Alistair Carmichael memo leak and inquiry: should he resign?

[Ghostrider]

And if they were fully paid up Atheists, would the Ghostrider/Suffererofa1crankymofo brigade probably have a thing about that too...... ?

 

They can be a fully paid up Satanist for all I care, as long as they're fully up front and open about it and are convincing that they'll leave that side of themselves at home when they're a work. As I keep saying its not about what someone is, or isn't, its about them having the balls to stand up and fully inform, warts and all, those they are asking to vote for them, so that no-one can claim they voted for someone under false pretences or as a result of that person's "spin" advertising of themselves.

[Ghostrider]

I did read Tom Mortons letter in the Shetland Times before the election though, so this information (however relevant people find it) must have been easily accessible to someone with google or by anyone who read the Shetland Times.

 

As I recall it, Morton's letter only came in to the arena in pretty much the eleventh hour of the campaign, and the question must be asked, had it not been for his apparently "investigative journalist" nose taking him down the road of unearthing the contents of that letter, how many folk would have voted for Skene in blissful ignorance of his religious, educational and social standing, that chose not to when they'd found it out.

 

The point is though, as I've already said, it shouldn't have been down to Morton or anyone else to have to go out there and snoop around to see if there's any dirt to be dug, if a candidate expects a voter to trust them enough to give them their vote, in turn I don't believe its unreasonble for a voter to expect something similar in return, like the candidate being fully frank and open about themselves and their beliefs.

 

What I can't understand is the bizarre logic that this so called crime is as bad, if not worse than Alistair Carmichael abusing his position as Secretary of State for Scotland in a crude smear attempt, lying on live television about having any knowledge of it and then owning up only after he'd been caught by an expensive parliamentary leaks inquiry which only came to light after winning his seat by a tiny number of votes.

 

A lie is a lie, does it matter whether its someone denying something that is later proven to be fact, or simply choosing not to volunteer information that they hold that they could reasonably be expected to know was likely to be relevant to the decision they were asking folk to take. There's none in my book.

 

The "Carmichael Out!" club allege he "lied" to hold on to his seat, the way I see it Skene, by keeping as quiet from the electorate as he possibly could certain information about himself that could cost him votes with some folk, also "lied" to gain votes.

 

.....Alistair Carmichael abusing his position as Secretary of State for Scotland in a crude smear attempt, lying on live television about having any knowledge of it and then owning up only after he'd been caught by an expensive parliamentary leaks inquiry which only came to light after winning his seat by a tiny number of votes.

 

This may be how you choose to describe the events, however its not how I would, but that's a seperate subject.

[paulb]

as cranky is so keen on implying all people of faith are dodgy. im a mormon and im not ashamed of my belief system. whats yours. after all we should not be ashamed of what we believe.  i would much prefer a salvation army  officer to be our mp than a bent lawyer. first one is committed to service second well lets just say we come second to his wants  

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

as cranky is so keen on implying all people of faith are dodgy. ...

 

Rubbish.  I'm only responsible for what I type, not for how you interpret it.

[Capeesh]

 

 

 

 

.....Alistair Carmichael abusing his position as Secretary of State for Scotland in a crude smear attempt, lying on live television about having any knowledge of it and then owning up only after he'd been caught by an expensive parliamentary leaks inquiry which only came to light after winning his seat by a tiny number of votes.

 

This may be how you choose to describe the events, however its not how I would, but that's a seperate subject.

The topic title is "Alistair Carmichael memo leak and inquiry: should he resign?" How is it a seperate subject?

Stating facts is how I "chose to describe the events" it's beyond doubt, the man himself said it would be a resigning offence if he was still Secretary of State for Scotland, he even gave up the severance pay that position would have given him.

The channel 4 interview where he lied is there for all to see as are the findings of the inquiry.

A copy of the grovelling apology to the First Minister and the French ambassador is on this very thread, a few pages back.

If you still don't believe me, read the recent Shetnews article about the courtcase that Alistair Carmichaels own constituents are pursuing HERE where it says:

 

"Both sides agreed the hearing should take place in Edinburgh and transmitted to Kirkwall via videolink as there was no dispute over the facts of the case and therefore purely a matter of legal argument."

Edited July 3, 2015 by Capeesh

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Hypothethically then, some questions to be posed to Carmichael with probable yes/no answers:-

 

Did you leak a memo?  No.

 

Did you authorise a memo to be leaked?  Yes.

 

Had you read the memo?  No.

 

Did someone give you a rough outline of the contents of the memo?  Yes.

 

Did they give you the full details of the contents of the memo?  No.

 

Did you know whether the contents of the memo were accurate?  No.

 

Did a member of staff say words along the lines of "I've found something on Sturgeon we can use?"  Yes.

 

Did you ask for the sources and if they had been verified?  No.

 

Were the contents of said memo related to somebody standing as a candidate in the General Election?  No.

[Ghostrider]

 

 

 

.....Alistair Carmichael abusing his position as Secretary of State for Scotland in a crude smear attempt, lying on live television about having any knowledge of it and then owning up only after he'd been caught by an expensive parliamentary leaks inquiry which only came to light after winning his seat by a tiny number of votes.

 

This may be how you choose to describe the events, however its not how I would, but that's a seperate subject.

The topic title is "Alistair Carmichael memo leak and inquiry: should he resign?" How is it a seperate subject?

Stating facts is how I've "chose to described the events" it's beyond doubt, the man himself said it would be a resigning offence if he was still Secretary of State for Scotland, he even gave up the severance pay that position would have given him.

The channel 4 interview where he lied is there for all to see as are the findings of the inquiry.

A copy of the grovelling apology to the First Minister and the French ambassador is on this very thread, a few pages back.

If you still don't believe me, read the recent Shetnews article about the courtcase that Alistair Carmichaels own constituents are pursuing HERE where it says:

 

"Both sides agreed the hearing should take place in Edinburgh and transmitted to Kirkwall via videolink as there was no dispute over the facts of the case and therefore purely a matter of legal argument."

 

 

The subject of the thread may well be ""Alistair Carmichael memo leak and inquiry: should he resign?", however the precise subject on the table at the point I made that comment was whether Carmichael's alleged behaviour during the election campaign was any "worse" than that of his opponent Mr. Skene. Not what exactly Carmichael's alleged behaviour was.

 

Both sides may well have agreed not to fight with each other over what is submitted to the Court as "facts" in the case, however I very much doubt if the Court documentation contains terminology and phrases such as: 'crude smear attempt', 'lying on live television', 'been caught' etc. The use of such terminology paints as black a picture as possible of the situation, rather than a balanced one, that's what I was getting at when I said "I wouldn't choose to describe the events as you have".

[crofter]

Out of interest Ghosty, what is the "balanced" description of "lying on live television"?

[paulb]

we need to also remember our two friends both voted ukip. so i guess being a lying minister would be quite acceptable conduct for a ukiper. probably a little annoyed that their candidate did not even want to win..     

[paulb]

anyway during the next parliament recall will be activated. i wonder if 10% of the electorate could be found to call for a by-election. i suspect it could. so even if the standards commissioner lets him off and he crawls from the court case its not over until he is gone. if the lib's want to retain the seat they really need to start repairing the damage. he has caused them. 

[Ghostrider]

Out of interest Ghosty, what is the "balanced" description of "lying on live television"?

 

That depends on whether you believe what occured constituted a "lie" or not, and I don't believe that has been proven as yet. As if what Carmichael did is a "lie", how come what Skene did isn't a lie, and that's what I've been debating.

[Ghostrider]

we need to also remember our two friends both voted ukip. so i guess being a lying minister would be quite acceptable conduct for a ukiper. probably a little annoyed that their candidate did not even want to win..     

 

Now who's running a "crude smear campaign"?

 

Yes, I voted UKIP, but in the full knowledge that the candidate's chnces of winning were as small as be incalcuable. Its called a protest vote, I believe.

 

"Lying", if that is what we're talking here, is certainly NOT acceptable by any public servant whatever colours they stand under, and that is why I'm arguing that what is happening with Carmichael right now is a witch hunt orchestrated by SNP supporters for their own benefit, as when it was revealed Skene had been as economical with the truth before the election, there was not one word from anyone demanding he withdraw from the ballot.

 

A certain amount of "lying" from all public servants has become "accepted", and you either need to reform the system and public attitude that allows it to survive, or tolerate it. The Carmichael case is going to achieve neither, so how can it be seen as anything but a witch hunt, when he's effectively being expected to behave to a far higher standard than his other 649 colleagues in Westminster, and his opponents in the election race.

