Boris Johnson to appear in Crown Court for lying

[Greenmile]

Quicker to type "he" than "she" worse still, "they". I make enough spelling mistakes as it is....

It's also more misogynistic to do that, if you believe you're talking about someone who may be female.

[Imploding Turtle]

Toddle Pip ?
He has his own language - Wrongish

He says Tootle pip in a desperate attempt to be condescending as if he's done with the discussion, but then he just comes back. He's like Rowls when Rowls says he got to go to work, or out, or sleep and then continues to reply for hours.

It's like watching an idiot do things that smart people do, but not understanding why they do them so he does them all at the wrong times.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Friday Ringo is the best Ringo.

[Damo]

He says Tootle pip in a desperate attempt to be condescending as if he's done with the discussion, but then he just comes back. He's like Rowls when Rowls says he got to go to work, or out, or sleep and then continues to reply for hours.

It's like watching an idiot do things that smart people do, but not understanding why they do them so he does them all at the wrong times.

Stop bickering

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

Stop bickering

He can’t, he lives to put other people down and call them stupid etc. It’s the way he gets his pleasure in life.

[martin_p]

He can’t, he lives to put other people down and call them stupid etc. It’s the way he gets his pleasure in life.

That’s why he enjoys posting on Brexit threads, rich pickings!

[bob-the-scutter]

He plastered it on a bus, as fact and stood by it, proclaiming its truth!

No he didn't. Nowhere was it ever said that £350 million would go to the NHS if we left the EU.
Like I said, it was inferred so much it became "Fact"

[Imploding Turtle]

No he didn't. Nowhere was it ever said that £350 million would go to the NHS if we left the EU.
Like I said, it was inferred so much it became "Fact"

Imagine if that was easy to prove wrong. I wonder what your apology and correction would look like. Here's a pic of Boris wondering that too.

[TVC15]

No he didn't. Nowhere was it ever said that £350 million would go to the NHS if we left the EU.
Like I said, it was inferred so much it became "Fact"

So what do you think he meant when he said :
“We send the EU £350m a week: let’s fund our NHS instead”

[elwaclaret]

So what do you think he meant when he said :
“We send the EU £350m a week: let’s fund our NHS instead”

What no one seems to be considering is the can of worms that BJ being found guilty would open. At least half of Parliament would be open to being placed in the dock... not to mention those that had “retired”.

Parliament will become a very very different beast... an national admin department. Hard to paint ‘ideals’ when it could end your career in a year or two’s time.

[FactualFrank]

The £350 million to the NHS was always cleverly done, when I saw/heard about it. I don't recollect it ever being promised. It was cleverly suggested to people that if they voted leave, this would happen as fact - without saying it would definitely happen.

The image above starts with "Let's..." which comes across as a suggestion - not a matter of fact that it will happen.

[Lancasterclaret]

What no one seems to be considering is the can of worms that BJ being found guilty would open. At least half of Parliament would be open to being placed in the dock... not to mention those that had “retired”.

Parliament will become a very very different beast... an national admin department. Hard to paint ‘ideals’ when it could end your career in a year or two’s time.

See my previous post.

You are a bright lad, that is the kind of stuff that people who don't have a scooby say.

Did Boris continue to parrot the lie after being warned about it from two senior civil servants, because it was misusing official government statistics?

Yes

How many of the rest of parliament have done that? Not half, nowhere near, and I reckon you could count them on one hand.

Again, I get it, you want Brexit. Making arguments that don't stand up will only make more and more people not want Brexit.

[elwaclaret]

See my previous post.

You are a bright lad, that is the kind of stuff that people who don't have a scooby say.

Did Boris continue to parrot the lie after being warned about it from two senior civil servants, because it was misusing official government statistics?

Yes

How many of the rest of parliament have done that? Not half, nowhere near, and I reckon you could count them on one hand.

Again, I get it, you want Brexit. Making arguments that don't stand up will only make more and more people not want Brexit.

I have no greater love for Boris than I have for Vince Cable. It might be quite nice to see parliament have to clean up its act... but if you think this is not going to open another can of litigation worms it isn’t me that is deluded.

