Why do they call him the bullet dodger?

Reasons for the High Court's ruling will be given at a later date.

Mr Ball's lawyers first lodged an application in February to summons Mr Johnson, claiming that, while an MP and mayor of London, he had deliberately misled the public during the 2016 EU referendum campaign, and had repeated the statement during the 2017 general election.

The £350m figure was used by the pro-Brexit Vote Leave group throughout the referendum. It also appeared on the side of the campaign bus, which urged the UK to "fund our NHS instead".

Mr Darbishire said the attempt to prosecute Mr Johnson was "politically motivated and vexatious".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48554853" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Jokes aside though; it actually amazes me that remainers would genuinely pin their hopes on this tho.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Why do they call him the bullet dodger?

4MV7Ocb.jpg

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48554853" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Jokes aside though; it actually amazes me that remainers would genuinely pin their hopes on this tho.

Yeah, what is wrong with us wanting politicians to tell us the truth?

We are well weird!

This thread is definitely getting bumped if he gets shot.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yeah, what is wrong with us wanting politicians to tell us the truth?

We are well weird!

Nothing, if the same standard was held against people like Corbyn when he promised to wipe off student debts 2 months before an election then immediately retracted after the result, or if it was Osborne for his "emergency budget" etc etc. I'd be all for it.

But the fact that not only is there no outcry for those lies to be called to justice, but people even defend them saying it suggests to me that this is just a targeted attack by the rich and powerful trying to use their wealth to overturn something they don't like.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Nothing, if the same standard was held against people like Corbyn when he promised to wipe off student debts 2 months before an election then immediately retracted after the result, ...

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOURCE!?

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Nothing, if the same standard was held against people like Corbyn when he promised to wipe off student debts 2 months before an election then immediately retracted after the result, or if it was Osborne for his "emergency budget" etc etc. I'd be all for it.

But the fact that not only is there no outcry for those lies to be called to justice, but people even defend them saying it suggests to me that this is just a targeted attack by the rich and powerful trying to use their wealth to overturn something they don't like.

All for that.

Now what do we do if a referendum result was based on lies?

I mean, surely we'd have to re-run it or cancel it altogether surely?

Corbyn never said he'd wipe student debt, he said he'd find a way to help reduce it etc.

Others may have made the claim to get rid, along with the media but he didn't personally.

All he basically did was go fishing for votes from students, current and former, who're in lots of debt.

Imploding Turtle wrote:SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOURCE!?

He said over and over during that campaign that his government will "deal with" student debts. The implication was clear and obviously galvinised the student vote.

Not to mention his underlings constantly took his rhetoric further with even more firm promises.

He said: “Just this morning Jeremy Corbyn has announced that the tuition fees will be abolished straight away from September if there’s a Labour government, and that we will bring back immediately EMA and also that every existing student will have all their debts wiped off.”

Quoted by shadow justice minister Imran Hussain


If saying things like that in office is merely a suggestion, or a non-commitment, then so is "lets fund our NHS instead"

Lancasterclaret wrote:All for that.

Now what do we do if a referendum result was based on lies?

I mean, surely we'd have to re-run it or cancel it altogether surely?

I've always been in favour of another vote.

As long as the question was the same as last time.

Leave or remain.

No deals to muddy the waters, no 3 options, no nothing. Just leave or remain.

*Edit*

I should rephrase that, in favour of is too strong a term, probably "not afraid of" would be more appropriate.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I've always been in favour of another vote.

As long as the question was the same as last time.

Leave or remain.

No deals to muddy the waters, no 3 options, no nothing. Just leave or remain.

*Edit*

I should rephrase that, in favour of is too strong a term, probably "not afraid of" would be more appropriate.

Fair enough

Its certainly looking like the only way out of this mess.

(Now that the Brexit Party take over of the world isn't actually happening)

Lancasterclaret wrote:Fair enough

Its certainly looking like the only way out of this mess.

(Now that the Brexit Party take over of the world isn't actually happening)

Wouldn't be so sure on this.

Brexit Party was never intended to take over the world. Their only purpose is to pressure the Tories into pursuing a hard brexit. I predict that should the tories elect a firm brexiteer like Raab or Johnson then come the next GE (providing they stay firm to their pledge to leave deal or no deal in october) then the Brexit party wont even stand and those votes will go almost entirely blue and the Tories will win comfortably.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Wouldn't be so sure on this.

Brexit Party was never intended to take over the world. Their only purpose is to pressure the Tories into pursuing a hard brexit. I predict that should the tories elect a firm brexiteer like Raab or Johnson then come the next GE (providing they stay firm to their pledge to leave deal or no deal in october) then the Brexit party wont even stand and those votes will go almost entirely blue and the Tories will win comfortably.

They didn't in 2017 with an equally hard Brexit policy.

