24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 (edited) Really? Maybe it is most. But a substantial minority probably aren't. It would only take 52. Cheers for that. I was struggling with the maths. It's always confusing when there's an odd number involved - or even an even one. Who's to say whether any voters were duped? The two judges, who don't know anything about politics and who have no modern precedent to go on? Watkins, who's obviously quite seriously interested in proving that people were so duped? There are two types of politicians: those who take MI5's advice and those who think it doesn't matter. The ones who think it doesn't matter clearly lose elections, albeit narrowly. Edited September 18, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 (edited) I've finally sussed all this macho bull**** you're coming out with tulsehill. You think you're in The Thick Of It don't you. You think you're Malcolm ****ing Tucker. You're not. You're the ****ing arsewipe tea bot who gets told to **** off to Starbucks while the grown ups swear at each other. You're a ****ing wet tea towel. Now **** off. Edited September 18, 2010 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 You're very, very perceptive, M. Garçon, for a waiter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Behave, the pair of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Slight over reaction there Garcon They are both first class arseholes... Woolas and Watkins... How anyone can say one is better than the other is beyond... Its just the worse type of politics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 I felt like a rant. I think I've broken my asterisk key now. Not sure what Watkins has done to be classed the same as Woolas - beyond his desire to become an MP... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 arsewipe tea bot I meant tea boy, but I think tea bot is funnier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 (edited) ' Edited September 19, 2010 by OldhamSheridan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 (edited) I meant tea boy, but I think tea bot is funnier. Even if you do say so yourself. It's funny how quickly the pills work these days isn't it? Anyway, I've looked into it, and so far as I can tell, because the Representation of the People Act 1983 was a consolidation measure, section 106 (or any other section or schedule) was not debated in either House - it passed all stages in the Commons in about a minute. That means that you'd have to go back beyond that to find out what the law actually means, which means that in effect, the judges in this case will be making the law. That's not unusual, but it might not be great for Woolas (or elections in general). He might get caught out because today's standards more or less all contravene a measure meant to police elections in a more innocent age. I'd love it if he won this one though. Love it. Elwyn now: ...and in happier times... Edited September 20, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 Even if you do say so yourself. It's funny how quickly the pills work these days isn't it? Anyway, I've looked into it, and so far as I can tell, because the Representation of the People Act 1983 was a consolidation measure, section 106 (or any other section or schedule) was not debated in either House - it passed all stages in the Commons in about a minute. That means that you'd have to go back beyond that to find out what the law actually means, which means that in effect, the judges in this case will be making the law. That's not unusual, but it might not be great for Woolas (or elections in general). He might get caught out because today's standards more or less all contravene a measure meant to police elections in a more innocent age. Interesting. Maybe a precedent will be set. I'd love it if he won this one though. Love it. How terriboly Keggie Keegle of you... Although I still think the odds are probably in Woolas' favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 Even if you do say so yourself. It's funny how quickly the pills work these days isn't it? Anyway, I've looked into it, and so far as I can tell, because the Representation of the People Act 1983 was a consolidation measure, section 106 (or any other section or schedule) was not debated in either House - it passed all stages in the Commons in about a minute. That means that you'd have to go back beyond that to find out what the law actually means, which means that in effect, the judges in this case will be making the law. That's not unusual, but it might not be great for Woolas (or elections in general). He might get caught out because today's standards more or less all contravene a measure meant to police elections in a more innocent age. I'd love it if he won this one though. Love it. Elwyn now: ...and in happier times... Pesky Duke of Wellington and Marshall Blucher stopping Napoleon imposing his code of politician-based law. It would be much better if Woolas and Watkins were more important than the judicial system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 Alls I'm saying is that legislative proposals get tested in Parliament before they become law. At some point, a Government Minister may well have explained the meaning of section 106, but not in 1982 or since. It just might be that the nation's electoral mores may have changed since the law was last considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 Alls I'm saying is that legislative proposals get tested in Parliament before they become law. At some point, a Government Minister may well have explained the meaning of section 106, but not in 1982 or since. It just might be that the nation's electoral mores may have changed since the law was last considered. Excellent, a chance for it to be freshened up under our present common law. I note that murder is still against the law despite Parliament only tinkering around the edges of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 