[TVC15]

I have no greater love for Boris than I have for Vince Cable. It might be quite nice to see parliament have to clean up its act... but if you think this is not going to open another can of litigation worms it isn’t me that is deluded.

Let’s hope it does open up a can of litigation worms. A few lying politicians doing a stretch in bird will do the system a lot of good...and eventually hopefully stop the practice of lying to a public many of which don’t have access to the resources, time etc to check out whether what they are saying is factual.

Well....that’s enough of dreaming about Utopia because Boris will wriggle himself out of this one, and he and many of his colleagues (from all parties) will carry on lying.

[Lancasterclaret]

I have no greater love for Boris than I have for Vince Cable. It might be quite nice to see parliament have to clean up its act... but if you think this is not going to open another can of litigation worms it isn’t me that is deluded.

Still has to get to the stage where it actually goes to court.

Now why has this one gone to court? (hint - it is not a remainer plot)

[Spijed]

Wonder if he'll say he was only obeying orders?

[elwaclaret]

Still has to get to the stage where it actually goes to court.

Now why has this one gone to court? (hint - it is not a remainer plot)

He’s done what many politicians do all the time... to say it is not a tactic of remain to derail his attempt at the leadership is just incredible. I really hope it does go to court... for what it will do to British politics in the long run. Neither Boris nor Farage were in a position to make policy over brexit. The fact that remainers keep going on about their NHS utterly fail to realise is that most saw through it as propaganda ( just the same as remain propaganda) and in reality held little weight as an argument in the first place... I actually shuddered when I first saw the bus... yet remain completely failed to take advantage because they were too busy telling us the country was going into meltdown with Brexit... just as disingenuous as BJ and NF.

Like I say you can send pretty much send the lot of them to prison for me... we need something to make the politicians realise they are messing with people’s lives not just their own celebrity and ambition... which is another reason people turn to the likes of NF

[ClaretMoffitt]

Imagine if that was easy to prove wrong. I wonder what your apology and correction would look like. Here's a pic of Boris wondering that too.

I wonder if we will be seeing court cases for George Osbourse and David Cameron? They made much bigger threats during the campaign and hel much more influential positions in office whilst doing so.

I doubt it mind you, remainers seem to have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to those lies.

[Swizzlestick]

cognitive dissonance

Somebody’s been catching up on his Jordan Peterson.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Somebody’s been catching up on his Jordan Peterson.

Had a month off UTC haven't I

[AndrewJB]

As a remainer I’d have no problem with Cameron and Osborne going in front of a judge. In fact I’d quite like it.

[dsr]

I wonder if we will be seeing court cases for George Osbourse and David Cameron? They made much bigger threats during the campaign and hel much more influential positions in office whilst doing so.

I doubt it mind you, remainers seem to have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to those lies.

Theirs were different. They didn't use official statistics, because the statistics they used were official. Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could invest any statistic he liked (as he did) and it would become official. Using official statistics that are false is not an offence.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Theirs were different. They didn't use official statistics, because the statistics they used were official. Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could invest any statistic he liked (as he did) and it would become official. Using official statistics that are false is not an offence.

I'm honestly not even sure if this is a parody response or a legitimate argument against what I say.

[Lancasterclaret]

Its dsr, who knows?

Welcome back btw

[dsr]

I'm honestly not even sure if this is a parody response or a legitimate argument against what I say.

Perhaps more to the point, Osborne's numbers wer eput in the form of predictions. Boris could say that we send £350m to the EU each week and (barring semantic arguments) be proved wrong and ought to have known he was wrong; when Osborne said that 800,000 jobs would be lost within months of the vote, he was also proved wrong and he ought to have known he was wrong, but it can't be proved that he ought to have known he was wrong.

Osborne's defence would be "I was wrong, but that's because I was too stupid not because I was lying". Boris would find it harder to use that argument.

[Imploding Turtle]

Theirs were different. They didn't use official statistics, because the statistics they used were official. Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could invest any statistic he liked (as he did) and it would become official. Using official statistics that are false is not an offence.

This is my nominee for dumbest post of the day.

[tiger76]

Perhaps more to the point, Osborne's numbers wer eput in the form of predictions. Boris could say that we send £350m to the EU each week and (barring semantic arguments) be proved wrong and ought to have known he was wrong; when Osborne said that 800,000 jobs would be lost within months of the vote, he was also proved wrong and he ought to have known he was wrong, but it can't be proved that he ought to have known he was wrong.