Nothing to suggest that will change,and nothing in Farage suggests he'll just disappear because Johnson wins (he's like me in that respect, knows full well that Johnson is perfectly capable of changing his mind if he sees it as the best for Boris)

ClaretMoffitt wrote:He said over and over during that campaign that his government will "deal with" student debts. The implication was clear and obviously galvinised the student vote.

Not to mention his underlings constantly took his rhetoric further with even more firm promises.



Quoted by shadow justice minister Imran Hussain


If saying things like that in office is merely a suggestion, or a non-commitment, then so is "lets fund our NHS instead"

It is an often lied about campaign promise. I'm aware of what Corbyn promised, and i'm probably correct in my assumption that you're just referring to the same lie. So please, provide a source. None of this "implication" bullshit, i want to see a source saying exactly what it is you believe rather than waste my time debunking you only for you to turn around and say "that's not what i was talking about".

Link a source.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:He said over and over during that campaign that his government will "deal with" student debts. The implication was clear and obviously galvinised the student vote.

Nope https://fullfact.org/education/student- ... abour-say/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He'll go well with the Draft Dodger.

Devils_Advocate wrote:Nope https://fullfact.org/education/student- ... abour-say/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yep,


"And I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it.”

The inference, whether deliberate or accidental was made.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Nothing, if the same standard was held against people like Corbyn when he promised to wipe off student debts 2 months before an election then immediately retracted after the result, or if it was Osborne for his "emergency budget" etc etc. I'd be all for it.

But the fact that not only is there no outcry for those lies to be called to justice, but people even defend them saying it suggests to me that this is just a targeted attack by the rich and powerful trying to use their wealth to overturn something they don't like.

I voted for brexit... I was truly appalled by “the bus”. It is not a political issue to expect honesty.

I was right that the case would be thrown out, time And politicians will tell if it changes parliamentarians of all sides. Here is hoping.

Caballo wrote:Yep,


"And I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it.”

The inference, whether deliberate or accidental was made.

The inference being that he would try to help them, not that he would wipe out their debt.

He said "burdened excessively", ie. he's ok with them being burdened, just not excessively. If he had been implying what you want to believe he was implying then he wouldn't have included "excessively".

As someone currently going through the student loan system...

It has allowed me to keep my business ticking over while dedicating time I would be using marketing for study, no small thing with a family.

I have never been entitled to a “grant” even in the early 90’s before the student loan system.

Loans are only repayable once a wage in excess of 75k per annum is achieved. Then at a rate of about £15 minimum per month.

Student loans are just a political football... they do exactly what they are supposed to do.

One of the funny things i smile about when the topic of tuition fees comes up is that you see a lot of those who whine about what they call "junk degrees" taking a position in support of tuition fees, as if the two aren't connected.

Everything Diane Abbott says could end up in a court case

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Wouldn't be so sure on this.

Brexit Party was never intended to take over the world. Their only purpose is to pressure the Tories into pursuing a hard brexit. I predict that should the tories elect a firm brexiteer like Raab or Johnson then come the next GE (providing they stay firm to their pledge to leave deal or no deal in october) then the Brexit party wont even stand and those votes will go almost entirely blue and the Tories will win comfortably.

Pledging a hard Brexit worked well in the Peterborough by-election didn't it?

Imploding Turtle wrote:One of the funny things i smile about when the topic of tuition fees comes up is that you see a lot of those who whine about what they call "junk degrees" taking a position in support of tuition fees, as if the two aren't connected.

Not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. I’m doing History / English literature... are they junk degrees?

Will they still be junk when they form part of the doctorate in History where I’ve been told I should be aiming from my first years study?

Luvvies already reacting ...

Spijed wrote:Pledging a hard Brexit worked well in the Peterborough by-election didn't it?

Ackkkthualllylylylly..... In the Peterborough By election the Brexit party actually won...

See, if you take the Brexit Party's 9,801 votes, the conservative 7,243 votes and UKIP's 400 votes, you get 17,444.

If you take Labour, the lib dems, the Greens, and ALL others combined, you get 16,476.

Brexit won in peterborough, folks. Hard facts hitting home today.


Thats the way it works in elections now, right? Or is that only when it can be used as a pro-EU argument?

elwaclaret wrote:Not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. I’m doing History / English literature... are they junk degrees?

Will they still be junk when they form part of the doctorate in History where I’ve been told I should be aiming from my first years study?

AlargeClaret wrote:Luvvies already reacting ...

Am I being classed a”lovey” that would be quite refreshing ...

It’s usually, fascist, racist, at best ignoramus for my
Opposition on brexit

repeated post deleated

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Ackkkthualllylylylly..... In the Peterborough By election the Brexit party actually won...

See, if you take the Brexit Party's 9,801 votes, the conservative 7,243 votes and UKIP's 400 votes, you get 17,444.

