Jump to content

Alistair Carmichael


Jaggernaut
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why is it fundamentally misconceived, in your view?

 

As I undertsand it the Petition has been presented under s.106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.This prohibits making or publishing "any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct" if it is for "for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election," Nicola Sturgeon was not a candidate at the election, let alone a candidate in orkney and Shetland so the section doesn't apply.

In any event, even if it did there is a defence if when publishing the information "he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true. " Given the findings of the enquiry (for which, BTW, there is NO credible source for the ridiculous figure of £1.4M quoted) that the author of the memo believed it to be genuine I cannot see how that defence, were it required, would fail.

Edited by Dunfermline Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the entire ref by the yes/snpcamp... they certainly didn't have a valid economic plan.

 

Deflection.

 

I challenge anybody to produce one scrap of evidence for the SNP "blaming England."

 

Westminster is not "England" (though most unionist MPs and their supporters probably equate the two).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I undertsand it the Petition has been presented under s.106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.This prohibits making or publishing "any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct" if it is for "for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election," Nicola Sturgeon was not a candidate at the election, let alone a candidate in orkney and Shetland so the section doesn't apply.

In any event, even if it did there is a defence if when publishing the information "he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true. " Given the findings of the enquiry (for which, BTW, there is NO credible source for the ridiculous figure of £1.4M quoted) that the author of the memo believed it to be genuine I cannot see how that defence, were it required, would fail.

 

Oh my, you don't seem to understand. So let me explain things to you: The candidate was Carmichael himself!

 

Now, Carmichael has admitted that he lied in at least two instances about the untruthful memo, and he did this while he was a candidate in the election. He provided false statements of fact while he was a candidate, and if the truth were known before the election was held then the outcome for the candidate - Carmichael - might have been very different.

 

I hope you now understand that this is about Sturgeon, much as you might wish it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point taken - although it could hardly have been made with less grace. However, the point is still wrong.

 

Firstly, the section is clearly aimed at false statements about the character or conduct of candidates by 3rd parties and there is no precedent for stretching the meaning in the way you suggest.

 

Secondly, the section deals with what is actually said - not what was reported. AC denied leaking the memo. AC did not leak the memo. AC is reported to have said that he only became aware of the memo when he was called by the telegraph. However, what he actually said was that he had not SEEN the memo before it was published. All his statements are 100% technically accurate, if somewhat disingenuous but that is politics and the section is designed to deal with outright untruths - not political statements, which are exempt from the provisions.

 

It is certainly an interesting attempt to stretch the meaning and intention of the section but I am absolutely sure it is doomed to failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point taken - although it could hardly have been made with less grace. However, the point is still wrong.

 

Firstly, the section is clearly aimed at false statements about the character or conduct of candidates by 3rd parties and there is no precedent for stretching the meaning in the way you suggest.

 

Secondly, the section deals with what is actually said - not what was reported. AC denied leaking the memo. AC did not leak the memo. AC is reported to have said that he only became aware of the memo when he was called by the telegraph. However, what he actually said was that he had not SEEN the memo before it was published. All his statements are 100% technically accurate, if somewhat disingenuous but that is politics and the section is designed to deal with outright untruths - not political statements, which are exempt from the provisions.

 

It is certainly an interesting attempt to stretch the meaning and intention of the section but I am absolutely sure it is doomed to failure.

 

I don't think your doing too bad a job of "stretching the meaning!"

 

But actually I suspect you might be right and that the campaign will fail, not because it doesn't have merit, but because too many others (including Cameron) are probably involved. Perfidious Albion will do what it always does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to pick up on one thing here. There's no way in hell that the inquiry cost £1.4 million. There's no chance in hell it cost even 1% of that.

 

The Scotland Office's annual budget is about £8 million. £1.4 million represents about 1/6 of that or two months. This is almost certainly how that figure was arrived at.

 

This assumes:

 

1. The Scotland Office did absolutely nothing but investigate the leak for two months and assigned every single one of its staff to it (several hundred people)

2. They weren't obliged to pay these people salaries irrespective of whether they were assigned to the leak inquiry

 

Both of these things are just intuitively implausible.

 

As a further indicator of just how ridiculous this figure is and not credible, the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War had full-year expenditure in 2009-10 of £2.2million, including A dedicated staffing bill of over £1.1 million, £600k spent on public hearings and £400k on office and publication costs.

 

Anyone who thinks this inquiry was more than 3 or 4 civil servants sitting down with Alistair Carmichael, his SpAd and maybe David Mundell and saying "so who did it then" doesn't understand how government works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to pick up on one thing here. There's no way in hell that the inquiry cost £1.4 million. There's no chance in hell it cost even 1% of that.

