Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/" Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/ Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules "They were broken because of the incorrect advice given out by the Electoral Commission. That's what the court case was about simpleton. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/ Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules
They were broken because of the incorrect advice given out by the Electoral Commission. That's what the court case was about simpleton. "They were broken, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/ Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules
They were broken because of the incorrect advice given out by the Electoral Commission. That's what the court case was about simpleton.
They were broken, right?"The Electoral Commission advised Vote Leave on what they could do during the referendum in 2016. Vote Leave followed the Electoral Commissions advice. The advice the Electoral Commission gave was wrong and that's why the spending limits were subsequently broken. If The Electoral Commission had given the correct advice instead of the incorrect advice then the spending limits would not have been broken. Spending limits were broken as a direct result of the Electoral Commissions advice. Remoaner in chief Lord Adonis gets it so what is it about this that you are not getting???? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/ Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules
They were broken because of the incorrect advice given out by the Electoral Commission. That's what the court case was about simpleton.
They were broken, right?
The Electoral Commission advised Vote Leave on what they could do during the referendum in 2016. Vote Leave followed the Electoral Commissions advice. The advice the Electoral Commission gave was wrong and that's why the spending limits were subsequently broken. If The Electoral Commission had given the correct advice instead of the incorrect advice then the spending limits would not have been broken. Spending limits were broken as a direct result of the Electoral Commissions advice.
Remoaner in chief Lord Adonis gets it so what is it about this that you are not getting????
"Don't get annoyed with me, you do this all the time. You read a headline that you like and not the text. 'The Commission's chief executive Claire Bassett said: "The High Court has not ruled on the advice we gave to Vote Leave. Our advice was generic and covered hypothetical scenarios. "At no point did we give any advice or discuss payments to Aggregate IQ. "Suggestions made otherwise today on social media are categorically untrue. "Put simply, today's ruling states that donations from one campaign group to another are lawful, but that those donations must be declared as expenditure by the person or campaign group making the donation, if it is for a specific purpose. This is something that Vote Leave did not do."' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/ Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules
They were broken because of the incorrect advice given out by the Electoral Commission. That's what the court case was about simpleton.
They were broken, right?
The Electoral Commission advised Vote Leave on what they could do during the referendum in 2016. Vote Leave followed the Electoral Commissions advice. The advice the Electoral Commission gave was wrong and that's why the spending limits were subsequently broken. If The Electoral Commission had given the correct advice instead of the incorrect advice then the spending limits would not have been broken. Spending limits were broken as a direct result of the Electoral Commissions advice.
Remoaner in chief Lord Adonis gets it so what is it about this that you are not getting????
Don't get annoyed with me, you do this all the time. You read a headline that you like and not the text.
'The Commission's chief executive Claire Bassett said: "The High Court has not ruled on the advice we gave to Vote Leave. Our advice was generic and covered hypothetical scenarios.
"At no point did we give any advice or discuss payments to Aggregate IQ.
"Suggestions made otherwise today on social media are categorically untrue.
"Put simply, today's ruling states that donations from one campaign group to another are lawful, but that those donations must be declared as expenditure by the person or campaign group making the donation, if it is for a specific purpose. This is something that Vote Leave did not do."'"Centaur doesn't like anything said about vote leave as it’s his little baby | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/ Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules
They were broken because of the incorrect advice given out by the Electoral Commission. That's what the court case was about simpleton.
They were broken, right?
The Electoral Commission advised Vote Leave on what they could do during the referendum in 2016. Vote Leave followed the Electoral Commissions advice. The advice the Electoral Commission gave was wrong and that's why the spending limits were subsequently broken. If The Electoral Commission had given the correct advice instead of the incorrect advice then the spending limits would not have been broken. Spending limits were broken as a direct result of the Electoral Commissions advice.
Remoaner in chief Lord Adonis gets it so what is it about this that you are not getting????
Don't get annoyed with me, you do this all the time. You read a headline that you like and not the text.
'The Commission's chief executive Claire Bassett said: "The High Court has not ruled on the advice we gave to Vote Leave. Our advice was generic and covered hypothetical scenarios.
"At no point did we give any advice or discuss payments to Aggregate IQ.
"Suggestions made otherwise today on social media are categorically untrue.
