Ghostrider Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why has disgraced MP Alistair Carmichael just been appointed the Lib Dems' Shadow Home Secretary? "Innocent until proven guilty" perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why has disgraced MP Alistair Carmichael just been appointed the Lib Dems' Shadow Home Secretary? Who says that he is "discgraced" anyway. As far as I am aware, he has only been accused of wrongdoing. You have to prove that he actually did "wrong" in order to attach an accusation such as disgraced. Only to be expected coming from the supporter of a party that wanted to remove the "corroboration" element of evidence.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George. Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why has disgraced MP Alistair Carmichael just been appointed the Lib Dems' Shadow Home Secretary? Who says that he is "discgraced" anyway. As far as I am aware, he has only been accused of wrongdoing. You have to prove that he actually did "wrong" in order to attach an accusation such as disgraced. Only to be expected coming from the supporter of a party that wanted to remove the "corroboration" element of evidence.. You have obviously chosen to forget what he has already admitted to being guilty of. Capeesh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George. Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 That's all fine and well, but where's the smoking gun? As top of the totem in the Scottish Office at the time the leak occured, the buck obviously ultimately stopped with him, and he's acknowledged that. However, where is the proof that at the time he denied any knowledge of the leak, that he knew it originated from his office? Certainly he should have known, but where is the proof he actually did? You can accuse him of incompetence for the former, but you need proof to accuse him of the latter and dishonesty, which I've not seen anyplace yet. Just saying he had to have known isn't good enough, you need to prove he did know for a "dishonesty" charge to stand up. He doesn't send you a Christmas card every year, perchance??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windwalker Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why has disgraced MP Alistair Carmichael just been appointed the Lib Dems' Shadow Home Secretary? http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/why-has-disgraced-mp-alistair.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+ScotGoesPop+(SCOT+goes+POP!) And have the LibDim's been overtaken by Baroness's?If you canna get your wye, just keep brow bashing until you do, this seems to be the typical tactics of the SNP. You just need to listen to wee Eck on telly the other night going on about another independence vote.. When are you going to get it. Scotland voted NO. Get over it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) The leak and smear aren't the only reason some people are annoyed, it was the attempted cover up, he denied all knowledge of the leak, knowing fine well he had sanctioned its release. Thats where the main dishonesty is, he deliberately misled the electorate in an election.That's all fine and well, but where's the smoking gun? That's all fine and well, but where's the smoking gun? As top of the totem in the Scottish Office at the time the leak occured, the buck obviously ultimately stopped with him, and he's acknowledged that. However, where is the proof that at the time he denied any knowledge of the leak, that he knew it originated from his office? Certainly he should have known, but where is the proof he actually did? You can accuse him of incompetence for the former, but you need proof to accuse him of the latter and dishonesty, which I've not seen anyplace yet. Just saying he had to have known isn't good enough, you need to prove he did know for a "dishonesty" charge to stand up. He doesn't send you a Christmas card every year, perchance??? Nope, never even the once, nor have I ever voted for him either. Although I might well do so now, should he stand again. Why shouldn't this issue have to stand up to the same level of proof as a Court case does, which god knows around here is unbelievably sloppy as it stands, which is all I'm expecting. A kangaroo court in the media, social media or while propping up a bar etc, which is all that's been so far, will find anybody guilty of anything if that's what the loudest shouters are saying. Edit: Quote edited for correction. Edited July 30, 2015 by Ghostrider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capeesh Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) The leak and smear aren't the only reason some people are annoyed, it was the attempted cover up, he denied all knowledge of the leak, knowing fine well he had sanctioned its release. Thats where the main dishonesty is, he deliberately misled the electorate in an election. That's all fine and well, but where's the smoking gun? As top of the totem in the Scottish Office at the time the leak occured, the buck obviously ultimately stopped with him, and he's acknowledged that. However, where is the proof that at the time he denied any knowledge of the leak, that he knew it originated from his office? Certainly he should have known, but where is the proof he actually did? You can accuse him of incompetence for the former, but you need proof to accuse him of the latter and dishonesty, which I've not seen anyplace yet. Just saying he had to have known isn't good enough, you need to prove he did know for a "dishonesty" charge to stand up.Before the election and inquiry he is live on tv saying he new nothing of the leak, proof of this fact is here... After the election and inquiry he admitted he authorised the leak thus being caught red handed in a lie, misleading the electorate in an election. proof of this fact is here...https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hVKR4cFhPUc Edited July 30, 2015 by Capeesh George. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 ^ How does the latter statement and video "prove" the former statement and video constitutes a "lie" was told? Surely you're not relying on the reporter's description in his summing up in the latter part of the second video, as that is the only place the allegation is made, despite the total lack of evidence provided anywhere else to support such a description. A "lie" "might" have been told, but there's nothing there to support it further than that, the "beyond reasonable doubt" benchmark is not satisfied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capeesh Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 ^^^It's not only "beyond reasonable doubt" it's beyond all doubt. The first link is basically Alistair Carmichael saying he only found out about the leak from a journalist after the event. The second link is him finally being forced to admit he was responsible for the release of the leak because the parliamentary inquiry had found him out. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hVKR4cFhPUc If that's still not enough "proof" you could always read what his own lawyers are saying in his defence... "The First respondent accepts (and has prior to the inceptions of these proceedings publicly accepted) that in a statement he misstated his awareness of the leaked memorandum. This was an error of judgement on a political matter." The link to this is HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) ^ Not what I hear being said in those links. In the first one he's saying he doesn't know where the paper got the info from (which, it should be noted is NOT the same thing as saying, "It wisnae me"). In the second he's saying that as the enquiry has traced the info back to the Scottish Office, as head of that office at that time he was obliged to take responsibility for anything and everything that occured in it. At no time does he say, "I knew exactly the full contents of that memo, and I signed off on it being given to the papers in full knowledge of what was going to be made public", or anything similar. Where is the proof that he had read that memo in its entirety or hd it relayed to him explicity and in detail, so that it is beyond reasonble doubt that when challenged as to the source of the press article, he could have been reasonably expected to recognise the origin of it? Where is the proof that Carmichael knew what memo was being referred to when its release was sanctioned? He should have, but did he? He's never stated at any time I've been aware of that he knew any of these things, and without it all you have from him is a confession of carelessness, not deceit.The person with all the answers here is the same one who is conspiciously missing from the equation, the aide who actually gave the contents of the memo to the paper. They need to stand up and say that they ensured Carmichael was fully informed of the contents of the memo before they made it public, and that Carmichael personally authorised its release, knowing full well exactly what it said, and exactly where it was going and what it would probably be used for, before "lying" is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Edited July 30, 2015 by Ghostrider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Knows Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 The Guardian in the link below reported that "Carmichael authorised his special adviser to release the memo" http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/lib-dem-alistair-carmichael-admits-responsibility-anti-sturgeon-leak-mp-snp-leader-david-cameron If the argument for the release was because it was in the public interest people should know the content of the memo how can you come to that conclusion without having read and undestood what was so important about the content that normal practice of conversations with foreign amdassorers remaining private should be breached? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) ^ He may well have authorised the release of "a memo", which in the fullness of time turned out to be the memo concerning Sturgeon's alleged opinion, but what knowledge did Carmichael have of the contents of the memo at the point in time he authorised its release, and what knowledge did he have of its contents when questioned about them by the interviewer on Channel 4, those are the unanswered smoking gun questions. As I said, only two people know the answers, Carmichael and his aide. Carmichael hasn't chosen to address them unequibouvly, and the aide is seriously conspicious by their total absence. If you apply the benchmark of "beyond resonble doubt" to the evidence so far presented, its a pretty weak case of circumstantial evidence and assumptions based on likelihood, which any defence lawyer worth their money would shred to dust. Edited July 31, 2015 by Ghostrider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capeesh Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 ^^ Alistair Carmichael now has a team of lawyers as shown in the link HERE Even they've had to admit that he told a big porkie in the face of overwhelming evidence. It's there in black and white, a crowd of lawyers who have been hired to defend our MP from a number of his own constituens said, and I quote... "The First respondent accepts (and has prior to the inceptions of these proceedings publicly accepted) that in a statement he misstated his awareness of the leaked memorandum. This was an error of judgement on a political matter." Alistair Carmichael "misstated his awareness of the leaked memorandum" He lied about knowing about the leaked memorandum, there's no doubt, no grey area he admits it, his lawyers admit it, it's common knowledge. George. and jz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffererof1crankymofo Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 Capeesh, being aware of a memo is not the same as being aware as to the precise contents of the memo and/or even reading said memo. "'Oy Ali, I got summat on Sturgeon". (AC raises eyebrow and says go on) "It's great, it'll really get her. Trust me, it's a right gem." AC gives go ahead for one minion to speak to another minion, and to gauge press interest. It all hit fans later, "Oh ****, THAT memo". You ever worked amongst politicians during a run-up to an election, Capeesh? You ever worked amongst High Court solicitors; you know, like the best in the UK? My version is plausible but as to your "overwhelming evidence"? Right now, I couldn't say "beyond reasonable doubt" as to whether or not he had read the memo - I have doubts. See what happens in Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGHR Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I have doubts.You have doubts you say. Can you prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you have doubts? Keeping in mind that you yourself admitting you have doubts means nothing and your own observable actions and behaviours mean nothing, there is no proof that even a single scintilla of doubt exists in your mind. Until such time as you can provide unequivocal verifiable proof as to your doubt any reasonable person can only conclude that you fully accept the thesis put forward by Capeesh. Edited July 31, 2015 by JGHR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now