 

The Scotland Office's annual budget is about £8 million. £1.4 million represents about 1/6 of that or two months. This is almost certainly how that figure was arrived at.

 

This assumes:

 

1. The Scotland Office did absolutely nothing but investigate the leak for two months and assigned every single one of its staff to it (several hundred people)

2. They weren't obliged to pay these people salaries irrespective of whether they were assigned to the leak inquiry

 

Both of these things are just intuitively implausible.

 

As a further indicator of just how ridiculous this figure is and not credible, the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War had full-year expenditure in 2009-10 of £2.2million, including A dedicated staffing bill of over £1.1 million, £600k spent on public hearings and £400k on office and publication costs.

 

Anyone who thinks this inquiry was more than 3 or 4 civil servants sitting down with Alistair Carmichael, his SpAd and maybe David Mundell and saying "so who did it then" doesn't understand how government works.

 

You're right, and your last sentence, which probably aptly describes the "inquiry," makes the whole affair even worse, with Mundell at the heart of it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, and your last sentence, which probably aptly describes the "inquiry," makes the whole affair even worse, with Mundell at the heart of it too.

 

Don't disagree with anything that Woodstock Jag has said but doesn't this take us back to the outcome of the inquiry? So in terms of hard fact, can anyone prove without a question of doubt that Carmichael is guilty? If not, we go round in circles and he just keeps denying it was him; or am I missing something? If this is the case, surely time to move on. I mean, is the game worth the candle and would the SNP expect to win this seat? (Thinking that the islands voted no in the referendum; so likely not to vote SNP. I know it's different issues and some no voters voted SNP in the election etc.)

 

Also, what more could the Scotland Office do? Torture the guy into a confession?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i questioned the £1.4m on the first page, and am more inclined to believe wj's assessment than what the press say.

 

with reference to mj's post ..... carmichael only won seat by something like 871 if old age memory is right ..... so in terms of winning seat, if truth was out before 7th may the snp would likely have won it, and see no reason why in a by election the snp wouldn't take it from lib dems.

 

as for mj's last suggestion ..... damn good idea. :happy2:

Edited by yoda-jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't disagree with anything that Woodstock Jag has said but doesn't this take us back to the outcome of the inquiry? So in terms of hard fact, can anyone prove without a question of doubt that Carmichael is guilty? If not, we go round in circles and he just keeps denying it was him; or am I missing something? If this is the case, surely time to move on. I mean, is the game worth the candle and would the SNP expect to win this seat? (Thinking that the islands voted no in the referendum; so likely not to vote SNP. I know it's different issues and some no voters voted SNP in the election etc.)

 

Also, what more could the Scotland Office do? Torture the guy into a confession?

 

MJ: I'm not sure of your point here, given that Carmichael has publicly admitted to being in the wrong. He was at the heart of a deliberate smear tactic aimed at Sturgeon (and the SNP); the smear implicated Sturgeon and French diplomat, he lied about knowing anything about it, and then, once he had very narrowly retained his seat in the GE, he admitted to the smear and the lying.

 

Should he therefore be allowed to represent the people for the next five years who presumably trusted him to be an honest politician? Shouldn't they be allowed to reconsider whether they made a mistake? If not, then throw any sense of decency in politics away for ever. Blatant lying, smearing, accusing people of things they never did, anything whatsoever goes. Third world country.

Edited by Jaggernaut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a smear tactic as what Nicola Sturgeon said to the diplomat was recorded via the Frenchman who quickly back tracked. And who would argue with what she said? David Cameron is far more impressive as PM Tha Ed Milliband. Plus it helps Nicola as she gets to say "Thooooary" in loop.

 

It's all a mountain out of a molehill. Online petition....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a smear tactic as what Nicola Sturgeon said to the diplomat was recorded via the Frenchman who quickly back tracked. And who would argue with what she said? David Cameron is far more impressive as PM Tha Ed Milliband. Plus it helps Nicola as she gets to say "Thooooary" in loop. It's all a mountain out of a molehill. Online petition....

 

Sweep....sweep.....sweep under carpet...... Sweep.....

 

Fortunately, many people disagree with your assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MJ: I'm not sure of your point here, given that Carmichael has publicly admitted to being in the wrong. He was at the heart of a deliberate smear tactic aimed at Sturgeon (and the SNP); the smear implicated Sturgeon and French diplomat, he lied about knowing anything about it, and then, once he had very narrowly retained his seat in the GE, he admitted to the smear and the lying.

