Alistair Carmichael memo leak and inquiry: should he resign?

[Ghostrider]

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.

 

That would be the dumbed down red top description, as its of questionable accuracy, and about 10% of the story, pretty much the same as the fracical court proceedings.

[mikeyboy]

Not really is it?

It is a summary of the facts.

[Ghostrider]

Right. I wish I'd realised this was where things were going as if I'd known we were just going to end up claiming Scottish courts are on the whole useless I'd have let things lie a lot sooner. 

 

I'll amend my original point to say those who disagreed with the original petition but who recognise and respect the authority of our country's legal system. I was admittedly naive of me to overlook that this forum would have a few members not matching that caveat. 

 

 

Any country that has a judiciary appointed "for life" by the ruling political parties can never be considered wholly impartial, fully accountable, or adequtely monitored. All court appointees entrusted with the power of handing out verdicts and sentencing should be democratically elected for a fixed term, with the ability to dismiss at any time, as should anyone above the rank of sergeant in the Police. Those who monitor and enforce legislation should only be there on the strength of public confidence and their track record, not as a "reward" for doing adequate brown-nosing within an overall self-serving system.

 

The UK's long-standing system has always sailed far too close to the wind for anyone's comfort, but since Holyrood took over the Scottish bit, it has descended in to farce, not least due to many of the pieces of legislation Holyrood has felt the need to tinker with, becoming so vague that the only consistency to winning a case so affected is who has the sneakiest lawyer.

 

I recognise that this country's legal system will have their pound of flesh out of me if I ignore any of their statutes and they manage to catch up with me and pin it on me. As for respect though, no chance, laws of statute are only, in their simplest form, a price list for performing behviours considered undesirable by the the representatives of the masses, and respect is hardly an appropriate thing to have for a shopping list. Besides respect is earned, not automatically given, and so far the Scottish legal system is well in defecit on the balance sheet of respect as far as I'm corcerned.

[Capeesh]

What's Danus Skene's favourite colour?

What are his hobbies?

Does he have a GSOH (good sense of humour)

What's his favourite film?

Favourite book?

What does he do for fun?

All vital questions he MUST answer or he will be accused of "lying by ommision"

[Colin]

I seem to remember that Skene also failed to tell us all that he had previously stood as a parliamentary candidate for 2 other parties.

 

This information was was also in the "public domain" but, I have no recollection of seeing it on any of his (Skene's) election bumph..  Another "lie" by omission or, a deliberate attempt to decieve?

[Roachmill]

OK everybody, please list the MPs that made a point of listing their place of education in their manifesto. Unless you can come with a majority of MPs having done so feel free to gaze at your feet. I'm no fan of Danus and his party hopping is part of that... but keeping things relative really isn't rocket science.

[Capeesh]

^^^If the information is in the public domain it cannot possibly be a lie by ommision because of the very obvious fact that the information is freely available.

This isn't a serious argument is it?????

[Ghostrider]

Not really is it?

It is a summary of the facts.

 

Its what the red tops and his detractors would like folk to believe are a summary of the facts, but if you're going to hang a man for "mistruths" at least be accurate and truthful about it.

 

He didn't leak the memo, one of the minions in his office did. That much at least seems to be undisputed all round.

 

Was it leaked with his knowlege, was leaked with his approval, if it was with his approval, did he know accurately its full contents when he gave his approval, did he order it to be leaked? If we believe his version, it was leaked with his approval, but he was not fully conversant with its contents, but this is an area that has been sadly largely ignored by the "investigations", so nothing has been proven.

 

Regardless of what of the above may or my not be true, it matters none, as once it was estblished the source was the Scottish Office, "blame" was always going to stop with him as the office head, as ultimately anything that happened in that office was his responsibility, regardless whether he had any knowledge of it happening or not.

 

Did he lie? I don't believe that has been proven yet, despite what any court may say. The standard of proof required to be able to claim that he did lie would be evidence that he knew fine well exactly what the full contents of the memo were, and in that knowledge authorised or ordered it to be released, then denied knowing anything about. I'm not aware of any such evidence, especially of proof of his knowledge of the contents, having yet being produced.

 

He accepted the findings of the Government enquiry, and it just happened to be after the election before those finding were published. He had no influence (or at least he shouldn't have had any, if it was being done fairly) over when the enquiry was completed, so how is the timing his fault? Wherever else any sort of legal proceedings are ongoing it is incumbent upon all parties to the case not make public statements concerning any aspect of the case. Why would anyone expect other rules to apply in this situation?