"Put simply, today's ruling states that donations from one campaign group to another are lawful, but that those donations must be declared as expenditure by the person or campaign group making the donation, if it is for a specific purpose. This is something that Vote Leave did not do."'"Who said i was annoyed? You do this all the time, and assume (wrongly) how other people are feeling? I'm not annoyed at all, and just stating what the court has ruled. Has the court ruling annoyed you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/ Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules
They were broken because of the incorrect advice given out by the Electoral Commission. That's what the court case was about simpleton.
They were broken, right?
The Electoral Commission advised Vote Leave on what they could do during the referendum in 2016. Vote Leave followed the Electoral Commissions advice. The advice the Electoral Commission gave was wrong and that's why the spending limits were subsequently broken. If The Electoral Commission had given the correct advice instead of the incorrect advice then the spending limits would not have been broken. Spending limits were broken as a direct result of the Electoral Commissions advice.
Remoaner in chief Lord Adonis gets it so what is it about this that you are not getting????
Don't get annoyed with me, you do this all the time. You read a headline that you like and not the text.
'The Commission's chief executive Claire Bassett said: "The High Court has not ruled on the advice we gave to Vote Leave. Our advice was generic and covered hypothetical scenarios.
"At no point did we give any advice or discuss payments to Aggregate IQ.
"Suggestions made otherwise today on social media are categorically untrue.
"Put simply, today's ruling states that donations from one campaign group to another are lawful, but that those donations must be declared as expenditure by the person or campaign group making the donation, if it is for a specific purpose. This is something that Vote Leave did not do."'
Who said i was annoyed? You do this all the time, and assume (wrongly) how other people are feeling?
I'm not annoyed at all, and just stating what the court has ruled. Has the court ruling annoyed you? "No dearest. It hasn't. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-49048431 As has already been pointed out, the ruling exonerates Grimes of deliberately filling out a form in a misleading way. The Judge says that the Electoral Commission had been overly harsh in their interpretation of the law. It does not exonerate the Leave Campaign of breaking the law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/ Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules
They were broken because of the incorrect advice given out by the Electoral Commission. That's what the court case was about simpleton.
They were broken, right?
The Electoral Commission advised Vote Leave on what they could do during the referendum in 2016. Vote Leave followed the Electoral Commissions advice. The advice the Electoral Commission gave was wrong and that's why the spending limits were subsequently broken. If The Electoral Commission had given the correct advice instead of the incorrect advice then the spending limits would not have been broken. Spending limits were broken as a direct result of the Electoral Commissions advice.
Remoaner in chief Lord Adonis gets it so what is it about this that you are not getting????
Don't get annoyed with me, you do this all the time. You read a headline that you like and not the text.
'The Commission's chief executive Claire Bassett said: "The High Court has not ruled on the advice we gave to Vote Leave. Our advice was generic and covered hypothetical scenarios.
"At no point did we give any advice or discuss payments to Aggregate IQ.
"Suggestions made otherwise today on social media are categorically untrue.
"Put simply, today's ruling states that donations from one campaign group to another are lawful, but that those donations must be declared as expenditure by the person or campaign group making the donation, if it is for a specific purpose. This is something that Vote Leave did not do."'
Who said i was annoyed? You do this all the time, and assume (wrongly) how other people are feeling?
I'm not annoyed at all, and just stating what the court has ruled. Has the court ruling annoyed you?
No dearest. It hasn't.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-49048431
As has already been pointed out, the ruling exonerates Grimes of deliberately filling out a form in a misleading way.
The Judge says that the Electoral Commission had been overly harsh in their interpretation of the law.
It does not exonerate the Leave Campaign of breaking the law."It begs the question though, would the law have been broken if the correct advice had been given by the Electoral Commission in the first place? The former chief executive of Vote Leave Matthew Elliott suggest that Vote Leave would not have broken the law, had it been given the correct advice by the Electoral Commission. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/ Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules
They were broken because of the incorrect advice given out by the Electoral Commission. That's what the court case was about simpleton.
They were broken, right?