 

Should he therefore be allowed to represent the people for the next five years who presumably trusted him to be an honest politician? Shouldn't they be allowed to reconsider whether they made a mistake? If not, then throw any sense of decency in politics away for ever. Blatant lying, smearing, accusing people of things they never did, anything whatsoever goes. Third world country.

 

Apologies Jaggernaut, I thought he had denied that he was the source of the leak or whatever you want to call the smear. Maybe it's all down to how it's reported in the press and what slant they choose to take, but either way politics should not be subject to underhand tactics to try to unsettle an opponent. (Sunday Telegraph reporting before you ask. Father-in-law buys it; not me!) I guess we all suspect (if not know) that politicians and their staff have been guilty of dirty tricks in the past. Who can forget the "good time to bury bad news" email following the deaths of 6500 people in the WTC terror attack.

 

But let's be honest, is it not the case that some in the Nat ranks can smell blood and are looking for a kill? Matters are, as I understand it, in the hands of the Parliamentary Commissioner who will no doubt report back in time. I don't know what the outcome might be but some will no doubt suggest "whitewash"! This is the system that we've signed up to and it cannot be circumvented. Even if it as a form of elective dictatorship i.e. we give away all power to a small power elite who are then controlled by their party. But mob rule must not prevail and maybe this is the best system we can come up with...

 

For my part I'm not a great fan of the Lib Dems but I equally hate lynch mobs. But the good news is that in time they get fed up and move onto their next victim. In time you might even find that they will turn on the SNP - big things are expected and with no opposition they will be in the shop window. The recent referendum was full of nasty stuff (both sides) and it really sickened a lot of people; myself included. Upon reflection, how many votes did the "Yes" campaign lose on account of the antics of Cybernats? Apologies for going off topic.

Edited by Meister Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies Jaggernaut, I thought he had denied that he was the source of the leak or whatever you want to call the smear. Maybe it's all down to how it's reported in the press and what slant they choose to take, but either way politics should not be subject to underhand tactics to try to unsettle an opponent. (Sunday Telegraph reporting before you ask. Father-in-law buys it; not me!) I guess we all suspect (if not know) that politicians and their staff have been guilty of dirty tricks in the past. Who can forget the "good time to bury bad news" email following the deaths of 6500 people in the WTC terror attack. But let's be honest, is it not the case that some in the Nat ranks can smell blood and are looking for a kill? Matters are, as I understand it, in the hands of the Parliamentary Commissioner who will no doubt report back in time. I don't know what the outcome might be but some will no doubt suggest "whitewash"! This is the system that we've signed up to and it cannot be circumvented. Even if it as a form of elective dictatorship i.e. we give away all power to a small power elite who are then controlled by their party. But mob rule must not prevail and maybe this is the best system we can come up with... For my part I'm not a great fan of the Lib Dems but I equally hate lynch mobs. But the good news is that in time they get fed up and move onto their next victim. In time you might even find that they will turn on the SNP - big things are expected and with no opposition they will be in the shop window. The recent referendum was full of nasty stuff (both sides) and it really sickened a lot of people; myself included. Upon reflection, how many votes did the "Yes" campaign lose on account of the antics of Cybernats? Apologies for going off topic.

 

Not much to disagree with there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

So I see the enquiry has begun today and is being broadcast live across many platforms.

 

Carmichael won't be in attendance at all as I understand it.

 

Whatever the actual technicalities of the whole thing, the fact that Carmichael has been caught telling bare faced lies about whether he knew about the leak should be enough for him to resign of his own accord.

 

How much damage is he doing to his party by continuing to draw a wage as an MP when he is a proven liar? What do the Lib Dems think about this?

 

For a party who are basically starting from scratch all over again, surely they would want a guy like this out of the picture completely so they can begin rebuilding?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I see the enquiry has begun today and is being broadcast live across many platforms.

 

Carmichael won't be in attendance at all as I understand it.

 

Whatever the actual technicalities of the whole thing, the fact that Carmichael has been caught telling bare faced lies about whether he knew about the leak should be enough for him to resign of his own accord.

 

How much damage is he doing to his party by continuing to draw a wage as an MP when he is a proven liar? What do the Lib Dems think about this?

 

For a party who are basically starting from scratch all over again, surely they would want a guy like this out of the picture completely so they can begin rebuilding?

 

I am no longer surprised by the depravity of the British Establishment and unionist politicians at Westminster. From suppressing the McCrone Report because they had to hide from the world how wealthy Scotland really was, to circling the wagons and ensuring the disappearrance of dossiers that show the extent of paedophilia right in the midst of their rotten core, to publicy supporting the Liar Carmichael because the deceit involved probably goes even higher than him, which is why I suspect that the legal system will have been instructed in how the outcome should be. Make no mistake; Perfidious Albion is evil.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...