Osborne's defence would be "I was wrong, but that's because I was too stupid not because I was lying". Boris would find it harder to use that argument.

Interesting defence for a former Chancellor to claim ignorance/stupidity,the problem with the whole referendum was the definite arguments by both sides,Osborne was one of the main reasons the remain campaign lacked credibility,throwing around asides such as WW3 being likely in the event of a leave vote,you would expect more rational arguments from a senior figure.

Call me cynical but i suspect this case will quietly be shelved come the autumn,once Boris's leadership charge has been derailed.

[martin_p]

I wonder if we will be seeing court cases for George Osbourse and David Cameron? They made much bigger threats during the campaign and hel much more influential positions in office whilst doing so.

I doubt it mind you, remainers seem to have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to those lies.

I posted early in the thread about people not getting that you can’t lie about the future unless you have 100% control of it. This case is not about what might have happened to the £350 million pound saved but the fact there wasn’t £350 million to save in the first place. That was the actual lie about a verifiable fact that he continued to use and why he’s in court. Anyone else thinking politicians might end up in court for broken promises really aren’t getting what this is all about.

[aggi]

He’s done what many politicians do all the time... to say it is not a tactic of remain to derail his attempt at the leadership is just incredible. I really hope it does go to court... for what it will do to British politics in the long run. Neither Boris nor Farage were in a position to make policy over brexit. The fact that remainers keep going on about their NHS utterly fail to realise is that most saw through it as propaganda ( just the same as remain propaganda) and in reality held little weight as an argument in the first place... I actually shuddered when I first saw the bus... yet remain completely failed to take advantage because they were too busy telling us the country was going into meltdown with Brexit... just as disingenuous as BJ and NF.

Like I say you can send pretty much send the lot of them to prison for me... we need something to make the politicians realise they are messing with people’s lives not just their own celebrity and ambition... which is another reason people turn to the likes of NF

The NHS part is irrelevant and I don't think it forms part of the court case. The £350m is the main issue.

I'm a bit spilt on it. If a politician makes a mistake, it's pointed out and they stop then fair enough.

If a politician makes a mistake, it's pointed out and they just metaphorically flick the Vs and carry on lying then there needs to be some comeback.

If the view is that we can't do this because all politicians lie then why are we of the view that it's acceptable for any of them. I'm fairly apolitical though so would be fine for politicians of any colour to end up in court. Others are obviously more partisan and lying is fine if it's their side.

Obviously my concern would be that this would become a mechanism for the rich to intimidate politicians and that is a concern.

[IanMcL]

Perhaps more to the point, Osborne's numbers wer eput in the form of predictions. Boris could say that we send £350m to the EU each week and (barring semantic arguments) be proved wrong and ought to have known he was wrong; when Osborne said that 800,000 jobs would be lost within months of the vote, he was also proved wrong and he ought to have known he was wrong, but it can't be proved that he ought to have known he was wrong.

Osborne's defence would be "I was wrong, but that's because I was too stupid not because I was lying". Boris would find it harder to use that argument.

You are correct...he should gave said, "Within a very short time, a trillion pounds will be taken out of our country, by investors".
Also, "The City of London will lose billions in share trading, as Europe claims its right to do their own transactions".

[tiger76]

These allegations aren''t affecting Boris as yet.

On who would make the best Tory leader:

Boris Johnson: 32%
Michael Gove: 11%
Sajid Javid: 9%
Jeremy Hunt: 9%
Andrea Leadsom: 5%
Dominic Raab: 5%
Rory Stewart: 4%

via @DeltapollUK

- 1 Jun 2019

If i had a vote Gove,Javid,and at a push Raab would be my preferences.

My feeling is Boris won't win as he won't make it to the member's ballot,i'd say Hunt and Gove will be the last 2 standing.

In which case Gove will easily win the final ballot,80%+.

[Imploding Turtle]

These allegations aren''t affecting Boris as yet.

