This should’ve always been the case.
But what of those not elected or in public office? Farage for example. He stopped being a MEP and never has been elected or appointed since. But he is still out spouting lies.
“Under the proposals it would be a criminal offence for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to wilfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive.”
I think candidate for election would cover that.
It would now, but he’s just been a bloody agitant for a number of years.
Even if this manages to pass, it’d only apply to those currently in or candidating for the Senedd. This wouldn’t affect the UK government (and thus Farage) at all, even if he were attempting to get re-elected.
Obviously, but it’s an example of a lying agitator it wouldn’t deal with.
deleted by creator
I think it’s a step.
We also need to enforce existing news laws on any media outlet that calls itself “news”.
There is so much disinformation right now and there will probably be multiple solutions needed.
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.
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.
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.
It’s sad how astonished I am to read about this. It’s weird enough that there are some countries that require the news to present factual information, but to require truth from politicians seems way too right to ever become a real thing.
With power comes responsibility, and I like that politicians should be punished for lying.
They’ll find ways around it. There was a bit of a scandal here recently after it came to light that public servants were instructed to be as vague as possible when answering questions
baby steps… patch hole after hole. the alternative is do nothing, and that’s a pretty crap outcome
Never let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Sounds good philosophically, but I can’t help but feel like it could turn into a dystopia.
Who will be in charge of defining what is to be considered true, and what should be known by the accused? Who will be able to challenge this truth giver?
How do you make the difference between false information out of ignorance and willfully misleading information?Out of fear, will every politician, even honest ones, be forced to introduce their speech with some precautionary standard phrase like “This is fully based on assumptions and the truth of those statements cannot be guaranteed” like people say “I am not a lawyer”, eventually putting every political intention on an equal level of uncertainty? (That’s standard troll farm goal)
I believe this job currently belongs to journalism, although we know how imperfect that is, will a law and a Justice system do better?
Every court has standards and procedures for establishing legitimate admissible evidence and verifying it to the satisfaction of a jury. We already have plenty of law about lying under oath, perjury. What if you make a politicians’ oath of office include a duty to tell the truth when speaking in an official capacity, whether that’s in a speech, in the legislature, to a journalist or a constituent, under punishment of perjury.
Imagine if this passed in the u.s. 99% of all politicians would be prosecuted. Politicians would accuse each other if this then recant on day 13
I could become king of the world, you could grow a third leg, we could all burn in a fiery hellpit.
keir starmer looking at his ten pledges: 👀
Who gets to choose what the truth is?