If you take Labour, the lib dems, the Greens, and ALL others combined, you get 16,476.

Brexit won in peterborough, folks. Hard facts hitting home today.


Thats the way it works in elections now, right? Or is that only when it can be used as a pro-EU argument?

Now apply that same logic to the EU election.

No still lost imploding turtle.

Must be my lack of intellect.
I was merely pointing out I support some element of student finance, and as far as I know I’m not doing ‘junk degrees’.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Now apply that same logic to the EU election.

I'm sorry, is my obvious sarcasm on remainer logic not obvious enough?

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I'm sorry, is my obvious sarcasm on remainer logic not obvious enough?

Farage said that the EU election results shot that the UK hasn't changed its mind. To debunk his lie the rest of us looked at the EU election results and note that more people voted for unambiguously pro-EU parties than anti-EU parties and said "Herr Farage, how can you claim that the results prove that we haven't changed our mind when more people voted for pro-EU parties?"

No one is saying that on this basis Remain should be declared the winner. All we're saying is that it proves that the matter of whether the public even wants brexit or not isn't yet settled. So when you decide to sarcastically criticise Remainers they way you have done you're criticising them for an argument that isn't being made. And the reason you're doing that is because it's all you can do. You can't criticise us on the merits of the points we actually make so you have to criticise us for something you want us to have said.

elwaclaret wrote:No still lost imploding turtle.

Must be my lack of intellect.
I was merely pointing out I support some element of student finance, and as far as I know I’m not doing ‘junk degrees’.

I'm going to help you find the answer for yourself.

Think of all the degrees that exist. Now think of some of the degrees that some people whine about as "junk degrees". In fact, imagine for yourself what a "junk degree" is and how it might differ from degrees that these whiners consider not "junk".

Now, when you see me referring to what they refer to as "junk" degrees, do you think i'm talking about History and English Lit?

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm going to help you find the answer for yourself.

Think of all the degrees that exist. Now think of some of the degrees that some people whine about as "junk degrees". In fact, imagine for yourself what a "junk degree" is and how it might differ from degrees that these whiners consider not "junk".

Now, when you see me referring to what they refer to as "junk" degrees, do you think i'm talking about History and English Lit?

I see, and get your point. The problem I would argue is with curriculum. Most students have little work experience (due to age not laziness) and so accept courses thinking they are vocational, when often they are not.

As for politicians anyone coming out with a degree in politics should be met with”That is fantastic, now go and work for five years and you can be an MP. For me that is where the majority of issues lay.... there was never any such thing as a career politician. Life experience of the real world cannot be taught.

I'm not sure you do get my point. My point was that the common complain about "the yoof ov today" is they they go to university to get a degree in things like Gender Studies (not an actual degree, but one they like to pretend is real), and then in another breath complain against the idea of state funded tuition.

My point is that when you balloon the cost of a degree to £9,000 a year from £0 a year, and then have the government guarantee the student loans, what's going to happen in a capitalist society is that suddenly a lot of things are going to become degree-level subjects and the quality of those degrees aren't going to be as high as, say, a degree in History or English Lit. And then because those degrees arn't very good, and because you only start repaying your student loan when you're earning over a certain amount per year, and because there's a time limit on how long the money can be owe before the government steps in and writes off the loan. Therefore the government are already funding tuition fees, except they're funding the **** degrees and not your History or English Lit degree.

So basically what's happening is that you're paying for your quality degree while the government is paying for the **** degrees.

So when i'm mocking some people for arguing against free tuition while also complaining about **** degrees, that's why.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm not sure you do get my point. My point was that the common complain about "the yoof ov today" is they they go to university to get a degree in things like Gender Studies (not an actual degree, but one they like to pretend is real), and then in another breath complain against the idea of state funded tuition.

My point is that when you balloon the cost of a degree to £9,000 a year from £0 a year, and then have the government guarantee the student loans, what's going to happen in a capitalist society is that suddenly a lot of things are going to become degree-level subjects and the quality of those degrees aren't going to be as high as, say, a degree in History or English Lit. And then because those degrees arn't very good, and because you only start repaying your student loan when you're earning over a certain amount per year, and because there's a time limit on how long the money can be owe before the government steps in and writes off the loan. Therefore the government are already funding tuition fees, except they're funding the **** degrees and not your History or English Lit degree.

So basically what's happening is that you're paying for your quality degree while the government is paying for the **** degrees.

So when i'm mocking some people for arguing against free tuition while also complaining about **** degrees, that's why.

I am delighted to say Imploding Turtle... for once I am able to agree with you without reservation.

Lol, well done everybody.

This guy is as bad as "Tommy Robinson" and Mike Stutchbury for swindling moonbats out of money.
I used to think people who fund them deserve to lose out, but its becoming a vocation for these chancers

What kind of idiot would consider Mike Stutchbury and Tommy Robinson equally as bad at anything, let along fundraising when Tommy uses the money he raises to buy himself expensive houses. Surely no one would be that stupid.


