,
5 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
@CWilford @iainmartin1 @MrHarryCole @DAaronovitch @robertshrimsley @going4golds In this case there were no agents as it was a referendum not an election - campaigners have no special status (other than through control of their spending) as what is being determined is a question, not whether an individual is to be elected.
@CWilford @iainmartin1 @MrHarryCole @DAaronovitch @robertshrimsley @going4golds Moreover: (1) the judge was obviously wrong (and I'm confident will be overturned in a JR of this decision, before the case gets anywhere near the Crown Court) in finding that BJ acted as a public official while campaigning: he no more did than a Secretary of State does...
@CWilford @iainmartin1 @MrHarryCole @DAaronovitch @robertshrimsley @going4golds ...in an election;
(2) there is a clear distinction in election law between false statements about the personal character of a candidate (criminalised under s 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983) and *any* other political statements;
(2) there is a clear distinction in election law between false statements about the personal character of a candidate (criminalised under s 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983) and *any* other political statements;
@CWilford @iainmartin1 @MrHarryCole @DAaronovitch @robertshrimsley @going4golds (3) this accords with jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court in determining Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR (the right to free elections): false statements about personal character prevent a free election because electors are given a false understanding...
@CWilford @iainmartin1 @MrHarryCole @DAaronovitch @robertshrimsley @going4golds ...of the personal character of the person they are electing; whereas pollical claims are, par excellence, a matter of public debate that can and should exposed during it.
