Blatant Lies by Government - Completely Legal?

edanto

In a local Galway paper, there's a quote from a Labour TD, "The burden of the promissory notes is gone forever" That's demonstrably untrue (the burden has perhaps been slightly eased), but it seems to be the core of a deceptive government messaging campaign (aimed at local level). Another example would be letter from a FG sent out to Galway constituents which starts

"The elimination of the promissory notes following the conclusion of discussions.....historic turning point in the story of our economic revival"

If it were an ad for a commercial product, they wouldn't be allowed make such claims, but of course there's no such regulation for political claims.

This PQ on the subject of non-regulation for political messages - http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/07/04/00136.asp says

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte) wrote:

I am informed that certain marketing communications that do not have any commercial element do not come within the remit of the Code of Standards for Advertising, Promotional and Direct Marketing drawn up by the ASAI. I am not aware that any Department of State or public body has a role in regulating such ‘non-commercial’ advertising campaigns. The general civil and criminal law in relation to publication would of course be applicable.

Is there any such law relating to truth in publication? I doubt it, just wondering if anyone's ever looked into it....

Carra23

Politician tells a blatant lie :eek:

Don't agree with it but crackheads smoke crack, wino's drink wine and politicians tell lies. Shamefull but fact.

G Power

the burden hasn't even slightly been eased

I attended a meeting on Monday where there was an economist from NUIG trying to explain what had happened with the 25 billion since the creation of the IRBC, and in the end we will be lucky to "save" 1 billion over the course of the next 3 years before we start to sell these new bonds, at which time the 1 billion we have "saved" will probably have been swallowed up over the 3 years on some other waste of money

a deal my ar$e!!

nesf

He'd probably use some sleight of hand like "I was referring to the promissory notes themselves, not the associated debt" or some such nonsense.

G Power

nesf wrote: »

He'd probably use some sleight of hand like "I was referring to the promissory notes themselves, not the associated debt" or some such nonsense.

about as honest as the 3 card trick so :eek:

if anyone is wondering if an outright lie is legal well if ye ever find yourselves in any court of law for even a menial reason try lying through your teeth in there and see how legal it is :pac::pac:

goose2005

the same thing goes for any political ad, I complained to the ASAI about a political ad with a pretty bare-faced lie in it, and they said back that they had no authority there.

Good loser

We were lucky (so far) with the deal we got. It may unravel.

That Pearse guy thinks we can 'write them off'.

hatrickpatrick

^This isn't about the deal, it's about politicians bending the truth and how to stop them.

Eamonn Gilmore is guilty of deliberate and blatant false advertising as exposed by wikileaks. I quote, "Gilmore, who has led calls against a second referendum, has told the Embassy separately that he fully expects, and would support, holding a second referendum in 2009. He explained his public posture of opposition to a second referendum as "politically necessary" for the time being. "

I would be totally in favour of an immediate bye-election being called automatically if a politician was caught red handed and there was no question of them possibly not knowing the truth when they lied, or lying accidentally. If the people decide they can tolerate false advertising, they can vote them back in.

It would seriously cut down on the amount of bullsh!t we get at election time, promising to do this and that which they have no intention of doing, because they know once they're in they're safe for five years to go against everything they ostensibly stand for. Parliamentary democracy as it stands is an absolute farce because of this.

golfball37

Michael Noonan said on Pat Kenny on Feb 8th that the original PN deal was illegal. Makes you wonder why the big rush to rubber stamp "the deal" doesn't it?

They are all crooks and quislings at this stage.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^This isn't about the deal, it's about politicians bending the truth and how to stop them.

Eamonn Gilmore is guilty of deliberate and blatant false advertising as exposed by wikileaks. I quote, "Gilmore, who has led calls against a second referendum, has told the Embassy separately that he fully expects, and would support, holding a second referendum in 2009. He explained his public posture of opposition to a second referendum as "politically necessary" for the time being. "

I would be totally in favour of an immediate bye-election being called automatically if a politician was caught red handed and there was no question of them possibly not knowing the truth when they lied, or lying accidentally. If the people decide they can tolerate false advertising, they can vote them back in.

It would seriously cut down on the amount of bullsh!t we get at election time, promising to do this and that which they have no intention of doing, because they know once they're in they're safe for five years to go against everything they ostensibly stand for. Parliamentary democracy as it stands is an absolute farce because of this.

Grow up. Only the gullible believe politicians' promises. It's you that will have to adjust to the 'real world'.

Now that, at last, you know they lie you have no reason to complain further.

An Coilean

Good loser wrote: »

We were lucky (so far) with the deal we got. It may unravel.

That Pearse guy thinks we can 'write them off'.

He's right though, we can.
Maybe you think we should'nt, but thats not the same as cant.

nesf

An Coilean wrote: »

He's right though, we can.
Maybe you think we should'nt, but thats not the same as cant.

The implied thing is that we can write them off with little to no consequences.

An Coilean

nesf wrote: »

The implied thing is that we can write them off with little to no consequences.

I don't think the implication is that there would be llittle or no consequences, just that on balance it would be better than what we are currently doing.

Personally I think it might have been the better option a year or two ago, at this point in time I think we are better off with the stability of the current deal and that we should take a wait and see approch.
We can continue on with the current deal and have repudiating the bank debt as an option if need be at a later time, if we do it now then we are sealed into that choice.

Good loser

An Coilean wrote: »

I don't think the implication is that there would be llittle or no consequences, just that on balance it would be better than what we are currently doing.

Personally I think it might have been the better option a year or two ago, at this point in time I think we are better off with the stability of the current deal and that we should take a wait and see approch.
We can continue on with the current deal and have repudiating the bank debt as an option if need be at a later time, if we do it now then we are sealed into that choice.

You contradict yourself in the first two sentences. Pearse, living in a simplistic world, does that over and over again.

In your last sentence you refer to the 'bank debt'. It's a long time since it was that. Even as promissory notes it was State debt. Check out Scofflaw's contributions on the matter.

nesf

An Coilean wrote: »

I don't think the implication is that there would be llittle or no consequences, just that on balance it would be better than what we are currently doing.

Based on? (Genuine curiosity)