Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Conspiring to mislead the House.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:53 pm

dls wrote:It seems t me that this enire question is very likely to be a matter for the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the House in question.

If the comments had been restricted to that House, then that would seem to be the case, but since he seems intent on misleading the world at large, the question has a wider scope.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:39 pm

MPs can claim Parliamentary privilege for things they say in the House.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20288
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:38 pm

atticus wrote:MPs can claim Parliamentary privilege for things they say in the House.

Presumably not if, while in the house, they say it on Twitter.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:23 am

atticus wrote:But if the necessary facts cannot be proven, an offence under the particular statute that you identified has not been committed. Or do you think otherwise?

Which section of the Act sets out this exclusion?
What level of proof is required for the crime to have occurred, and to whom does it have to be proven?
If there is no crime then why would anybody investigate? If they did then are they creating the crime by finding the evidence?
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby atticus » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:36 am

If all the necessary elements of the offence, as set out in section 1, are not proved, a prosecution will fail.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20288
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:39 am

atticus wrote:If all the necessary elements of the offence, as set out in section 1, are not proved, a prosecution will fail.

Of course a prosecution will fail if the offence was not committed, which is what you said earlier.
You also affirmed what you'd said and then triggered a significant disruption across the board rather than admit you'd got it wrong.

Hadn't you better go back and edit all your earlier posts and pretend that was what you said in the first place? Then you can pretend that it was all my fault.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby shootist » Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:31 pm

Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:But if the necessary facts cannot be proven, an offence under the particular statute that you identified has not been committed. Or do you think otherwise?

Which section of the Act sets out this exclusion?
What level of proof is required for the crime to have occurred, and to whom does it have to be proven?
If there is no crime then why would anybody investigate? If they did then are they creating the crime by finding the evidence?


Allegations of crime or quite often investigated but turn out not to be verified.

If a person has his face slashed to the bone and his jaw broken during an engagement in the street, then unless his attacked can persuade the court of a self defence plea or some other defence, the crime of assault has been committed. If the defendant is acquitted, say because of mistaken identity, then the crime of assault has still quite definitely been committed.

Having read that part of the Act referred to on this thread, Atticus correctly points out those parts of the act that if not proven will show that the offence was not in fact ever committed.

For example. Let's suppose that I emailed you a picture of a vagina, perhaps to illustrate some obscure point. If it can't be proved that I intend to cause you or any other person distress or anxiety then no offence has been, or ever was, committed. OTOH, If I accompanied the picture with the words "I saw this and thought of you." then I suspect a conviction could result.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby shootist » Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:36 pm

Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:If all the necessary elements of the offence, as set out in section 1, are not proved, a prosecution will fail.

Of course a prosecution will fail if the offence was not committed, which is what you said earlier.


Those two statements have entirely different meanings.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:51 pm

shootist wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:But if the necessary facts cannot be proven, an offence under the particular statute that you identified has not been committed. Or do you think otherwise?

Which section of the Act sets out this exclusion?
What level of proof is required for the crime to have occurred, and to whom does it have to be proven?
If there is no crime then why would anybody investigate? If they did then are they creating the crime by finding the evidence?


Allegations of crime or quite often investigated but turn out not to be verified...


Yes, but according to Atticus, if it cannot be proved then the crime hasn't happened. If it hasn't happened then why investigate it.
It seems to me utterly ridiculous which was why I invited Atti to a correction, but instead he affirmed the point, got uppity about the challenge and has not yet changed his stance... although this morning's post suggests he now knows what is right.

shootist wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:If all the necessary elements of the offence, as set out in section 1, are not proved, a prosecution will fail.

Of course a prosecution will fail if the offence was not committed, which is what you said earlier.


Those two statements have entirely different meanings.

Indeed. Perhaps they would be better if combined:
According to Atticus wrote:If all the necessary elements of the offence, as set out in section 1, are not proved, then an offence is not committed and a prosecution will fail.

Still looks like nonsense to me...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby dls » Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:40 am

if it cannot be proved then the crime hasn't happened. If it hasn't happened then why investigate it.


As it stands that does not quite make sense.
Many people report what they think was acrime. The police investigte it and discover that for one reason or another no crime actually was committed. An example
Many years ago, my sone was about to go on a week's horse riding camp.He couldn't find his rucksack, so we threw everything (a lot) into a sleeping bag. He took one end, I the other, across our shoulders, and ran across the road, throwing it into the boot of my car before chasing off. As usual he was nearly late.

Our neighbours (!!!) suspected a fould deed, a crime, and a body disposal. They rang the police. The police turned up to investigate it, shortly after my return, and amicably enough, accepted that no crime had in fact occurred. It was clearly right that they should investigate a suspected crime which had not taken place.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12388
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

PreviousNext

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron