MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

[Harshaw]

:lamo

This is sooo the same as torturing. :roll:

Yeah. That's the only thing that gets criticized. :roll:

 

[Laila]

Yeah. That's the only thing that gets criticized. :roll:

It's the biggest thing US gets criticised for when it comes to rights of others

 

[Orion]

I respect the UK for having laws that keep politicians in check. Campaigns based on lies are not good for a healthy democracy.

 

[Andalublue]

I had some dealings with Woolas 20+ years ago when I worked at Manchester City Council. The guy is scum. He would and did do whatever it took, ethical or otherwise, to promote himself. It came as no surprise at all to learn of this case and I'm glad the judges were prepared to make the point that blatant and provable lying that misleads the electorate and subverts the democratic process is not acceptable in a democracy. Clearly the clarity of the evidence in cases like this is very rare (first such case in over 100 years) but when it's proven the sanctions should be severe.

To those who believe that lying should not be a criminal offence, you might like to check out the multitude of offences on the books for perjury, fraud, false claims and obstruction of justice. Lying IS a criminal offence in many contexts. I'm not saying Woolas should go to gaol, but the measure taken was proportionate, just and correct, IMHO.

 

[Harshaw]

It's the biggest thing US gets criticised for when it comes to rights of others

Not really. There's tons of internal stuff, too.

 

[Harshaw]

Wow. I guess that Canadian magistrate was right and freedom of speech really IS an American concept.

Yay, us!

 

[Laila]

Wow. I guess that Canadian magistrate was right and freedom of speech really IS an American concept.

Yay, us!

If I was American. I wouldn't criticise other countries on rights of any sort. Go torture some more and pretend to hold a moral ground on preaching to other countries.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Can we get off the high horse and call both of them dick moves?

 

[Harshaw]

If I was American. I wouldn't criticise other countries on rights of any sort. Go torture some more and pretend to hold a moral ground on preaching to other countries.

OK, Pirate Lady.

 

[Laila]

OK, Pirate Lady.

:lol:
Thanks!
I take that as a compliment btw. I'm just a thief, not sadistic .... just saying :shrug:

 

[Harshaw]

:lol:
Thanks!
I take that as a compliment btw. I'm just a thief, not sadistic .... just saying :shrug:

"Sadistic"? My, what overblown fantasies you have.

I can't even imagine, though, what's more "sadistic" than a Somali pirate attacking a UN ship filled with food destined for Somali civilians and then keeping it for themselves -- especially when in so doing, the UN decided not to send anymore.

 

[Orion]

Wow. I guess that Canadian magistrate was right and freedom of speech really IS an American concept.

Yay, us!

Yeah, you have a right to be blatantly lied to in your media and politics! Yeah, go America, #1! :2party:

:roll:

 

[Laila]

"Sadistic"? My, what overblown fantasies you have.

I can't even imagine, though, what's more "sadistic" than a Somali pirate attacking a UN ship filled with food destined for Somali civilians and then keeping it for themselves -- especially when in so doing, the UN decided not to send anymore.

LOL

Yeah okay, US is as sadistic as us Pirates. :shrug:

 

[RightinNYC]

Yeah, you have a right to be blatantly lied to in your media and politics! Yeah, go America, #1! :2party:

:roll:

I'm sorry that you think you need a judge to tell you whether a politician is lying or not.

I'm sorry that you think an unelected branch of government should be able to veto the results of elections based on an arbitrary determination of accuracy.

I wonder how many people applauding this move ever stopped to think about what it would be like if the party that they don't like decided to use this against their preferred candidates.

 

[Laila]

I wonder how many people applauding this move ever stopped to think about what it would be like if the party that they don't like decided to use this against their preferred candidates.

There is a reason why this is the first judgement in 100 years. :roll:

The fool even had leaflets and a paper trail

He deserved to be anally shafted by the law :shrug:

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I'm sorry that you think you need a judge to tell you whether a politician is lying or not.

I'm sorry that you think an unelected branch of government should be able to veto the results of elections based on an arbitrary determination of accuracy.

I wonder how many people applauding this move ever stopped to think about what it would be like if the party that they don't like decided to use this against their preferred candidates.

If the lies cross over into being libelous, I would have no issue with it being used against any candidate

 

[Andalublue]

I'm sorry that you think you need a judge to tell you whether a politician is lying or not.

You can tell when Woolas is lying; his lips move. I don't need a judge to tell me that, but to do something about it.

I'm sorry that you think an unelected branch of government should be able to veto the results of elections based on an arbitrary determination of accuracy.

You seem to have a weird definition of arbitrary. I don't believe the judges based their decision on random choice or whim, it wasn't autocratic and was definitely conducted within strict evidential limitations. Your use of the word is invalid.

I wonder how many people applauding this move ever stopped to think about what it would be like if the party that they don't like decided to use this against their preferred candidates.

I'd hope that a party I supported would not resort to using fallacious, racial baiting materials during their election campaign. It is for just such cases that the Representation of the People Acts were framed and it was under that legislation that he was stripped of his parliamentary seat. An appeal is pending but he has already been permanently ejected from the Labour Party.

 

[Laila]

An appeal is pending but he has already been permanently ejected from the Labour Party.

He won't win and even on the slim chance he does. His political career is over (thank god!)

Harman was pretty impressive in this weeks PMQ's.

 

[Andalublue]

He won't win and even on the slim chance he does. His political career is over (thank god!)

Harman was pretty impressive in this weeks PMQ's.

I'm afraid that I can't stand her either, but on this issue she did the right thing.

 

[RightinNYC]

There is a reason why this is the first judgement in 100 years. :roll:

The fool even had leaflets and a paper trail

He deserved to be anally shafted by the law :shrug:

Oh, well that makes it okay.

If the lies cross over into being libelous, I would have no issue with it being used against any candidate

Did the guy who had been criticized sue him for libel? Did he win? Why is that not sufficient?

You can tell when Woolas is lying; his lips move. I don't need a judge to tell me that, but to do something about it.

God forbid you just vote against him or not listen.

You seem to have a weird definition of arbitrary. I don't believe the judges based their decision on random choice or whim, it wasn't autocratic and was definitely conducted within strict evidential limitations. Your use of the word is invalid.

The point is that what one person considers a lie, another might consider to be merely stretching the truth or offering an opinion. There's a reason why libel is a civil matter in the US.

I'd hope that a party I supported would not resort to using fallacious, racial baiting materials during their election campaign.

Yes, and as history has shown, laws designed to address the extreme fringes have never been used against anyone else.

It is for just such cases that the Representation of the People Acts were framed and it was under that legislation that he was stripped of his parliamentary seat. An appeal is pending but he has already been permanently ejected from the Labour Party.

And was the Labour Party incapable of ejecting him prior to this court decision?

 

[Laila]

I'm afraid that I can't stand her either, but on this issue she did the right thing.

I agree

I must admit, I do chuckle when I see that leaflet. He must have been high or something

 

[Laila]

Oh, well that makes it okay.

Yeah, it does actually. This judgement is rare in UK for a reason.

He got caught red handed like a fool knowing that he was breaking the law. He deserves to have been stripped of his seat and been banned from public office. His career is as good as dead

 

[Orion]

I'm sorry that you think you need a judge to tell you whether a politician is lying or not.

I'm sorry that you think an unelected branch of government should be able to veto the results of elections based on an arbitrary determination of accuracy.

I wonder how many people applauding this move ever stopped to think about what it would be like if the party that they don't like decided to use this against their preferred candidates.

I'm sorry that you don't seem to grasp the fact that this kind of court ruling is incredibly rare and requires an abundance of evidence for the court to take action.

I'm also sorry that you don't understand what it means to be a Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Did the guy who had been criticized sue him for libel? Did he win? Why is that not sufficient?

I would suggest it is not sufficient if the person won the election based on the libel. The whole profiting from a crime thing

 

[RightinNYC]

I'm sorry that you don't seem to grasp the fact that this kind of court ruling is incredibly rare and requires an abundance of evidence for the court to take action.

"Yes, and as history has shown, laws designed to address the extreme fringes have never been used against anyone else."

I would suggest it is not sufficient if the person won the election based on the libel. The whole profiting from a crime thing

I don't think libel should be a crime, so you're barking up the wrong tree.