Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

She wasn't even a prospective MP at the time so is irrelevant. Carmichael was the Scottish Secretary. Who leaked a confidential govt memo, denied all knowledge on national tv during a General Election campaign, won his seat by a slim margin. Then admitted he was the source of the leak all along and that he'd lied.

The issue here wasn't about him lying... he admitted that and it's irrefutable. The issue was whether he lied in a 'personal' capacity, or a 'political' one in order to affect his own constituency election result. He got off on semantics.

And please, as Leanne says, let's not even try to pretend if this had been Salmond that you wouldn't have been calling for him to resign immediately. But is over with now. Lib Dems will sadly pay the price for his freely admitted lie in a few months time. Just like they did over Nick Clegg's tutition fees u-turn in the GE.

"He got off on technicalities". No he got off because he did not break election law.

Just for the record, I think he unworthy to be an MP and certainly should not hold high office again because he can't be trusted. But it amused me to see what faux objections would get trotted out.

There's a sliding scale between lies and spin amongst politicians, a line which I'd like to see challenged directly sometimes. All MPs spin, some also lie and I wish there was a mechanism for exposing lies, including those who claim others are lying when they are not. It ain't going to happen though.

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

you're seriously saying that
-lying in general is OK
-people campaigning for political parties can lie
-that you personally support people who lie in politics.
-you think liars make good SNP MPs

How can you display all this faux outrage when you clearly endorse lying?

unbelievable (well not really when it come to true acolytes)

I think you're jumping to the wrong conclusion here. Carmichael deliberately lied to try and smear Nicola Sturgeon & her party just before the GE. I've just read up again what happened in the case of Phillipa Whitford and it appears she was reciting what a colleague had told her. To my mind it's hardly in the same category.

Again, he was already in a position of trust and she was simply a member of the public involved in a campaign.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I think you're jumping to the wrong conclusion here. Carmichael deliberately lied to try and smear Nicola Sturgeon & her party just before the GE. I've just read up again what happened in the case of Phillipa Whitford and it appears she was reciting what a colleague had told her. To my mind it's hardly in the same category.

Again, he was already in a position of trust and she was simply a member of the public involved in a campaign.

Whitford was a NHS oncology Consultant : she was in a position of huge responsibility and such that people would naturally trust her.
We have no evidence anyone told her anything except her word.
Given her role she must have fully recognised what she was saying and the effect on people in that region.
She wasn't some random person who didn't understand the subject or the context, but was in a huge position of trust.
She was simply seek to gain personal advantage, some fame and political advantage : she succeeded.

But you specifically agree with Shakey : lying is OK and you welcome liars into the SNP and even as SNP MPs.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

you're seriously saying that
-lying in general is OK
-people campaigning for political parties can lie
-that you personally support people who lie in politics.
-you think liars make good SNP MPs

How can you display all this faux outrage when you clearly endorse lying?

unbelievable (well not really when it come to true acolytes)

No, that's what the judges concluded. ( Take off your acolyte specs for a second eh ? )... See the last sentence in particular from the judges findings. He got off, because it wasn't proved beyond doubt that Carmichael was acting in a personal capacity, rather than a political one. For most of us mere mortals a lie is used in order to deceive in any capacity. End of matter. But, seems it's not that simple in electoral law.

Rejecting Carmichael's evidence as lacking credibility and reliability, the judges also concluded that the northern isles' MP's lies were motivated by his tough election in Orkney and Shetland.

Lady Paton writes: "the inescapable inference, in our opinion, is that if the SNP became a less attractive prospect, the first respondent’s chances of a comfortable majority in what had become a “two-horse race” in Orkney and Shetland would be enhanced," holding that she was "satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the false statement of fact was made for the purpose of affecting (positively) the return of the first respondent as a Liberal Democrat in the constituency of Orkney and Shetland."

But the petitioners' case stumbled on the question of proof. Was it proved to the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt that Carmichael's lies had "related to his personal character or conduct" ?

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/no-vindication-here-only-survival.html

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, that's what the judges concluded. ( Take off your acolyte specs for a second eh ? )... See the last sentence in particular from the judges findings. He got off, because it wasn't proved beyond doubt that Carmichael was acting in a personal capacity, rather than a political one. For most of us mere mortals a lie is used in order to deceive in any capacity. End of matter. But, seems it's not that simple in electoral law.

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/no-vindication-here-only-survival.html

I was referring to your view that it was OK for Whitford to lie because she wasn't a candidate at that time of the lie : and your willingness to welcome the liar to the SNP and to her becoming an SNP MP.
But I agree a lie is in order to deceive and that was Whitford's intention.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Whitford was a NHS oncology Consultant : she was in a position of huge responsibility and such that people would naturally trust her.
We have no evidence anyone told her anything except her word.
Given her role she must have fully recognised what she was saying and the effect on people in that region.
She wasn't some random person who didn't understand the subject or the context, but was in a huge position of trust.
She was simply seek to gain personal advantage, some fame and political advantage : she succeeded.

But you specifically agree with Shakey : lying is OK and you welcome liars into the SNP and even as SNP MPs.

The public were given ample chance to make judgement on Phillipa Whitford after the event you cite in question. When she stood as an SNP candidate in May. The whole point of the Carmichael case was that voters in Orkney and Shetland weren't. They weren't in full possession of the facts until a week or so AFTER the election, and that Carmichael had firstly lied, then had deliberately waited until afterwards to come clean.

The judges were clear on that at least. But in Whitford's case, the public knew all about her before she stood. You keep missing this for some reason. It's not about the lie per se... it's about whether Carmichael not admitting he had lied before May ( when he knew full well he had ), affected the result of a constituency election.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The public were given ample chance to make judgement on Phillipa Whitford after the event you cite in question. When she stood as an SNP candidate in May. The whole point of the Carmichael case was that voters in Orkney and Shetland weren't. They weren't in full possession of the facts until a week or so AFTER the election, and that Carmichael had firstly lied, then had deliberately waited until afterwards to come clean.

The judges were clear on that at least. But in Whitford's case, the public knew all about her before she stood. You keep missing this for some reason. It's not about the lie per se... it's about whether Carmichael not admitting he had lied before May ( when he knew full well he had ), affected the result of a constituency election.

ok
so you do welcome liars into the SNP and you do approve of them becoming SNP MPs and applaud the SNP voters accepting liars to represent them : one would think that Carmichael might be a good fit for the SNP but sadly he was the wrong party.
No-one's perfect.

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

Whitford was a NHS oncology Consultant : she was in a position of huge responsibility and such that people would naturally trust her.
We have no evidence anyone told her anything except her word.
Given her role she must have fully recognised what she was saying and the effect on people in that region.
She wasn't some random person who didn't understand the subject or the context, but was in a huge position of trust.
She was simply seek to gain personal advantage, some fame and political advantage : she succeeded.

But you specifically agree with Shakey : lying is OK and you welcome liars into the SNP and even as SNP MPs.

It was not a deliberate lie. She relayed what a colleague had told her.

I suppose it's whether you choose to believe her or not.

I think the public showed their trust in her by electing her recently. I'll be highly surprised if Carmichael is re-elected, most probably he won't even stand I don't think.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

It was not a deliberate lie. She relayed what a colleague had told her.

I suppose it's whether you choose to believe her or not.

I think the public showed their trust in her by electing her recently. I'll be highly surprised if Carmichael is re-elected, most probably he won't even stand I don't think.

she knew better
she wasn't a person on the street but a medical consultant with a clear political agenda
(remember she also claimed that without independence the NHS would be privatised and disappear within 10 years)

she was fully aware of the impact of her speech and the personal advantage that would accrue to her
she knew that stress and distress that would cause to parents of children with cancer and other cancer sufferser.

But of course the only people affected were English people, so one would expect that to run OK in Scotland

Carmichael lied and deserves to be sacked by the electorate : however, the overall effect was to help the SNP whilst Whitfold was harmful.

How would anyone ever trust her to give an informed and honest opinion about the health service (or indeed anything else)

remind me : did she go down to the NE and apologise for any distressed caused?

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

she knew better
she wasn't a person on the street but a medical consultant with a clear political agenda
(remember she also claimed that without independence the NHS would be privatised and disappear within 10 years)

she was fully aware of the impact of her speech and the personal advantage that would accrue to her
she knew that stress and distress that would cause to parents of children with cancer and other cancer sufferser.

But of course the only people affected were English people, so one would expect that to run OK in Scotland

Carmichael lied and deserves to be sacked by the electorate : however, the overall effect was to help the SNP whilst Whitfold was harmful.

How would anyone ever trust her to give an informed and honest opinion about the health service (or indeed anything else)

remind me : did she go down to the NE and apologise for any distressed caused?

You're doing that thing again......

The thing that makes me ignore you and scroll past your posts.

You choose to see her as a deliberate liar. I don't. I've stated why and I can't see any point in going round and round once again on a matter we disagree on.