On who would make the best Tory leader:

Boris Johnson: 32%
Michael Gove: 11%
Sajid Javid: 9%
Jeremy Hunt: 9%
Andrea Leadsom: 5%
Dominic Raab: 5%
Rory Stewart: 4%

via @DeltapollUK

- 1 Jun 2019

If i had a vote Gove,Javid,and at a push Raab would be my preferences.

My feeling is Boris won't win as he won't make it to the member's ballot,i'd say Hunt and Gove will be the last 2 standing.

In which case Gove will easily win the final ballot,80%+.

You don't know that. For all you know he could have 20 more points were it not for the allegations. Or 20 fewer.

[tiger76]

You don't know that. For all you know he could have 20 more points were it not for the allegations. Or 20 fewer.

True but his numbers won't matter unless he gets the backing of his fellow MP'S,and any waverers will not want to be associated with a potential PM who could be up before the beak,plus any that want a brexiteer have other viable options to pick from who have far less baggage.

Mind you with the Tories nowadays who knows,they,they seem intent on a kamikaze mission.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

Interesting one this. I worry that Johnson being taken to court for his 'pro-Brexit views' will embolden the anti-establishment narrative the Faragists are weaving, and, regardless of whether the case is successful or not, may lend itself to the view of Brexiteers that all the arms of the British state have been mobilised to crush their dreams.

Ultimately, if there is a case to answer then Johnson must go and face it. If it does turn out to be a publicity stunt, as his camp is spinning, then it may well backfire.

[2 Bee Holed]

It's a private prosecution under criminal law.

But your point about the £350m claim being nothing to do with being Mayor is valid. It's also valid to argue that the argument is about semantics, not dishonesty. It's also valid to argue that "misconduct in a public office" carrying up to a life sentence if guilty, is not a charge suitable in dealing with election hyperbole. This case won't reach court because it's stupid. The magistrate or whoever it was who referred it to Crown Court will be re-advised what the rules are and the whole thing will (after lots of expense) will be dropped.

Apologies dsr. It is as you say, a private prosecution under criminal law.
It was District Judge Margot Coleman who has sent this case initially to Westminster Magistrates Court for them to refer to Crown Court.
I tend to agree with everything else you said.
It would be a dangerous step to put politicians on trial/in jail for their claims and views.
There would be very few of them left!
Criminal Law should be reserved for their actions.
Wrong charge, wrong place: i.e. £350m nothing to do with his holding a Public Office i.e. 'Mayor of London'.
Personally I cannot see this getting very far either.

[nil_desperandum]

It would be a dangerous step to put politicians on trial/in jail for their claims and views.
There would be very few of them left!
Criminal Law should be reserved for their actions.
Wrong charge, wrong place: i.e. £350m nothing to do with his holding a Public Office i.e. 'Mayor of London'.
Personally I cannot see this getting very far either.

Once again spectacularly missing the point.
He held a senior Public Office - Foreign Secretary no less, and was warned not to continue deliberately feeding false information to the public based on a figure that was proved to him (by official treasury accounts) to be massively wrong.
He continued to repeat it. Politicians will always make false claims and predictions based on their views, but surely no one approves of any politician continually repeating figures that are demonstrably way off the mark in order to mislead the public they represent.

[thatdberight]

One of the reasons this will fail is because Johnson himself clarified, admittedly under questioning, how the £350m was defined and that, net, it was much less.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oryCG3MpIks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nil_desperandum]

One of the reasons this will fail is because Johnson himself clarified, admittedly under questioning, how the £350m was defined and that, net, it was much less.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oryCG3MpIks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can't really see how this link would be relevant in court since it was an interview given before the referendum, but more importantly, BEFORE he became Foreign Sec , and even more importantly BEFORE he was explicitly told not to REPEAT it because it was wrong and misleading.

[RingoMcCartney]

Once again spectacularly missing the point.
He held a senior Public Office - Foreign Secretary no less, and was warned not to continue deliberately feeding false information to the public based on a figure that was proved to him (by official treasury accounts) to be massively wrong.
He continued to repeat it. Politicians will always make false claims and predictions based on their views, but surely no one approves of any politician continually repeating figures that are demonstrably way off the mark in order to mislead the public they represent.

EU referendum: Brexit 'would spark year-long recession' - Treasury

Leaving the European Union would tip the UK into a year-long recession, with up to 820,000 jobs lost within two years, Chancellor George Osborne says.