Excellent, a chance for it to be freshened up under our present common law. I note that murder is still against the law despite Parliament only tinkering around the edges of it. Yes. Of course murder and electoral shenanigans are exactly the same in so many ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelaticsfan Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 politicians taking each other to court for lying, the day was officially declared christmas for barristers. from what ive seen/heard its nothing that shocks me, we all know this thing goes on all the time with all politicians, they tend not to accuse each other of stuff though in fear of them being found out themselves for doing the same sort of things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 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. what he said x 2 zillion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 (edited) politicians taking each other to court for lying, the day was officially declared christmas for barristers. from what ive seen/heard its nothing that shocks me, we all know this thing goes on all the time with all politicians, they tend not to accuse each other of stuff though in fear of them being found out themselves for doing the same sort of things Exactly. If Woolas is found to be in the wrong, the proverbial can of worms is open. Another Liberal, one Sandra Gidley as I recall, was thinking of pursuing a similar case somewhere in Hampshire. Her Tory opponent won narrowly and spent most of the campaign telling everyone she was a serious Christian. After the election, it turned out she'd had an affair with some punter. Gidley claimed that that was playing the electorate false. If Watkins wins, she's got a case. Her and so many others. If Watkins wins, nearly every election in a marginal seat will get fought once through the ballot box and again through the courts. Edited September 21, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 (edited) The latest (reported in the MEN but not the Chronic) is that Watkins is already hiring interns for the campaign. He is also threatening to walk away from politics if he doesn't win the case. I'd book him for contempt of court for pre-emptying the court's judgment. And if I were in Oldham East and Saddleworth I'd make a mental note not to vote for someone who cries off if results don't go his way. Giving up easy is not a quality people need in their elected representatives. I ain't saying nothing more about Watkins - but that doesn't mean there isn't more. Edited October 2, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 You'll be telling us he's paying those interns less than the minimum wage next... then he might chase you through the courts too! Knowing something about the way the Lib Dem party operates its campaigns (and therefore that the original story about payment of interns was a ridiculous pack of lies), I would take that MEN report with a healthy pinch of salt. As for threatening to walk away from politics, they're not entirely right there either. I'm assuming he'll stand if the courts decide the vote must be re-run, but I think it's safe to say he's had his eyes opened to a world he doesn't much care for. Whether he loses the case or the re-election, he has already told the local party he won't be standing again. Which is a shame, because he had the makings of a good constituency MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 I'd make a mental note not to vote for someone who cries off if results don't go his way. Giving up easy is not a quality people need in their elected representatives. The people of South Shields note your observations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 The people of South Shields note your observations. Ha ha! Another reason why Ed was the right choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 You'll be telling us he's paying those interns less than the minimum wage next... then he might chase you through the courts too! Knowing something about the way the Lib Dem party operates its campaigns (and therefore that the original story about payment of interns was a ridiculous pack of lies), I would take that MEN report with a healthy pinch of salt. As for threatening to walk away from politics, they're not entirely right there either. I'm assuming he'll stand if the courts decide the vote must be re-run, but I think it's safe to say he's had his eyes opened to a world he doesn't much care for. Whether he loses the case or the re-election, he has already told the local party he won't be standing again. Which is a shame, because he had the makings of a good constituency MP. Like I said earlier - welcome to politics. What did he think it was going to be like? He looks like a big baby and he acts like one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 Candidates beaten in an election are often inferior to the winner. As the victors are invariably inferior to the average human being, I think that says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 Like I said earlier - welcome to politics. What did he think it was going to be like? He looks like a big baby and he acts like one. He didn't expect his opponent to make up deeply offensive and personal lies about him, to slander and libel him at every opportunity, and generally go to such obscene and desperate lengths to cling on to his seat. It's a sad day for politics and democracy when that kind of behaviour is legal, let alone acceptable. The electorate might well prefer a candidate with a thicker skin. But surely it isn't too hopelessly old fashioned of me to think they might also prefer someone who isn't a barefaced, self-serving liar. Woolas is the most cowardly example of the kind of utter scum infesting parliament who have long forgotten that they are supposed to be servants of the people. It's hardly any wonder so many people just don't give a :censored: any more. 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.