Jump to content

Alistair Carmichael memo leak and inquiry: should he resign?


Should Alistair Carmichael resign?  

141 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Alistair Carmichael resign?

    • Yes
      84
    • No
      57


Recommended Posts

What positive benefit would be gained by lying about lying? Unless you want to commit political suicide (then why smear your opponent?) there's really very little.

 

I'd also like to know what lie Danus told about his education and religious beliefs to influence a positive return at the ballot box. I fear this is one from the Shetland Times Tinkler playbook  :???:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What positive benefit would be gained by lying about lying? Unless you want to commit political suicide (then why smear your opponent?) there's really very little.

 

I'd also like to know what lie Danus told about his education and religious beliefs to influence a positive return at the ballot box. I fear this is one from the Shetland Times Tinkler playbook  :???:

 

As far as I'm aware, Skene didn't tell any lies in his run up to the vote. Carbunkle, on the other hand, has had to admit that he is a liar.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That's great, isn't it. Ignore the fact that Carbunkle is a self-admitted liar and pretend that the worst he has done is to "have attempted to answer a vague and incompetent question...." What utter rubbish :ponders:

 

See my earlier point about "liars". ;-)

 

Seriously though, whatever Carmichel may have "admitted" was, to the best of my knowledge, after he'd lawyer'd up, and as such any connection to reality and fact is purely coincidental. Once a lawyer's game plan is in play you either say what they tell you to say, to achieve what they perceive will likely provide "best outcome", regardless of what it is, or you fire them.

 

Anyway, when it comes to ignoring, you're doing a good job ignoring the connected issue about Skene's shortcomings during the same period of the election campaign.

 

Had Skene won, would we have had the same braying mob calling for him to step down, and taking him to court if he didn't, for "lying" about half of his CV. In the interests of fairness across the board concerning "honesty and integrity" I would hope so, but I seriously doubt it, given that he's been selected to stand again, this time for the Scottie farce.

 

Not really he admitted it was a lie only after the investigation uncovered his involvement.

If Danus Skene had lied while a government minister and during an election campaign he would get the same treatment.

Out of interest what lie has he told?

 

 

I thought the whole argument and statute under which the court case was brought was about candidates "lying" during an election campaign. What does Carmichael's previous positions have to do with that? Parliament had been dissolved prior to ll this kicking off, technically the country neither had MP's nor Government ministers at that point in time anyway. Carmichael and Skene were on equal footing throughout the whole stooshie, so why one rule for one, and another for the other?

 

Skene lied by omission, by making no attempt to inform the electorate that he was educated at Eton, was a Clan Chief, and a past Director of some obscure religious organisation. Education, social standing and religious convictions cannot be dismissed as "irrelevant", as all three very much shape the character and can potentially strongly influence the decisions and behaviours of the individual concerned. These things make an individual more, or less desirable as a candidate, depending of the audience concerned. Had Skene believed any of these would show him in a better light to O&S voters, he would have been a fool not to push them for all they were worth, the fact he chose not to puts in place a very viable argument that he was happy to keep them as buried as possible to prevent them acting negatively against him.

 

Admitting being one of Eton's "toffs", an "old boy", is hardly an image that is comptible with representing a Socialist leaning organisation like the SNP, and unlikely to win him any favours from socialist voters leaning towards possibly voting SNP.

 

Admitting to being a Clan Chief, is certainly not going to win him any friends in O&S either, given that its an entirely alien concept to us, and clans long with other ranks of Scottish hierachy are associated in many local minds as some of the negatives of the Scottish "establishment".

 

If the line "attempting to infuence the outcome of the election (positively for themselves)" applies to anyone's behaviour, from where I'm sitting it certainly applies to the above. Not telling your electorate the bits about you you don't think they'll like, is no different than allegedly denying doing something you did do, in my book.

 

Regardless, "being accountable and transparent", Skene certainly was not being.

 

Like I said before. *If* I'd voted for Skene, and only found out after the fact he'd been educated at Eton and led a Scottish Clan, I'd have felt very conned, and would have been gunning for revenge, whether he was elected or not. Thankfully, I wasn't even thinking of voting for him, and the fuller facts were dug out and publicised by other people before it was too late.

 

Skene makes much of the fact he closed the gap with Carmichael to circa 800 votes, and insinuations abound that if Carmichael had "confessed" before ballot day, Skene would probably have won. Perhaps if Skene were to turn around and take a good long hard look at himself in the mirror, and ask himself "what if" he'd "confessed" the full truth about himself and explained and justified how he could be an Eton "toff" and a fully fledged caber tossing sporran wearer, and still represent Shetland's best interests, his "honesty" could well have won him this circa 800 votes he needed, regrdless of anything Carmichael did or didn't do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

* The lot. What's paradoxical about it? 

 

What is paradoxical about the statement, "he was only lying about being a liar"? It's a bit of a Catch 22 is it not?

