Woolas Election Declared Void

[OldhamSheridan]

Whatever opinions we may or may not have received about Mr Woolas from time to time from people who have had experience of him, let's focus for a moment on the matter in hand:

 

 

 

I am amazed that anyone can be so shameless as to condone this behaviour. If the other bloke has been buggering cats or whatever, then I hope that comes out as well and he also slides into political oblivion, as place where Woolas should never have risen from. One does not excuse the other.

 

Meh, I've been known to utter the words 'Mengele wouldn't have been so disregarded if he'd found the cure for cancer'.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Update.

 

No by-election till Woolas appeal is exhausted.

 

The shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House endorse that approach (saying that it's better for Oldham E and S to have no MP for a while rather than two at some later point).

 

Two senior (or long-standing at any rate) Back Benchers (one Tory, one Labour) called for a debate on the subject on the ground that the court should not decide who is and is not an MP. The law has not been tested (before the Woolas case) for at least 100 years, not least The ROTP Act 1983 was not debated in Parliament.

 

There's some confusion as to whether Woolas is appealing against the finding or seeking judicial review of the law. This ain't over yet kids.

[leeslover]

There's some confusion as to whether Woolas is appealing against the finding or seeking judicial review of the law. This ain't over yet kids.

Given he has been dropped like a hot turd by his own party, is most likely going to have to pay back £70k earnings and expenses he has received/incurred since election and he will have to foot his own legal bills (unless the shameless git manages to get legal aid) he really ought to be hoping it was all over, surely?

[LaticMark]

Update.

 

No by-election till Woolas appeal is exhausted.

 

The shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House endorse that approach (saying that it's better for Oldham E and S to have no MP for a while rather than two at some later point).

 

Two senior (or long-standing at any rate) Back Benchers (one Tory, one Labour) called for a debate on the subject on the ground that the court should not decide who is and is not an MP. The law has not been tested (before the Woolas case) for at least 100 years, not least The ROTP Act 1983 was not debated in Parliament.

 

There's some confusion as to whether Woolas is appealing against the finding or seeking judicial review of the law. This ain't over yet kids.

 

If the process of legal appeals is as slow as it normally is, we won't have an MP until the next general election!!!

 

Woolas' first application for a judicial review was rejected today at the High Court. Judge Mr Justice Silber said it was "not amenable to judicial review because it is a decision of High Court judges sitting in their capacity as High Court judges". He said it was "settled law" that the decisions of High Court judges sitting in their capacity as High Court judges "cannot be subject of applications for judicial review".

 

That's crystal clear then!!!

[leeslover]

If the process of legal appeals is as slow as it normally is, we won't have an MP until the next general election!!!

 

Woolas' first application for a judicial review was rejected today at the High Court. Judge Mr Justice Silber said it was "not amenable to judicial review because it is a decision of High Court judges sitting in their capacity as High Court judges". He said it was "settled law" that the decisions of High Court judges sitting in their capacity as High Court judges "cannot be subject of applications for judicial review".

 

That's crystal clear then!!!

The High Court has already met and concluded that Mr Woolas knowingly told lies in the interests of deceiving voters into supporting him, therefore there is no need for the High Court to think about it again. I think what it means is that he will have to find a way to challenge it on a different point than whether or not he lied to spin race-hate against his cat-buggering opponent.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

The whole thing is a car crash. Can it go to the Supreme Court? The House of Lords?

 

The idea that the court can remove a Member of Parliament on such spurious and subjective grounds is distasteful to most politicians, but it should be more distasteful to electors, whose one contribution to the system has been declared worthless by the ruling.

 

LL? From where do you get the figure of £70k? Moreover, how did you find out about the cat buttering?

[leeslover]

The whole thing is a car crash. Can it go to the Supreme Court? The House of Lords?

 

The idea that the court can remove a Member of Parliament on such spurious and subjective grounds is distasteful to most politicians, but it should be more distasteful to electors, whose one contribution to the system has been declared worthless by the ruling.

 

LL? From where do you get the figure of £70k? Moreover, how did you find out about the cat buttering?

Isn't the Supreme Court now what used to be the House of Lords? I wasn't paying much attention when all that went through.