 

If folk genuinely want to make a real difference to public servants "lying", and make one where the difference will really be felt, I would suggest they start work much, much closer to home, and call to account all the lying, sh*t stirring little despots in suits hiding behind SIC desks. Wasting time, energy and money attempting to pull one person out of a rotten to the core system in the other end of the country, only to replace them with someone else who will either have to get with the program of that rotten system to get on, or be the most ineffectual MP we've ever known, will change nothing for no-one.

 

BTW, just for the record, *if* Carmichael is successfully unseated, and decides to seek re-election, I hope only the SNP put up a candidate against him so that its a two horse race, in which case I most certainly will be voting for him.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Ghostrider

[Capeesh]

 

 

 

 

Out of interest Ghosty, what is the "balanced" description of "lying on live television"?

 

That depends on whether you believe what occured constituted a "lie" or not, and I don't believe that has been proven as yet. As if what Carmichael did is a "lie", how come what Skene did isn't a lie, and that's what I've been debating.

This is the wierdest argument I've heard in defence of Alistair Carmichael yet, the cover up of his involvement in the leaked memo is as plain as the nose on your face. He was asked before the election and the leaks inquiry if he knew anything about it on live television and in front of almost 1 million viewers, he denied all knowledge.

Only after the expensive tax payer funded leaks inquiry had found the origins of the leaked memo came from him did he admit his guilt, conveniently after being narrowly re-elected.

Against this is the very definition of a red herring, Skene didnt lie, all the information about his past was in the public domain before the election.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Capeesh

[Ghostrider]

 

 

 

 

Out of interest Ghosty, what is the "balanced" description of "lying on live television"?

That depends on whether you believe what occured constituted a "lie" or not, and I don't believe that has been proven as yet. As if what Carmichael did is a "lie", how come what Skene did isn't a lie, and that's what I've been debating.

This is the wierdest argument I've heard in defence of Alistair Carmichael yet, the cover up of his involvement in the leaked memo is as plain as the nose on your face. He was asked before the election and the leaks inquiry if he knew anything about it on live television and in front of almost 1 million viewers, he denied all knowledge.

Only after the expensive tax payer funded leaks inquiry had found the origins of the leaked memo came from him did he admit his guilt, conveniently after being narrowly re-elected.

 

That's not my understanding of what happened, but rather the version of events his opponents have put about.

 

There is no proof that at the time he was asked if he knew anything about the leak that he knew the journalist's source was a memo released by the Scottish Office, as he said at the time, documents circulate throughout the Government, and it could have come from anywhere a copy had ended up. Its not like Carmichael released it himself, a civil servant did. As Secretary of State he obviously authorised its release, but again there is no proof that he knew its full contents before he authorised its release. Certainly he should have known, and he's admitted to that failing, but that's incompetence, not lying.

 

If anyone can provide undenyable proof that Carmichel knew the the only copies of that particular memo that existed at that time were all in the Scottish Office and none had ever left the Scottish Office, and that at the time he authorised its release to a journalist that he knew exactly every word that was said it, I'll accept he lied. Without that, all that can be proven is that he was doing a sloppy job in running his ship by that time, by releasing documents without being fully conversant with their full contents, which is altogether something completely different.

 

 

 

 

 

Out of interest Ghosty, what is the "balanced" description of "lying on live television"?

That depends on whether you believe what occured constituted a "lie" or not, and I don't believe that has been proven as yet. As if what Carmichael did is a "lie", how come what Skene did isn't a lie, and that's what I've been debating.

Against this is the very definition of a red herring, Skene didnt lie, all the information about his past was in the public domain before the election.

 

 

It may well have been in the public domain, but when the person in question when trying to win folk's votes makes no effort whatsoever to inform those folk of certain significant aspects of who they the person are, while at the same time choosing to push other significant aspects of who they the person are. I call that cherry picking the facts, aka. being questionably economical with the truth, aka. lying by omission.

 

If some 70 year old stood for Parliament, and "decided" not to inform the electorate that they'd spent more time in jail than out of it between the ages of 20 and 40 for numerous serious crimes, I can just imagine the outcry when someone went digging in the public domain Court Archives of newspaper archives and "decided" to inform the public of what they'd found. In my book it doesn't matter what they "decide" to keep quiet, its the fact they chose to keep quiet about anything in the first place that's the problem. Being in the public domain does not equal being public knowledge, and if a candidate expects us to trust them to look after our interests, in my book that trust needs to be given before its gotten, by the candidate being open comprehensively about who and what they are.

[crofter]

Did Alistair Carmichael report which schools he attended and all his O grade results in his election communications?