 

 

Bingo. If you once accept someone is a liar, all of their statements for there forward must also be considered lies, and you're locked inside a vicious circle. As I said above, you need independent corrobortion of the facts before you can move forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What positive benefit would be gained by lying about lying? Unless you want to commit political suicide (then why smear your opponent?) there's really very little.

 

How many people appearing in Court plead guilty to a charge, when they are indeed not guilty. Quite a few, if they perceive taking the rap and getting it over with as quickly as possible is the best outcome for them with regard to damage limitation. If you're losing £100 a day in wages to attend the Court, and risking your job by taking the time off, and you're only likely to be fined £200, its a no brainer - you get the idea.

 

 

*If* Carmichael perceived he would achive the best damage limitation outcome by just admitting to the accusations against him, rather than continue fighting as long as it took. He had no option but tell a lie that his earlier statements were a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What positive benefit would be gained by lying about lying? Unless you want to commit political suicide (then why smear your opponent?) there's really very little.

 

How many people appearing in Court plead guilty to a charge, when they are indeed not guilty. Quite a few, if they perceive taking the rap and getting it over with as quickly as possible is the best outcome for them with regard to damage limitation. If you're losing £100 a day in wages to attend the Court, and risking your job by taking the time off, and you're only likely to be fined £200, its a no brainer - you get the idea.

 

 

*If* Carmichael perceived he would achive the best damage limitation outcome by just admitting to the accusations against him, rather than continue fighting as long as it took. He had no option but tell a lie that his earlier statements were a lie.

 

 

If. Ha ha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ What did Carmichael stand to gain by continuing fighting? The mud had already been well slung around and stuck pretty much everyplace it could be expected to stick to, this thread is testament to that. Even if in the fullness of time he'd been completely exonerated it couldn't have even begun to remove an amount of that mud that was even going to begin to make a palpable difference. Better just to get it buried ASAP, whatever that took, and work towards getting enough material built on top of it to keep it there.

 

Keeping on haggling over it would just bring it to the forefront of folk's minds time and time again for as long as it took to reach some final conclusion, which was likely to be far damaging to his career in tht long run than one black mark. I would imagine Sturgeon and anyone within the SNP that has any grain of wit also gave a big sigh of relief that it was to be buried too, as inevitably every time the whole saga was aired, folk were going to be reminded of the "Nikki luvs Dave" line, which regardless of truthfullness or otherwise, is a damaging one to her and them wherever its uttered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danus Skene didn't lie, this is the very definition of a red herring.

Another feeble smear attempt to deflect attention from the elephant in the room...

Our MP Alistair Carmichael was judged in a court to have lied to the electorate to help secure his seat.

OH LOOK, there's a squirrel>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

So lying by omission isn't a "lie", is it. What exactly is it then? Is it being transparent and accountable by any chance?

 

I've read the reports on the Court's verdict, and while they apprently state Carmichael's alleged "lie" helped him win, they don't state how they believe this occured. Perhaps someone can enlighten me, as on the information presented, I fail to see how the Court could reach that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are straight up trolling now. Either that or just being highly obtuse. The information (as has been pointed out to you before) was already easily available (e.g. it appears on the first page of Google results) for anyone who makes judgement on someone based on where they were educated and / or their religious beliefs. It is way beyond reasonable expectation for everyone to introduce themselves in such a way. It is also plainly obvious that it is nowhere near the same thing and to try and do so belongs on the Shetland Times comments section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^

How can it be a "lie by ommision" if all the information you've listed was in the public domain?

 

Where's the lie????

 

He's a Christian...did he say he was a Muslim?

He went to Eton...did he say he went to the Anderson High School?

He has Scottish ancestry...did he claim to be a Viking?

 

Is any of it relevant????

 

An accident of birth gave him his surname,

His parents chose which school he went to when he was a child, he had no choice in the matter.

We live in a free country where it's perfectly acceptable to be a Christian.

 

Maybe he should've told us what football team he supports or if he's a vegetarian or if he wears boxers, trunks or y fronts.

 

You don't have to say "Alistair Carmichael's alleged lie" anymore, he held his hands up and admitted it when he got caught by the expensive, tax payer funded parliamentary leaks inquiry.

 

In addition he was judged in a court of law to have lied to us all to help him win his election contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Its a lie by omission if, when selling himself to the public as a suitable candidate to vote for, that he did not make any attempt to publicise facts about himself that could reasonably be expected to influence the public as to whether they gave him their vote or not.

 

Simply saying "its in the public domain" is not good enough. If you buy a new car and find its fitted with a speed limiter to 30mph, and the sales bumpf didn't mention it, the dealership won't get away with saying "we didn't need to mention it, it was in the public domain" because its mentioned once on some obsure website you have to Google for. A Court is likely to rule the car was mis-sold as it was not fit for purpose for the task a buyer could resonably expect it to do.

