General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
But what of those not elected or in public office? Farage for example. He stopped being a MEP and never has been elected or appointed since. But he is still out spouting lies.
"Under the proposals it would be a criminal offence for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to wilfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive."
I think candidate for election would cover that.
It would now, but he's just been a bloody agitant for a number of years.
Even if this manages to pass, it'd only apply to those currently in or candidating for the Senedd. This wouldn't affect the UK government (and thus Farage) at all, even if he were attempting to get re-elected.
Obviously, but it's an example of a lying agitator it wouldn't deal with.
Most one could do is go after them once in office if they lied whilst campaigning for election to that office. You could maybe go after them even if they don't win that election.
It probably needs to be done as a strict obligation to not say anything in office or when campaigning which is not verifiably true.
Would also need to be backed with hefty fines on parties if one of their candidates are proven to have lied, or if the party spread that lie.
Tbh any version would be very hard to get right, and if it isn't robust the likes of Farage will use it as yet another tool of discord & disruption as they attack democratic institutions and the rule of law.
I think politics and political falsehoods, aren't just by professional politicians. It's part of wider issue of misinformation spreaders.
Of course, but that's considerably harder to address via criminal law.
Going after people in office (& people running for office & political parties) for misleading the public is much easier, as you can impose a duty on them.
The problem with this type of thing is intent.
How do we prove intent to deceive?
Lying is not simply stating incorrect information. It is intending to deceive by knowingly stating incorrect information. It is not easy to prove what someone knew.
What if they were misinformed by a third party that may or may not have an agenda? Under these circumstances the politician is not lying and believes they are telling the truth even though the information they uttered is wrong. Do you go after the third party? Does this then give the politician a mechanism to evade charges using fall guys?
I absolutely believe that people like Bojo should be held to account. In his case there was plenty of evidence. It should also be acceptable for the opposition to state that they were lying in the commons without facing repercussions.
The same way any crime is proven. Once reasonable suspicion has been declared. Warrents are issued for communications etc.
If it is clear their is evidence the person was informed of the fastness of their statements. Then continued to make the claim. Intent to decide is proven.
Honestly we have just seen this with the post office crap. Where members are in court claiming not to have known of errors in evidence used. While the prosecution prooves they did.
Heck the majority of court case has to consider such things.
It is also why some cases are never taken to court. And some folks get off. But is in no way a reason not to make the laws.
intent is literally a fundamental part of like, all legal systems.
This is why we have voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
We have courts for that and intent is very much a factor in nearly all cases. So, its not like its something alien that they couldn't cope with.
To me, if anything, it would add to the weight on a conviction, as the requirements to meet it would be so high.
Skill issue.
If you mess up and lose your job as a politician for lying, then you weren't good enough at weeding out truthfulness to be a politician.
It's sad how astonished I am to read about this. It's weird enough that there are some countries that require the news to present factual information, but to require truth from politicians seems way too right to ever become a real thing.
With power comes responsibility, and I like that politicians should be punished for lying.
Sounds good philosophically, but I can't help but feel like it could turn into a dystopia.
Who will be in charge of defining what is to be considered true, and what should be known by the accused? Who will be able to challenge this truth giver?
How do you make the difference between false information out of ignorance and willfully misleading information?
Out of fear, will every politician, even honest ones, be forced to introduce their speech with some precautionary standard phrase like "This is fully based on assumptions and the truth of those statements cannot be guaranteed" like people say "I am not a lawyer", eventually putting every political intention on an equal level of uncertainty? (That's standard troll farm goal)
I believe this job currently belongs to journalism, although we know how imperfect that is, will a law and a Justice system do better?
Every court has standards and procedures for establishing legitimate admissible evidence and verifying it to the satisfaction of a jury. We already have plenty of law about lying under oath, perjury. What if you make a politicians’ oath of office include a duty to tell the truth when speaking in an official capacity, whether that’s in a speech, in the legislature, to a journalist or a constituent, under punishment of perjury.
They’ll find ways around it. There was a bit of a scandal here recently after it came to light that public servants were instructed to be as vague as possible when answering questions
baby steps… patch hole after hole. the alternative is do nothing, and that’s a pretty crap outcome
Never let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
I could become king of the world, you could grow a third leg, we could all burn in a fiery hellpit.
Imagine if this passed in the u.s. 99% of all politicians would be prosecuted. Politicians would accuse each other if this then recant on day 13
keir starmer looking at his ten pledges: 👀
Who gets to choose what the truth is?
They tried to pass a similar law earlier this year on Taiwan and it was a whole circus
More info please
Oh shit, I remember that. For some reason, it didn't register what it was over.