 

Its very convenient to to blame his alleged "unco-operative" attitude towards the enquiry as being the sole reason it took over a month to be completed and its findings published, but where is the evidence to support this. The facts of the matter are the enquiry could have been conducted and concluded without any input from Carmichael at all. The media outlet who broke the story was well known, leaning on them to reveal their source would have taken them to the Scottish Office minion, and then they'd have been done. Certainly it would have been highly desirable for the inquiry to have been concluded far more quickly, and even if Carmichael had chosen to respond "No comment" to every question to to him, its difficult to understand why it needed as long as it took. The only ones who can explain why though, are Cabinet Office who conducted the enquiry, and so far they're saying nowt, so there's no evidence to reach any kind of conclusion from, only supposition and assumptions.

[Ghostrider]

What's Danus Skene's favourite colour?

What are his hobbies?

Does he have a GSOH (good sense of humour)

What's his favourite film?

Favourite book?

What does he do for fun?

All vital questions he MUST answer or he will be accused of "lying by ommision"

 

The liklihood of any of the above having any measurable impact upon how he could be expected to vote as an MP, or his attitude towards issues which he might become involved in debate over, is too low to be measurable. Therefore of no real relevance.

 

Faith convictions, education and social standing are life guiding issues, which inevitably impact to a greater or lesser degree upon the holder's attitudes, standards, philosophies etc, and inevitably influence how they could be expected to behave in political debates and votes.

[Ghostrider]

^^^If the information is in the public domain it cannot possibly be a lie by ommision because of the very obvious fact that the information is freely available.

This isn't a serious argument is it?????

 

Being in the public domain does not automatically translate to being freely available.

 

In any case, as I think I mentioned previously. When someone is attempting to solicit your vote for them to become your political representative, especially at a national level, the onus is entirely on them to make themselves electable, and that includes being brutually honest and forthcoming about everything of who and what they are. If you can't trust them to do that, why in the name would you ever entertain the idea of trusting them to look after your interests.

[mikeyboy]

I am not here to hang anybody but I can't understand your blind defence of the man. Looks like everybody is a liar apart from the person who had admitted he lied.

By the way I note that you have referred to Red tops and mistruths a few times in your replies to my points. I can only assume you are trying to be insulting.

I will leave the Red top and mistruths to yourself, As I prefer to get my information straight from the horses mouth.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/scotland-office-memorandum-leak-cabinet-office-inquiry-statement

 

In the inquiry statement it is clear that the memo was released by the special advisor with Carmichaels consent.

Edited December 12, 2015 by mikeyboy

[Ghostrider]

^ I simply do not see adequate evidence having been produced to prove or disprove what he did or didn't do. The whole trip through the Courts was an incredible fudge with legislation being used for circumstances for which it was never intended, and the Court moving, or allowing the goalposts to be moved at every stage so s to be able to continue.

 

The public deserves to know exactly what occurred, something happened that shouldn't have happened, but even after all their going round the houses we're no wiser than we were at the beginning.

 

I didn't vote for Carmichael, I'm not a LibDem supporter, they're too "liberal" for my tastes, but I am an avid believer in "innocent until proven guilty", and of "justice not only needs to be done, it needs to be seen to be done", neither of which seem to figure very highly in Scottish Courts these days, and are conspicious by their absence in this issue to date from where I'm looking at it.

[Capeesh]

Some eager beavers desperately clawing in the gutter trying to dig any sort of dirt on Danus Skene to deflect attention from our lying MP and his apologists.

What've they found???

He's a well educated Christian who has an interesting family tree.

Was this damning information hard to find???

Nope, it can be found as easily as finding the nose on your own face.

 

As far as I can tell this irrelevant information wasn't in his election leaflets so he's a "liar by ommision"

 

LibDem leaflet - Thing like a takeaway menu floating gently to the floor.

Labour leaflet - Thing like a takeaway menu floating gently to the floor.

Tory leaflet - Thing like a takeaway menu floating gently to the floor.

Green leaflet - Thing like a takeaway menu floating gently to the floor.

UKIP leaflet - Thing like a takeaway menu floating gently to the floor.

SNP leaflet - Thing like War and Peace with the life and works of Danus Skene with diagrams of his family tree which will crack floor tiles as it crashes through the letterbox or a thing like the yellow pages which will be found weeks after the election, sodden outside among the bushes because it wouldn't fit through the letterbox.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Capeesh

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

What've they found???

 

 

He's still our MP.  Those who brought the legal action lost.  Get over it, given that you refuse to accept that others not holding your viewpoint are entitled to put forward opposing views to your own.

[Capeesh]

^^^^Of course people can disagree with me I've said this would be a boring place if everyone agreed, surely it swings both ways though,if I disagree with a point am I not then entitled to post which in turn generates discussion?

Is this why it's so desolate on here, has it turned into an echochamber?

Edited December 13, 2015 by Capeesh