The Electoral Commission advised Vote Leave on what they could do during the referendum in 2016. Vote Leave followed the Electoral Commissions advice. The advice the Electoral Commission gave was wrong and that's why the spending limits were subsequently broken. If The Electoral Commission had given the correct advice instead of the incorrect advice then the spending limits would not have been broken. Spending limits were broken as a direct result of the Electoral Commissions advice.
Remoaner in chief Lord Adonis gets it so what is it about this that you are not getting????
Don't get annoyed with me, you do this all the time. You read a headline that you like and not the text.
'The Commission's chief executive Claire Bassett said: "The High Court has not ruled on the advice we gave to Vote Leave. Our advice was generic and covered hypothetical scenarios.
"At no point did we give any advice or discuss payments to Aggregate IQ.
"Suggestions made otherwise today on social media are categorically untrue.
"Put simply, today's ruling states that donations from one campaign group to another are lawful, but that those donations must be declared as expenditure by the person or campaign group making the donation, if it is for a specific purpose. This is something that Vote Leave did not do."'
Who said i was annoyed? You do this all the time, and assume (wrongly) how other people are feeling?
I'm not annoyed at all, and just stating what the court has ruled. Has the court ruling annoyed you?
No dearest. It hasn't.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-49048431
As has already been pointed out, the ruling exonerates Grimes of deliberately filling out a form in a misleading way.
The Judge says that the Electoral Commission had been overly harsh in their interpretation of the law.
It does not exonerate the Leave Campaign of breaking the law.
It begs the question though, would the law have been broken if the correct advice had been given by the Electoral Commission in the first place? The former chief executive of Vote Leave Matthew Elliott suggest that Vote Leave would not have broken the law, had it been given the correct advice by the Electoral Commission. "The High Court thought that they knowingly broke the law. They had the same evidence, just considering a different matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But does it matter tho does it really make a difference it won’t change anything so why bother lol" That is basically what "they" said in east germany when they were told that cardboard was the way forward in automotive construction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Shouldn't really make too much of a difference , our NHS will still get its 1st weekly payment of £350 million on 7th November if Johnson takes us out of the EU on 31st October " Johnson, the only other Guy to enter parliament with good intentions? Might be burned before 7th November arrives? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/ Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules
They were broken because of the incorrect advice given out by the Electoral Commission. That's what the court case was about simpleton.
They were broken, right?"So if I (as the expert and acting in an official capacity) tell you that it is legal to drive on the right hand side on Saturday mornings who would be liable for the inevitable accident? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The High Court has ruled that the Electoral Commission gave incorrect advice to the Vote Leave campaign on spending limits during the EU referendum in 2016. Back in 2016 the Electoral Commission had told Vote Leave that they were allowed to give money to the Beleave campaign (an associate campaign for young Brexiteers, and run by young Brexiteers). Then after the referendum result, which Leave won, the Electoral commission decided to change its mind and fined Vote Leave and the leader of the BeLeave campaign Darren Grimes, and referred him to the Police. Both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes decided to appeal these fines through the Courts. The Courts have now ruled in Vote Leave and Mr Grimes favour and said that the Electoral Commission was wrong to have given the advice that they did. Remain campaigner Lord Adonis speaking on the BBC admitted that "It sounds to me that the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent." In his ruling at the High court, Lord Justice Leggatt said the Electoral Commission had 'misinterpreted the definition of referendum expenses' as defined by the Political parties, Elections and referendum act." Speaking after the ruling former Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said "should the Electoral Commission chose not to appeal this ruling they will be admitting they gave Vote Leave incorrect advice, and they should immediately reconsider the unfair fines they are seeking to impose on us. Vote Leave would not have made the donations that it did (to the BeLeave campaign) had it not been for the Electoral Commissions clear advice. This whole situation is a mess of the Electoral Commission's own making and their defeat in the High court today must force a rethink. They now have a chance to rectify their errors, they should do the right thing. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/19/brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-20000-electoral/ Amusingly, the link indicates that the Leave campaign still broke the election spending rules
They were broken because of the incorrect advice given out by the Electoral Commission. That's what the court case was about simpleton.
They were broken, right?
So if I (as the expert and acting in an official capacity) tell you that it is legal to drive on the right hand side on Saturday mornings who would be liable for the inevitable accident? "Scroll down a bit further. The ruling was about something rather different to what is implied by the OP | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
