Yard Dog Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 This case has certainly made the Chron a more interesting read this week ! Very interesting to read of the tactics employed in winning over the local Asian voters. So far, both seem as bad as each other, but Woolas played the game better..just...although we will have to see what else comes out.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 The weight of proof lies with Watkins, and although I haven't read everything that's come out during the course of the proceedings this week, I can't help feeling it's that weight of proof that will ultimately prove too great. It uncovers a story of some pretty dubious tactics (yes, to a degree, from both sides) but I'm not sure it has uncovered the undeniable facts that would be required for Watkins to win. Which is a shame, because I would love to be able to legally call Woolas a dirty lying weasel... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 (edited) Which is a shame, because I would love to be able to legally call Woolas a dirty lying weasel... I suspect you will be able to prove "dirty". Perhaps after he's played football with his kids, or maybe something seedier. He's a human being and politician. You will be able to prove a lie at some point. Not sure about the last one though. They're all as bad as each other though. Edited September 17, 2010 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 This case has certainly made the Chron a more interesting read this week ! Very interesting to read of the tactics employed in winning over the local Asian voters. So far, both seem as bad as each other, but Woolas played the game better..just...although we will have to see what else comes out.. Sour, sour grapes from the Watkins fella. Underhand leafleting? Personal attacks and smears? Propaganda? Welcome to politics, mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Underhand leafleting? Personal attacks and smears? Propaganda? Welcome to politics, mate. I do, believe it or not, have some sympathy with that view. And I believe Watkins has pursued this somewhat against the wishes of the local party. However, I also think it is perhaps time a precedent was set as to exactly how far electioneering material can go. Personal attacks and smears? Yes, they're inevitable, but outright lies claiming a candidate did something he didn't? Some of the stuff printed in the Labour campaign leaflets was definitely libellous and beyond where I believe that line should be - but it's up to Watkins to prove that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I do, believe it or not, have some sympathy with that view. And I believe Watkins has pursued this somewhat against the wishes of the local party. However, I also think it is perhaps time a precedent was set as to exactly how far electioneering material can go. Personal attacks and smears? Yes, they're inevitable, but outright lies claiming a candidate did something he didn't? Some of the stuff printed in the Labour campaign leaflets was definitely libellous and beyond where I believe that line should be - but it's up to Watkins to prove that. If it's libellous, he should pursue a libel case, rather than using some previously ignored crybaby statute. Besides, misrepresenting a Liberal's policies is almost impossible, given that they're willing to betray almost any principle for the sake of being in government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 If it's libellous, he should pursue a libel case, rather than using some previously ignored crybaby statute. Besides, misrepresenting a Liberal's policies is almost impossible, given that they're willing to betray almost any principle for the sake of being in government. I think you are on the wrong (high) horse here. More like there are also numerous Lib Dems who should be going to jail for their maliciously untrue and damaging campaigning as well as Woolas. It's no good making out that a bit of rough and tumble is the same as spreading race hate and fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I think you are on the wrong (high) horse here. More like there are also numerous Lib Dems who should be going to jail for their maliciously untrue and damaging campaigning as well as Woolas. It's no good making out that a bit of rough and tumble is the same as spreading race hate and fear. Simon Hughes. The straight choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Nick Clegg in the Cleggmania debate: cutting spending now will kill the recovery. Nick Clegg after the election: talking to the Governor of the Bank of England during the coalition talks made me change my mind about cuts. Nick Clegg in the TV documentary on the coalition talks: I realised the need for cuts in March. Oh dear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Two examples, neither of which are really comparable. Yes, the LDs ran a homophobic campaign against Tatchell, even though Hughes was and is a committed arse-man (as known by most of the world). Hypocritical and nasty, yes. Lies, well, borderline. Clegg on spending - that's just being silly. It's the nature of coalition that you have to support policies that you didn't have on your own ticket. And everyone knew that the spending plans would have to be butchered anyway, it just was a bit hard to win an election saying so. It wouldn't surprise me if your mate Gordy was planning something that would make Osbourne look like Attila the Rangers Fan if he's not been thrown out. Neither case compares to stirring up lies and racial hatred amongst the very people you are meant to be representing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 If it's libellous, he should pursue a libel case, rather than using some previously ignored crybaby statute. That shows the absolute lack of respect for democracy that I fully expect from a self righteous commie like you. Does it not remotely concern you that the result of an election may have been manipulated by lies and deception? I know you won't understand, but personally I think it shows a degree of honour on Watkins' behalf to pursue the electoral case ahead of any attempt to seek personal damages. And I don't see "they're all at it" as a valid reason not to pursue the worst culprits. Having been shown up to be utterly incompetent on several occasions as Immigration Minister - not least by that dastardly political operator Joanna Lumley - Woolas' front bench career is effectively over anyway. It would be a humane act of mercy to end what's left of his career altogether by showing him up to be an unscrupulous liar who is willing to defraud the electorate for his own ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Two examples, neither of which are really comparable. Yes, the LDs ran a homophobic campaign against Tatchell, even though Hughes was and is a committed arse-man (as known by most of the world). Hypocritical and nasty, yes. Lies, well, borderline. Clegg on spending - that's just being silly. It's the nature of coalition that you have to support policies that you didn't have on your own ticket. And everyone knew that the spending plans would have to be butchered anyway, it just was a bit hard to win an election saying so. It wouldn't surprise me if your mate Gordy was planning something that would make Osbourne look like Attila the Rangers Fan if he's not been thrown out. Neither case compares to stirring up lies and racial hatred amongst the very people you are meant to be representing Clegg's opponents aren't crying shenannigans - but he is absolutely full of...untruths. I'm still not sure what Woolas is supposed to have done wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I'm still not sure what Woolas is supposed to have done wrong. Presumably that's because you believe lying to and conning the electorate is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. After all, I can't see how anyone could support Labour without believing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Presumably that's because you believe lying to and conning the electorate is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. After all, I can't see how anyone could support Labour without believing that. So if Clegg changed his mind about cuts before the election, why didn't he tell everyone then? A lot of people voted for Clegg on the ground that he was the alternative to Labour who did not advocate immediate massive cuts. But it turns out he'd already decided in favour of such cuts. He was elected on a false prospectus - and the duplicity was all his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 That is your somewhat predictable interpretation. Which coincidentally appears to mirror my impression of the Labour campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 ... Attila the Rangers Fan... Not to be confused with Attila the Stockbroker, Brighton & Hove Albion's poet in residence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 That shows the absolute lack of respect for democracy that I fully expect from a self righteous commie like you. Does it not remotely concern you that the result of an election may have been manipulated by lies and deception? I know you won't understand, but personally I think it shows a degree of honour on Watkins' behalf to pursue the electoral case ahead of any attempt to seek personal damages. And I don't see "they're all at it" as a valid reason not to pursue the worst culprits. Having been shown up to be utterly incompetent on several occasions as Immigration Minister - not least by that dastardly political operator Joanna Lumley - Woolas' front bench career is effectively over anyway. It would be a humane act of mercy to end what's left of his career altogether by showing him up to be an unscrupulous liar who is willing to defraud the electorate for his own ends. Some of the stuff coming round from the Labour Party was very close to the bone. I reckon a lot of people took it as fact as it was in black and white and thinking that it must be true... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Some of the stuff coming round from the Labour Party was very close to the bone. I reckon a lot of people took it as fact as it was in black and white and thinking that it must be true... I'd expect it to be near the knuckle - you live in tight marginal seat! It's not tiddlywinks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I'd expect it to be near the knuckle - you live in tight marginal seat! It's not tiddlywinks! Come on If Woolyarse wasn't one of your's, you'd be up in arms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 So if Clegg changed his mind about cuts before the election, why didn't he tell everyone then? A lot of people voted for Clegg on the ground that he was the alternative to Labour who did not advocate immediate massive cuts. But it turns out he'd already decided in favour of such cuts. He was elected on a false prospectus - and the duplicity was all his. "You're a black kettle," said Mr. Pot... I'm only really old enough to remember the elections from 97 onwards but it seems to me that no election manifesto from any of the parties who end up in power have remained true but this has already been discussed previously when the election was on. (I doubt the loosers' manifestos would have remained true either but we will never know). Its the way of politics, politicans lie, only when they get caught lying during campaigning does it really matter. (A few of the expenses crooks lost their seats but that went beyond lying and into fraud). I have the jist of what's going on in the relevant bit of Oldham but if someone has actually libelled someone then they should take it to court (there is one particular instance where you can't get sued for libel, which is why anyone who has a go at Simon Hughes gets my blessing). I don't know the full rules but being succesfully sued for libel might automatically disqualify you as an MP (I'd hope it would come close). That makes it democracy in action for me but I haven't studied the theory of democracy. Yes if every bit of muck-slinging ended up with people being disqualified from holding office the houses of parliament would have very few people left. Incidentally, wasn't this not the election where loosing could well be the better long-term option due to the consequences of the economic situation. Wasn't someone on here boasting about how Labour had received a load of new members immediately after the coalition was formed.... oh yeah they were. You can't have it both ways, which brings me nicely round to my original point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Thanks for that Doctor. Who says that anyone was actually swayed by this stuff anyway? Most people are well capable of spotting a misrepresentation of someone's policy. How many of those blessed 103 voters were tempted by the offending leaflet? Which 103 Labour voters were they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Thanks for that Doctor. Who says that anyone was actually swayed by this stuff anyway? Most people are well capable of spotting a misrepresentation of someone's policy. How many of those blessed 103 voters were tempted by the offending leaflet? Which 103 Labour voters were they? You are the one who was harping on about the Tories using, "If you want a nigger for a neighbour/Vote Liberal or Labour," in an election slogan when Cameron hadn't even been born, yet now you are defending a Labour politician using nasty race-hate tactics. You really need to make your mind up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 (edited) Who says that anyone was actually swayed by this stuff anyway? Most people are well capable of spotting a misrepresentation of someone's policy. Really? Maybe it is most. But a substantial minority probably aren't. How many of those blessed 103 voters were tempted by the offending leaflet? Which 103 Labour voters were they? It would only take 52. Edited September 18, 2010 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 "Miss Mountfield said five false statements had been made — that Mr Watkins had falsely broken his promise to move to the constituency, false statements in the Examiner associated with election expenses, a similar allegation in The Rose linked with payment from a Saudi Sheikh and two electoral offences. She alleged that part of their gameplan was to create a genuine and immediate threat of violence among ordinary readers of militant extremists or “mad Muslims” as described by Mr Fitzpatrick." (That's from the Chron, so the likelihood of it being a fair summation of the situation are admittedly slim.) The last of those is clearly the most serious allegation, and the only one on which the judges could realistically decide to disqualify Woolas on the ground of there being a "pressing social need" to do so. MI5 states that the terrorist threat level is severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. So Mad Muslims and militant extremists are a danger. Those are not Fitzpatrick's words, nor Woolas's, but MI5's. So what's the problem? Watkins in court. Watkins on the ocky. He should get back to his darts and leave the kitchen of politics to them what can take the heat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 (That's from the Chron, so the likelihood of it being a fair summation of the situation are admittedly slim.) The last of those is clearly the most serious allegation, and the only one on which the judges could realistically decide to disqualify Woolas on the ground of there being a "pressing social need" to do so. MI5 states that the terrorist threat level is severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. So Mad Muslims and militant extremists are a danger. Those are not Fitzpatrick's words, nor Woolas's, but MI5's. So what's the problem? Watkins in court. Watkins on the ocky. He should get back to his darts and leave the kitchen of politics to them what can take the heat. Did you borrow the whistle the Tories were using in 2001? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.