Oh, Damo posted a post. Hi Damo. How's it going?

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm going to help you find the answer for yourself.

Think of all the degrees that exist. Now think of some of the degrees that some people whine about as "junk degrees". In fact, imagine for yourself what a "junk degree" is and how it might differ from degrees that these whiners consider not "junk".

Now, when you see me referring to what they refer to as "junk" degrees, do you think i'm talking about History and English Lit?

I'll help too.
A junk degree is any degree that results in you being unable to afford to pay back £9000 over the subsequent 40 years of your working life

Imploding Turtle wrote:What kind of idiot would consider Mike Stutchbury and Tommy Robinson equally as bad at anything, let along fundraising when Tommy uses the money he raises to buy himself expensive houses. Surely no one would be that stupid.


Oh, Damo posted a post. Hi Damo. How's it going?

I'll reply to your next post, when you explain what Stutchbury was crowdfunding...

Damo wrote:I'll reply to your next post, when you explain what Stutchbury was crowdfunding...

You're the one who equated him with Tommy Robinson. Why don't you explain how they're the same?

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're the one who equated him with Tommy Robinson. Why don't you explain how they're the same?

My OP was faiy self explanatory.
You countered by defending Stutchbury without an explanation why.
I know why, but I'm waiting for your explanation

Damo wrote:My OP was faiy self explanatory.
You countered by defending Stutchbury without an explanation why.
I know why, but I'm waiting for your explanation

Because i don't see any similarity between him and Stuchbury. I thought i'd made that quite clear. Were the words I used too big?

By all means correct me if i'm wrong by explaining why you think they are similar.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Because i don't see any similarity between him and Stuchbury. I thought i'd made that quite clear. Were the words I used too big?

By all means correct me if i'm wrong by explaining why you think they are similar.

Are you one of the people who donated to Stutchbury or something?

Damo wrote:Are you one of the people who donated to Stutchbury or something?

What the **** are you even talking about?

Are you not going to explain why you think they're the same? Why are you stalling on explaining your opinion?

This is why people like you are ****. You'll throw out accusations and innuendo about people, and then when someone asks you to explain your reasoning you can't, so you deflect. Or sometimes you just flat out ignore the question.

Imploding Turtle wrote:What the **** are you even talking about?

Are you not going to explain why you think they're the same? Why are you stalling on explaining your opinion?

This is why people like you are ****. You'll throw out accusations and innuendo about people, and then when someone asks you to explain your reasoning you can't, so you deflect. Or sometimes you just flat out ignore the question.

Watch as i'm proven correct.

Imploding Turtle wrote:What the **** are you even talking about?

Are you not going to explain why you think they're the same? Why are you stalling on explaining your opinion?

This is why people like you are ****. You'll throw out accusations and innuendo about people, and then when someone asks you to explain your reasoning you can't, so you deflect. Or sometimes you just flat out ignore the question.

I'm not sure why you start so many threads on these subjects, if peoples replies anger you to the point of name calling and swearing.

What link between "Robinson" and Stutchbury dont you understand given my first post on the subject?
I'll help, both "Robinson" and Stutchbury have recently asked their army of cyber activists for money because their particular fight is expensive and doesn't pay well.
I'm sure you can testify on behalf of both of them, that sitting around the house all day, arguing with people on the internet instead of going to work isn't especially rewarding, financially.
Yet both of them want other people to fund their existence

Damo wrote:I'm not sure why you start so many threads on these subjects, if peoples replies anger you to the point of name calling and swearing.

I said you are ****. "Poo" would be the unfiltered version of what i said. That's not name calling. If i said you were bad at something would that be name-calling?

What link between "Robinson" and Stutchbury dont you understand given my first post on the subject?
I'll help, both "Robinson" and Stutchbury have recently asked their army of cyber activists for money because their particular fight is expensive and doesn't pay well.
I'm sure you can testify on behalf of both of them, that sitting around the house all day, arguing with people on the internet instead of going to work isn't especially rewarding, financially.
Yet both of them want other people to fund their existence

Finally an answer, and as expected it is indeed a false equivalence.

Robinson scams his donors by requesting money for his cause and then buying himself nice things with it. How else could he afford his nice big, expensive house?

In what way has Stuchbury similarly scammed his donors?

In what way is this guy prosecuting Johnson similarly scamming his donors?

The truth? As far as you are aware, they aren't. And you know that. There's a reason you didn't set your equivalence test at how the money was being spent and instead set it as the fact that the money was being raised at all. Which means you're saying that ANY person or organisation who crowdfunds is equal to Tommy Robinson. I'll remember that when Poppy Day comes along because apparently, according to you, the Royal British Legion and Tommy Robinson are the same.