,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Lots of interesting responses to my thread about prosecuting Boris Johnson [👇], some of which have been very helpful in clarifying the issues involved. I have to switch off twitter for a bit, but here are three responses/clarifications.
1. I am not suggesting politicians should be above the law: simply that political *arguments* must be adjudicated by the electorate, not the courts. There is a difference between criminal acts (faking ballot papers, taking illegal money) & claims that can be contested in debate.
2. There is a widespread sense that our democracy is malfunctioning: that old & new media corrupt debate & that it's too hard to hold politicians to account. I agree: but the solution is to fix our democracy, not to turn the courts into Platonic guardians. And yes: that's hard.
3. There is a good argument that the courts can help to expose malpractice which the media or politicians are happy to let lie. A better instrument, in time, might be a public inquiry, perhaps with a truth & reconciliation element. All sides have lessons to learn from this.
I have to get off twitter now, but thanks to all the people who responded politely - both those who agreed and the many who strongly differed!
