Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1002 – Parliamentary Lying and Evidence Bill 2016 (Second Reading) Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    'Public office' is a well-defined term in the law, and your definition is narrower. Consider using a different term or expanding the definition accordingly.

    Also, PetrosAC, by lending your name to this, you endorse the grammar as well as the content.
    I have seconded this to allow Aph to be active, just as I did with Lime-man last term
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I have seconded this to allow Aph to be active, just as I did with Lime-man last term
    I would still QC it if I were you

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I would still QC it if I were you

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Next time I will. I wasn't actually consulted about this going to second reading, not that i'm overly bothered
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, it is difficult to decide when a politician is lying, it is harder to prove intent, and the bill is not practical to implement; this bill will not work.
    I find it easy enough to tell, their mouth is usually moving.

    But yeah, this would be impractical.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Next time I will. I wasn't actually consulted about this going to second reading, not that i'm overly bothered
    Sorry, I've been so busy with exams I guess I just assumed I'd checked.
    (Original post by Andy98)
    I find it easy enough to tell, their mouth is usually moving.

    But yeah, this would be impractical.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How would it be impractical?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The statement holds, it is difficult to decide when a politician is lying, to decide if the lie is intentional is impossible if it cannot be decided there is a lie being told, thus it is harder to prove intent because something being impossible is above something being difficult. The comment does not refer to one event, it is difficult to prove a lie when figures can be manipulated, questionable sources can be used, things can be worded in a way to be misleading but not false. It is harder to prove intent, in a separate situation a politician could tell a clear lie by saying something that is proven to be wrong shortly after, the excuse would be the politician interpreted something wrongly from a conversation with another politician, to prove the intent the offices would need to be search, the emails reads, the phones calls checked, the text messaged spied on, politicians interviewed, and a court case to decide: it is impractical.
    Very true; I agree with this.

    A lie can simply be a lack of knowledge, which is no crime or wrongdoing. On the other hand, having the intent to distribute a 'lack of knowledge' knowing it is not the truth is another thing.

    The extent of one's knowledge cannot be proven, therefore the blame will be shifted around endlessly.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Trapping)
    Very true; I agree with this.

    A lie can simply be a lack of knowledge, which is no crime or wrongdoing. On the other hand, having the intent to distribute a 'lack of knowledge' knowing it is not the truth is another thing.

    The extent of one's knowledge cannot be proven, therefore the blame will be shifted around endlessly.
    If the extent of knowledge cannot be proven why is perjury a crime? The reason courts use 'beyond a reasonable doubt' it because no crime can be proven absolutely as we weren't there to see it. Instead if it is reasonable to assume that the person knew they were lying (e.g. A witness testifying to say that the accused confessed to lying or testifying that they had already told the accused they were wrong to name just one example) it would then be reasonable to assume that the person indeed had been lying and should then be convinced.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Five years in prison for Tony Blair would not satisfy his many critics.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Five years in prison for Tony Blair would not satisfy his many critics.
    And any prison sentence for a rapist won't satisfy the 'CASTRATE HIM' morons. The people who care about a sentence that much cannot be rational.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    As frustrating as it is when politicians lie, I suspect it would be very difficult to enforce this. It is hard to know when someone lied deliberately or was simply themselves misinformed.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This bill is in cessation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Division! Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 7, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.