Alistair Carmichael memo leak and inquiry: should he resign?

[Urabug]

Winder Nicola has'na announced a public holiday so everyone can bide at home and watch it 

[Wheelsup]

it will damage democracy more to have a single party state

[George.]

I don't know how any enquiry can be fair with the amount of pre-judging thats been going on. 

 

How fair does the enquiry need to be? He has already admitted guilt, all that needs to be done is deciding what size of bullets to use. Fairly and with no prejdgement, of course

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

 

I don't know how any enquiry can be fair with the amount of pre-judging thats been going on. 

 

How fair does the enquiry need to be? He has already admitted guilt, all that needs to be done is deciding what size of bullets to use. Fairly and with no prejdgement, of course

 

 

What's the offence in law then and when did he say he was guilty of said offence in law?

[George.]

If Big Al had done nothing illegal then there would be nothing for STV to broadcast, there would be nothing to take him to court for, and don't forget that he has already admitted it all.

[Capeesh]

it will damage democracy more to have a single party state

I've voted in every election since I was old enough to vote, in every one there's been a choice, where's this "single party state?"

[George.]

 

Legal bid over Carbunkle's election to proceed.   

 

[Ghostrider]

Legal bid over Carbunkle's election to proceed.   

 

Maybe I missed something, but all I'm seeing there is a classic case of "making it up as they go long" to suit their own ends. Typical Scottie estblishment tactics. The legislation being used, as I understand it, is to protect any candidate from having their electability from being tarnished by mud being slung by other candidates, not to judge whether a candidate themselves is a fit person to be a candidate based on the mud they've allegedly slung, which is how the media reports are presenting this. That's for the electorate to decide, otherwise we're heading down the road of having only "state approved" candidates, and we know what that creates.

[George.]

 

Legal bid over Carbunkle's election to proceed.   

 

Maybe I missed something, but all I'm seeing there is a classic case of "making it up as they go long" to suit their own ends. Typical Scottie estblishment tactics. The legislation being used, as I understand it, is to protect any candidate from having their electability from being tarnished by mud being slung by other candidates, not to judge whether a candidate themselves is a fit person to be a candidate based on the mud they've allegedly slung, which is how the media reports are presenting this. That's for the electorate to decide, otherwise we're heading down the road of having only "state approved" candidates, and we know what that creates.

 

 

But the candidates must surely behave themselves, not tell blatant lies and not put forward to the public information that is utterly fraudulent. The legislation being used will hopefully offer some belated protection to the other candidates that put themselves forward.

[Wheelsup]

I predict this will take 5 or 6 years.

[hjasga]

I predict this will take 5 or 6 years.

I'm not sure you've grasped the purpose of the trial...

[hjasga]

 

Legal bid over Carbunkle's election to proceed.   

 

Maybe I missed something, but all I'm seeing there is a classic case of "making it up as they go long" to suit their own ends. Typical Scottie estblishment tactics. The legislation being used, as I understand it, is to protect any candidate from having their electability from being tarnished by mud being slung by other candidates, not to judge whether a candidate themselves is a fit person to be a candidate based on the mud they've allegedly slung, which is how the media reports are presenting this. That's for the electorate to decide, otherwise we're heading down the road of having only "state approved" candidates, and we know what that creates.

 

The argument put forward in this initial part of the process was that as well as lying about another candidate for political gain, it is also against election law to lie about yourself to be perceived in a more positive light (at the expense of other candidates).

 

You say it's for the electorate to decide but when they are not in full possession of the facts at the time of the election - and certain facts are revealed after the result is final - then surely that affects their decision process? It's nothing to do with control by the state.

[Ghostrider]

You say it's for the electorate to decide but when they are not in full possession of the facts at the time of the election - and certain facts are revealed after the result is final - then surely that affects their decision process? It's nothing to do with control by the state.

 

Is the mean intelligence level of the electorate really that low?

 

Anybody that was fool enough to let what any candidate said about the leader of an opposing party, especially during an election campaign, to factor in to their reasoning as to whom they voted for, really shouldn't be voting without the supervision of both parents.

 

Whether it was truthful, a half truth or an outright lie is besides the point, as by definition of its source, it could never be considered impartial or unbiased.

[George.]

 

You say it's for the electorate to decide but when they are not in full possession of the facts at the time of the election - and certain facts are revealed after the result is final - then surely that affects their decision process? It's nothing to do with control by the state.

 

Is the mean intelligence level of the electorate really that low?

 

Anybody that was fool enough to let what any candidate said about the leader of an opposing party, especially during an election campaign, to factor in to their reasoning as to whom they voted for, really shouldn't be voting without the supervision of both parents.

 

Whether it was truthful, a half truth or an outright lie is besides the point, as by definition of its source, it could never be considered impartial or unbiased.

 

 

I take it that you're a LibDim voter.

[hjasga]

 

You say it's for the electorate to decide but when they are not in full possession of the facts at the time of the election - and certain facts are revealed after the result is final - then surely that affects their decision process? It's nothing to do with control by the state.

 

Is the mean intelligence level of the electorate really that low?

 

Anybody that was fool enough to let what any candidate said about the leader of an opposing party, especially during an election campaign, to factor in to their reasoning as to whom they voted for, really shouldn't be voting without the supervision of both parents.

 

Whether it was truthful, a half truth or an outright lie is besides the point, as by definition of its source, it could never be considered impartial or unbiased.

 

Absolute bobbins. It is not the comments of Nicola Sturgeon that are in question here. Mr Carmichael's lie was regarding his own role in the distribution of the memo about her. He led the public to believe he had had no role in its leaking and that he was innocent of any wrongdoing. That was found to be demonstrably untrue.

Edited September 29, 2015 by hjasga