Publishing Treasury analysis, he said a Leave vote would cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock, with growth between 3% and 6% lower.


https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... KKCN0Z2188" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


George Osborne said on Wednesday he would introduce an emergency budget if Britain voted to leave the European Union, 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36355564" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alistair Darling: Brexit would risk collapse of confidence in UK econom




"Darling will also highlight new research from London First and Frontier Economics calculating that if the UK were to follow the Canadian trade model, as advocated by Vote Leave, trade could fall by £92bn.

“When the IMF single us out as facing what will be a self-inflicted wound, we can’t ignore it. We can’t afford to take a decision where no one on the other side has any clear idea of where we would end up if we left.”


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... uk-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And all this, and far more , was pointed to by Remainers as being "evidence" that leaving the EU would be bad for the UK.!!!!!!

And when time proves it was utter lies and brazen fearmongerimg, the same gullible fools now claim it was just simply , "predictions, forecasts, presumptions!!"

The reason they are scared of leaving is that they'll be shown up to be absolutely wrong. In exactly the same way that they were proven wrong when they'd told us that not joining the single currency, the Euro, would be economically disastrous for the UK!!! It was not.

The Remain campaign- built on lies and those niave enough to swallow them.

[Swizzlestick]

Here he is.

[RingoMcCartney]

I was going to stay out of this as there are enough people pointing out your ignorance. I can’t be bothered to reiterate the facts, you are just boring now.

Remain - "Just look at the evidence!"

Emergency budget immediately after vote to Leave.

Upto 820,000 extra unemployed 18 months after vote.

Immediate and protracted recession following a vote to Leave.

Confidence will evaporate in the UK economy if we vote leave.

All the above were projections/opinions of future events.

Question - When does what is being presented as unequivocal , "evidence" that leaving the EU will be bad for the UK, become passed of as 
just "projections / prediction / opinion"?

Answer - when time proves it was was a pack of lies, and those spouting it, but more importantly, those who gullibley, feel for it, need an excuse!!!

And that, puts my argument, which I why I spent far too much time on here standing up for, in a nutshell.

All the remoaners now pointing to new projections, assumptions, economic forecasts and modelling are pointing to that, and claiming it to be, " evidence that leaving the EU will be bad for the UK" Even though it's from the very same sources that they now want to glibly pass off as "projections, prediction / opinion"

Burnley Ace read and learn-

evidence

/ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/

noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

conjecture

/kənˈdʒɛktʃə/

noun
1.
an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
"conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied"
synonyms: guess, speculation, projections, surmise, fancy, notion, belief, suspicion, presumption, assumption, theory, predictions hypothesis, postulation, supposition;

incomplete information. - we haven't left the EU yet, nor has anybody previously. 


The majority of Labour MPs voted for an EU referendum.

[RingoMcCartney]

As a remainer I’d have no problem with Cameron and Osborne going in front of a judge. In fact I’d quite like it.

I'm with you on that but, as someone who believes in justice. I'll raise you Tony Bliar and Alistair Campbell.

[Sproggy]

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.

[TVC15]

When is Drongo going to learn some basic presentation skills and understand that nobody reads his endless drivel ?

Seriously the only time that anybody is interested is when you make your silly f-uck ups.....maybe this needs to be your tactic going forward ? Earlier on in this thread was the most popular you have ever been !

[RingoMcCartney]

To be fair to Ringo, this is what the likes of Bannon et al tell people to do.

Just keep repeating the same lies till everybody else gives up.

Thats why people like me won't ever stop pointing out the lies, because its not because Ringo and others are thick, its because they knows that if he keeps repeating it, people will begin to accept it as the truth, even though its a lie.

EU money that comes back to the UK in the form of regional funding , given we are a net contributor to the EU. Is UK tax payers money simply coming back.

I have the Full Fact and HM treasury figures at hand if you want argue the toss and call me a liar.

The EU said bailing out the banks was fine in 2008.

The EU says saving British Steel with state aid - no can do.

Again I have senior the views of a senior Professor on such issues to hand , footage of the minister responsible confirming the same, and direct quotations from the official letter sent by the government's own legal advisors.