 

No doubt it is distasteful to some politicians that they are subject to the law. Tough titties. It's far from unbelievable that 100 Saddleworth folk might have had their vote swayed if they believed the lies that Woolas told them, so he stole their vote. You are clever enough to understand the difference between rough and tumble knocking of an opponent (he's a bit thick, he is weak under pressure etc) and lying about him (he invites Sheikh Bin Laden round to roger his daughter every 3rd Wednesday as a thank you for murdering all them infidels). I suspect the law was put in place to prevent outright shameless lying which can only degrade the debate of the actual issues relevant to voters' lives, and it seems to have served it's purpose on this occasion.

 

The £70k I saw in the paper. Seemed high at first but salary + pension + staff costs plus office costs would get the weasally stool there in no time. As regards the cat buggering, a mixture of deduction and guesswork. And I had a peek in Garcon's diary a while back.

[LaticMark]

The High Court has already met and concluded that Mr Woolas knowingly told lies in the interests of deceiving voters into supporting him, therefore there is no need for the High Court to think about it again. I think what it means is that he will have to find a way to challenge it on a different point than whether or not he lied to spin race-hate against his cat-buggering opponent.

 

Allegedly!

 

 

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Does Garçon's diary contain details of sandwich expenses for office staff too?

 

If the court wanted to find that 52 or however many electors were swayed by those leaflets, it should ask them. All of them. I really don't see how it's competent to judge otherwise.

 

I understand that the offending leaflets were sent out a few days before polling. Everyone knows that very few voters change their minds less than a week before voting. Did the judges know that or indeed anything about politics?

Edited November 8, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill

[leeslover]

Does Garçon's contain details of sandwich expenses for office staff too?

 

If the court wanted to find that 52 or however many electors were swayed by those leaflets, it should ask them. All of them. I really don't see how it's competent to judge otherwise.

 

I understand that the offending leaflets were sent out a few days before polling. Everyone knows that all but a very few voters change their minds less than a week before voting. Did the judges know that or indeed anything about politics?

I suspect the judges know something about law. Including the law that Woolas shamelessly, shamefully, brazenly broke in the hopes of clinging to power, with the attendent lifestyle of getting pissed on the Terrace all day. It's really quite a thing that your new-found adoration for the Labour Party leads you to defend this worm (who seems to be widely despised by people on here who actually know him for their MP, regardless of their political persuasion) rather than seeing some point of principle at stake. You made a big deal during the election of a local Tory party's, "Nigger for a Neighbour," campaign in a 1964 by-election, but you defend Woolas today. Bewildering.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

At what point did I defend Woolas today? All I'm saying is that the court should not decide who is and is not a Member of Parliament. Woolas ain't the only one to spend a little too much time on the terrace either, although that rather than anything seems to be your reason for hating him.

 

Most people complain about him seeking photo opportunities and declining to reply what are undoubtedly wacko correspondence, but I tend to discount those things. What do you think politicians are supposed to do?

 

 

[garcon]

And I had a peek in Garcon's diary a while back.

Bugger!

 

Er, I mean damn!

 

Does Garçon's diary contain details of sandwich expenses for office staff too?

No such thing as a free lunch, dear boy.

 

(I had to buy my own... )

 

 

[leeslover]

At what point did I defend Woolas today? All I'm saying is that the court should not decide who is and is not a Member of Parliament. Woolas ain't the only one to spend a little too much time on the terrace either, although that rather than anything seems to be your reason for hating him.

 

Most people complain about him seeking photo opportunities and declining to reply what are undoubtedly wacko correspondence, but I tend to discount those things. What do you think politicians are supposed to do?

You think that the electoral law, as passed by Parliament, shouldn't apply as the rules of the game. When it doesn't suit you, because it is a Labour member who has fallen foul. If it was a Tory, or God forbid a Lib Dem, you would be up for the judge putting on his black cap, at least until you have another paradigm shift.

 

Woolas and the terrace? Hmmm. My disdain for him reached a peak when I heard that his shambolic humiliation by Lumley over the Gurkhas arose because he had been pissing it up with his bit on the side all afternoon and could barely speak. I don't do that in my workplace.

