Boris & His Bus Vindicated (Again)

[Khandro]

The High-Court agrees that £350 million is an acceptable figure & this creep can repent at his leisure;
https://order-order.com/2019/09/30/anti-boris-private-prosecutor-facing-financial-ruin-losing/

[ichkeria]

Then there’s the issue that of course the chances of all that money actually being spent on the NHS would be zero.
So, silly but not worth a court case IMO

[dannyk13]

ich //but sometimes you just have to get over these things and move on.//
But will you?

[THECORBYLOON]

The judgement said, "It appears that if the Claimant had said/endorsed a figure of £350m per week gross, or £250m per week net, there would have been no complaint.”

It doesn't say either figure is accurate ONLY that if the figures had included "gross" or "net" as appropriate, there would have been no complaint.

It's like the various commercials or adverts in the media where they have an asterisk after various snappy claims that refer to a paragraph or two explaining all the exclusions.

Without that asterisk, the claim is not a valid one.

[royfromaus]

Even Farage was to call it out as dishonest,



Did he?
I know he said it was a mistake but did he say it was dishonest?

[Arrods]

He'll probably appeal to the Supreme Court - and win.

[Old_Geezer]

And in any case Farage doesn't always get it right. Just mostly; and is good at putting his case over.

[Khandro]

Remoaners, - people like ichi & corby never give up. The first court and now the high court have said, "£350m is an acceptable figure to use in the context of British contributions to the EU budget."
For most rational people, I would have thought that was quite enough.

[New Judge]

To quote from the bus:

“We send the EU £350m a week” (Largely correct)

“Let’s fund our NHS instead” (a suggestion – among many possibilities – what a post Brexit government might do with those wasted funds instead).

Nothing misleading about either phrase. If people choose to not investigate the facts or draw inappropriate conclusions then that’s their problem. However, the ins and outs of the slogan on the bus are immaterial as it was ruled that Mr Johnson was not "acting in public office" at the time.


A villain in this is one Emma Arbuthnot, the country’s Chief Magistrate, who determined that Mr Johnson had a case to answer when it was put before her at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Had she ruled in the only sensible way the taxpayer would have been saved a lot of money.

I’m overcome with grief that Mr Ballsup faces financial ruin. Quite what possessed him to style himself as a “prosecutor” is anybody’s guess. Even more puzzling is why he took on, as his first major case, such a hopeless cause. But if he intends to continue in that profession he needs better advice.

[THECORBYLOON]

Where does your quote appear in the latest judgement, not from what Guido Fawkes has said, the actual judgement?

[THECORBYLOON]

That was for KHANDRO.

[ichkeria]

Exactly Corby

[dannyk13]

Ich post at 11.16
I take it to be no then.

[ichkeria]

We don’t give up, Khandro, because we think it’s important that stuff is not spun dishonesty.

[ichkeria]

Dishonestly :-)
This matter was raised - again - by the OP.
No one else here :-)

[royfromaus]

ichkeria
We don’t give up, Khandro, because we think it’s important that stuff is not spun dishonesty.



Says the man who has just been dishonest with his spin.

[Old_Geezer]

The case was thrown out because it was a non-starter given that Johnson wasn't acting in public office.

That that the figure is an acceptable figure to use in the context of British contributions to the EU budget, is simple common sense.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41306354 this is a BBC view but they used to comment on the bus, not on what was said. So they've lost their nerve to be clear and up-front a little. It is still the correct gross figure per year divided to be a weekly amount that we are obliged to pay in. My understanding is that the temporarily rebate (not that it's relevant to the gross figure we're responsible for paying) is from the previous year's payments.

[THECORBYLOON]

"That that the figure is an acceptable figure to use in the context of British contributions to the EU budget, is simple common sense."

Is it not common sense to also say what the rebates are, deduct them from the contributions and use the net figure? 

[Ellipsis]

Do we send the EU £350M a week and they send us £100M a week back? Or do we send them £250M a week? If it's the former (as I think it is) then there's an argument for what it said on the bus being "the truth but not the whole truth".

The bit I had the most problem with was "Let's spend it on the NHS instead." Cynical.

[dannyk13]

Ellipsis , where does it say the all the £350 million would be spent on the NHS?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/16/leave-campaign-bus-claim-britain-will-save-350m-week-brexit/

[Ellipsis]

Then how much, Danny? £1? £1M? It is left for the reader to decide. Leaving implications hanging in the air ... that's cynical for a start.

But the really cynical part is implying that there would be any money for the NHS that would come from stopping the contributions to the EU. If our economy dives then there won't be any significant cash released by leaving. That won't stop money being put into the NHS, of course, but to imply that we're giving to the EU instead of the NHS ... that's really cynical.