Ziz, I think very little has been achieved in this country without people being willing to break the law and resort to social unrest.   The Suffragettes spring to mind.

sassy wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Many believed the general strike was a just cause but nothing much came of it. Generally, the British have no appetite for rabble politics but I'm happy for the far-right to test the water - gets them off social media for a bit at least.

I would have to disagree with you Ziz, I think very little has been achieved in this country without people being willing to break the law and resort to social unrest.   The Suffragettes spring to mind.

The enfranchisement of an entire gender after decades of campaign and as part of an international movement is not in the same league as leaving a political trading union - it is too simplistic a comparison. The arrow of history is not with isolationism and nationalism, so I say let the far-right adopt lawlessness as a tactic, it plays right into the hands of the two thirds who did not vote for Brexit (or rather, those who control them).

Ziz wrote:

sassy wrote:


I would have to disagree with you Ziz, I think very little has been achieved in this country without people being willing to break the law and resort to social unrest.   The Suffragettes spring to mind.

The enfranchisement of an entire gender after decades of campaign and as part of an international movement is not in the same league as leaving a political trading union - it is too simplistic a comparison. The arrow of history is not with isolationism and nationalism so  I say, let the far-right adopt lawlessness as tactic, it plays right into the hands of the two thirds who did not vote for Brexit.

I'd say the far right don't adopt lawlessness as a tactic, they do it because they can't think of anything better lol

sassy wrote:

Ziz wrote:

The enfranchisement of an entire gender after decades of campaign and as part of an international movement is not in the same league as leaving a political trading union - it is too simplistic a comparison. The arrow of history is not with isolationism and nationalism, so I say let the far-right adopt lawlessness as a tactic, it plays right into the hands of the two thirds who did not vote for Brexit.

I'd say the far right don't adopt lawlessness as a tactic, they do it because they can't think of anything better lol

Don't tease them, this is a tense time for Trumpies everywhere.

I support the democratic will of the people... and it is politicians duty to implement it...

It's pure fuckeries, is what it is.

I support the rule of law.

Ziz wrote:

sassy wrote:


I'd say the far right don't adopt lawlessness as a tactic, they do it because they can't think of anything better lol

Don't tease them, this is a tense time for Trumpies everywhere.

Now would I

The way I see it David Cameron said he would go to Brussels and negotiate a new deal for the UK and put the results of that to the British people in a referendum. So the British people voted on his deal alone.

And now TM is sending the three Brexiteer's to Brussels to negotiate a new deal so in that event we should be able to vote and that deal before deciding to leave.

That's democratic isn't it?.

Irn Bru wrote:The way I see it David Cameron said he would go to Brussels and negotiate a new deal for the UK and put the results of that to the British people in a referendum. So the British people voted on his deal alone.

And now TM is sending the three Brexiteer's to Brussels to negotiate a new deal so in that event we should be able to vote and that deal before deciding to leave.

That's democratic isn't it?.

EXCEPT....TM's negotiators cant begin negotiations UNTIL art 50 is invoked, and once invoked there is no way of cancelling it......

a slightly different scenario

Lord Foul wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:The way I see it David Cameron said he would go to Brussels and negotiate a new deal for the UK and put the results of that to the British people in a referendum. So the British people voted on his deal alone.

And now TM is sending the three Brexiteer's to Brussels to negotiate a new deal so in that event we should be able to vote and that deal before deciding to leave.

That's democratic isn't it?.

EXCEPT....TM's negotiators cant begin negotiations UNTIL art 50 is invoked, and once invoked there is no way of cancelling it......

a slightly different scenario

That's true but she could have gone down the same path as Cameron and negotiated a different deal without even looking at Article 50. With the referendum in her bag as an advisory to back her up she had the same opportunity to do as Cameron did.

but...she aint camergoon....thank god....

Triggering Article 50 does not mean it cannot be later revoked

“My opinion is that there is no legal provision in Article 50 providing that when you give your intention you cannot change your intention, so I think it’s possible legally,”

Jean Claude Piris, co-author of Article 50
(Sky News)

Other legal opinion supports this - never count chickens.

the question is ....would "they" let us...

the reaction so far has been that of spoilt brats...
especially that prat Junker.......

Lord Foul wrote:but...she aint camergoon....thank god....

That's true, but it was Cameron's deal that the referendum was based on.

Lord Foul wrote:the question is ....would "they" let us...

the reaction so far has been that of spoilt brats...
especially that prat Junker.......

Who can tell what anyone's view will be in 6 months, a year from now, or two years hence? Politicians can spin on a coin in an instant when it suits their interests.

the changes needed as far as i'm concerned wouldnt go down well

NO unconditional freedom of movement

the END to this absurd issueing of "EU"passports to every foreign person that washes up on europes shores

the end of preventing/interfering with nationalisation of industries where that is a good way to do things

the end to preventing the use of subsidised industry to provide jobs...thereby enabling us to get away from the ridiculous notion of "in work benefits"

and finally (for the moment) the removal, destruction and legislating against ever reforming the commision
with the investigation and subsequent imprisonment for graft of all its members

Ziz wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:the question is ....would "they" let us...

the reaction so far has been that of spoilt brats...
especially that prat Junker.......

Who can tell what anyone's view will be in 6 months, a year from now, or two years hence? Politicians can spin on a coin in an instant when it suits their interests.

so we go for the option to force their hand

Lord Foul wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Who can tell what anyone's view will be in 6 months, a year from now, or two years hence? Politicians can spin on a coin in an instant when it suits their interests.

so we go for the option to force their hand

Which option and who's hand?

we trigger art 50 and go on the basis that is whats happening....

who's hand...europes of course.....they are the ones who may not let us change our minds.....

Lord Foul wrote:we trigger art 50 and go on the basis that is whats happening....

who's hand...europes of course.....they are the ones who may not let us change our minds.....

I see.

The advice I've read suggests that they cannot legally prevent us from changing our minds. Article 49 (the "joining" article) does not need to be invoked until after actual exit, not notice to exit (Article 50). In short, we can just say that we've decided to stay after all.

Is simple... declare our intention of leaving as of article 50 and by the authority given by the British people in the referendum... then we leave...