Now, call me a liar if you want. But you have never admitted I was right and you know it. You've seen all the facts I've got previously posted and I'm more than happy to post it again to prove you be wrong, me right and you to be a little fibber.

[thatdberight]

Can't really see how this link would be relevant in court since it was an interview given before the referendum, but more importantly, BEFORE he became Foreign Sec , and even more importantly BEFORE he was explicitly told not to REPEAT it because it was wrong and misleading.

The purported offence relates to both pre-referendum and pre-GE 2017 timeframes so what was said in 2016 is definitely relevant.

Once you've defined the £350m (as he does in that clip) and it is a correct, if highly skewed, definition: "We give them £350m - they keep some of it, give back some of it but control / define how we can use the bit we give back", I'm pretty clear that you've made the basis of your assertion clear.

By whom was Johnson "...explicitly told not to REPEAT it..."? I'm not aware of that bit.

[nil_desperandum]

By whom was Johnson "...explicitly told not to REPEAT it..."? I'm not aware of that bit.

Maybe not explicit - but absolutely clear:
David Norgrove wrote to the foreign secretary to express his concerns over Johnson’s Telegraph article. The Chair of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) said he was “surprised and disappointed” that Johnson had “chosen to repeat the figure”, and called it “a clear misuse of official statistics”.

Instead of accepting the rebuke, Johnson’s spokesman stated that the foreign secretary had received assurances from Norgrove that the letter referred only to the Telegraph’s headline – which he did not write – and that his article was “absolutely fine”.
The UKSA immediately responded that it had given no such assurance, [So another Johnson lie] and

“has not changed the conclusion set out in [Norgrove’s] letter to the foreign secretary”.

[nil_desperandum]

The purported offence relates to both pre-referendum and pre-GE 2017 timeframes so what was said in 2016 is definitely relevant.

Once you've defined the £350m (as he does in that clip) and it is a correct, if highly skewed, definition: "We give them £350m - they keep some of it, give back some of it but control / define how we can use the bit we give back", I'm pretty clear that you've made the basis of your assertion clear.
.

Added to my previous reply, as has been pointed out numerous times, and is verifiable in Treasury accounts, we don't give them 350 million and NEVER have done. We only transfer the net amount to the EU. It's exactly the same as claiming that you have £35,000 disposable annual income when in fact this is your gross salary, and you only ever receive a net amount (say £25,0000) after deductions for tax, NI etc.
All treasury forecasts and budgeting are therefore based on the net figure, so the gross figure is irrelevant.

[elwaclaret]

The NHS part is irrelevant and I don't think it forms part of the court case. The £350m is the main issue.

I'm a bit spilt on it. If a politician makes a mistake, it's pointed out and they stop then fair enough.

If a politician makes a mistake, it's pointed out and they just metaphorically flick the Vs and carry on lying then there needs to be some comeback.

If the view is that we can't do this because all politicians lie then why are we of the view that it's acceptable for any of them. I'm fairly apolitical though so would be fine for politicians of any colour to end up in court. Others are obviously more partisan and lying is fine if it's their side.

Obviously my concern would be that this would become a mechanism for the rich to intimidate politicians and that is a concern.

I think it long over due that Politicians were reeled in, but this is too convenient timing and is clearly an attempt to derail the “favourite” in a leadership election. I’m not in Boris’s corner, but I can see the lawyers rubbing their hands in anticipation, “have you been lied to in parliament, then ring, no win no fee political justice.”

Not that I expect the establishment to let it happen. They get Boris out of the picture but even this set of clowns must see the long term result of a conviction.

[nil_desperandum]

I think it long over due that Politicians were reeled in, but this is too convenient timing and is clearly an attempt to derail the “favourite” in a leadership election. .

If you'd been following this over the years, and even further up this thread, it's got nothing to do with the Tory party vacancy. Although it seems a little unlikely it is entirely coincidental.
It's been flagged up for quite some time that there would be ruling on this case at this point with the potential court case to follow. As this "case" was proceeding over the past couple of years no one could have forecast that May's resignation, (and thus the vacancy) would coincide with the dates. (Unless of course you're suggesting that May timed her resignation to derail his candidacy, which is rather far fetched.)