 

Skene was the salesman, and ultimately responsible for the sales bumpf, selling himself as a product fit for purpose to be the O&S MP. The strength of his faith convictions, the kind of education he received in his formative years, and the depth of involvement in Scottish social hierachy, certainly to me at least, matters a great deal as to whether he is potentially fit for purpose as the O&S MP.

 

I couldn't give a fig what persuasion of faith anybody decides to worship, Skene's God could be the Purple People Eater or Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care, its whether or not he's someone who when he dons his "work" hat is capable of leaving his God and all that follows it at the door, and of dealing with the business at hand with only the proven facts and cold reasoning, or if hes so committed that they have to request "guidance" from that God for every vote. Likewise, public schools of the era Skene attended one, drummed in to their students certain eletist attitudes and principles, the more eletist the school, the more eletist and revered those attitudes and principles became, and Eton in those days was considered top of the pile. Those attitudes and principles IMHO had very little place in the world in which they were taught, and most certainly have no place in the world now half a century later. Perhaps Skene as he has travelled through life has evolved with the times and modernised his beliefs and outlook, perhaps he hasn't, but we never got the chance to find out, as he decided he wasn't going to talk about it. Until he openly and freely discusses this part of his life, and proves he's long since left behind all the undesirble excesses inevitably drummed in to his psyche 50 odd years ago, the fact that he my not have makes him too risky IMHO to vote for. Skene may well have been the legitimate heir to a clan Cheiftainship, but that did not mean he was obliged to accept it, accepting it was entirely at his own choice, and if I recall correctly, it was not only a case of accepting it, it was vacant position of some time standing, and as such he pursued it to obtain it. Scottish clans are completely alien and have no relevance to Shetland and Shetlnders, if someone representing our interests, who apparently from their actions holds they clan system in such high regard as pursue and become one of the top line of their hierachy, at the very least they owe potential voters an explanation as to how they envision their personal involvement in the highest echelons of one social construct, and its wider impact, would be able to make a comfortble bedfellow with another alien one, where some actually despise it.

 

Yes, birth gave him his heritage and his parents decided his eduction, those things were outwith his control, but neither can be undone, nor ignored. What is within his control, and has been all throughout his adulthood, is how he has and does address those burdens (or assets, depending on your POV) imposed upon him by accident of birth and parentage. So far all we've seen is a desire to keep them as hidden as possible, and until the man stands up and freely discusses these parts of who he is, one must wonder why he doesn't. Is it shame, is it that he still has to make his peace with them, is it denial, is it deceit, or something else? None of these show him in a positive light, in fact just about the only obvious "excuse" that doesn't create a negative vibe is "it doesn't matter now, it was all a very long time ago", which itself is incredibly weak, as whether it matters or not is not his call to make, its the electorate's.

 

In any case, surely everyone wants their Govt. representative to be as accurate and thorough in all there dealings as possible, by cherry picking the bits of Skene he wanted the electorate to perceive Skene the man to be, he has displayed a disregard for accuracy and thoroughness that IMHO disqualifies him from being a suitable candidate to vote for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, surely everyone wants their Govt. representative to be as accurate and thorough in all there dealings as possible,"

 

Exactly!

Carmichael leaked a memo he had access to while a government minister.

He then lied about his involvement.

He only admitted it was a lie and he had leaked it after the general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are straight up trolling now. Either that or just being highly obtuse. The information (as has been pointed out to you before) was already easily available (e.g. it appears on the first page of Google results) for anyone who makes judgement on someone based on where they were educated and / or their religious beliefs. It is way beyond reasonable expectation for everyone to introduce themselves in such a way. It is also plainly obvious that it is nowhere near the same thing....

 

I disgree entirely, when being asked to select a representative at any level, but especially at national level, a potted history of who and what they are from birth to present is essential. Homo Sapiens have many good liars and some excellent actors among their number, and its all too easy for some to "bury" an undesirable past if they're allowed to get away with anything less than a lifetime CV.

 

I would argue the information was anything but readily available. Certainly if you have online access, a suspicious mind and are web savvy, it was reasonably easy to locate. Many people however are too trusting, and/or aren't web savvy, and/or don't have web access. Are they to be treated as second class citizens because of that? The established method of election communications is via the written word, either through established publications or leaflet drops, neither are 100% foolproof, but they have the best odds to achieve mximum possible coverage. At the end of the day, the onus is on the candidate to make available to as many of their potential voters as possible, as comprehensive and complete information about themselves as reassures the voters they are open, honest and trustworthy enough to be entrusted with the job in hand. Skene did not succeed in doing this.

 

Skene failed to furnish information about himself relevant in some people's minds to affecting his ability to perform the job he was solicting support to be appointed to, until he was pressed, Carmichael allegedly failed to furnish information about his involvement in an incident, which some people contend would have affected his suitability for the job he was soliticing support to be re-ppointed to, until pressed. How is it not the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...