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.
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.
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.
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.