 

You are amazingly patronising about people's opinions of Woolas as constituents. Yet these are the same sort of people people you think the courts are robbing of their votes? Shouldn't people base their opinion of a man on their experience of him? You seem happy for them to base their vote on cynical evil race-hate-stirring lies.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

To be fair, I'd be saying the same thing even if it were a Liberal in the dock. The court effectively made the law in this case. That happens all the time, but not usually with constitutional aspects. Or never, as a matter of fact.

 

The background is that the 1983 law that Woolas fell foul of was not debated at the time because it was a consolidation of electoral law. As I recall, the particular provision was nit considered either by Parliament for 100 years. Of course things change in that time - usually for the worse, it has to be said. No one can seriously ascertain whether the intention of the law was to catch Woolas out or not. No one knows. What is a smear? Us it basically any attack on an opponent? The court had drawn a line, but there are wider consequences. I think those consequences are best evaluated in Parliament, not the court.

 

So the man functions perfectly well as a Government Minister but just because you can't have a drink at work he shouldn't. Never begrudge a man his vices is what I say, up to and including cat buggery.

 

There are certain things you do at work that other people would find difficult to justify too, so put your stones away Mr Glasshouse.

[garcon]

So the man functions perfectly well as a Government Minister

On the contrary, he proved himself on several occasions to be utterly incompetent.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

On the contrary, he proved himself on several occasions to be utterly incompetent.

 

Getting hijacked by Joanna Lumley was unfortunate, but it could've happened to anyone. Anyway, he did the right thing in the end, so who cares?

 

Most people think he did a really good job - Immigration Minister is one of the hardest gigs too. Let's see how that Watkins one gets on anyway. If he gets elected. And - of course - unless he cries off because he might not win.

[leeslover]

So the man functions perfectly well as a Government Minister but just because you can't have a drink at work he shouldn't. Never begrudge a man his vices is what I say, up to and including cat buggery.

 

There are certain things you do at work that other people would find difficult to justify too, so put your stones away Mr Glasshouse.

No, he doesn't function perfectly well as a Government Minister - he was made to look like a clown by the former dolly bird from the New Avengers. He was mouthing the words she was telling him to say. The Gurkha thing had already been made a big balls up of in any case, so he was primed for a fall in any case.

 

Does anyone on these here boards, from me as an advocate of free migration (but no welfare payments) to the most anti-immigration advocate, whatever their reasons, think that it was coherently handled when Woolas was in charge?

 

Can't think of a single professional or personal call I have made in my working life that I couldn't justify perfectly well, thank you for saying. I'm a dreadful in many ways but I'm not stupid.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

That's why it's a tough gig, stoopid.

[leeslover]

That's why it's a tough gig, stoopid.

And why he is. Also immoral, and self-seeking, and thinks he's above the law. But he's not a banker or grew up with an accent that you find objectionable, hey?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

So anyone who has a tough job appeasing too polarised sides of an argument is stoopid? Sure.

 

You see your problem is you've seen this one guy having a few on the terrace and all of a sudden he's who you hate most. It's irrational. It's almost crazed. Do you react like this every time you see someone having a drink at lunchtime?

[leeslover]

So anyone who has a tough job appeasing too polarised sides of an argument is stoopid? Sure.

 

You see your problem is you've seen this one guy having a few on the terrace and all of a sudden he's who you hate most. It's irrational. It's almost crazed. Do you react like this every time you see someone having a drink at lunchtime?

No. It's when I see someone who holds, of all jobs, that of Immigration Minister, in the town I grew up in with it's history of race problems, playing the nastiest of race cards, that I react like this.

 

Do you react like this every time an electoral candidate is caught trying to steal an election with illegal and disgraceful allegations of collusion with supporters of murderous terrorism? Oh no, you don't. It's just because you caught some, "Labour," virus a few months ago. It will pass.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Look: I'm not defending Woolas's bloody crazy leaflet, but you hated Woolas well before all this, mainly for boozing on the job, of all things, even though he's by no means the worst offender. You seem to have opted-out of the sanity-based community when it comes to this whole thing. You didn't even vote for crying out loud. You probably don't know who your own MP is. All these little truths will help to keep your temperature down.

[leeslover]

Look: I'm not defending Woolas's bloody crazy leaflet, but you hated Woolas well before all this, mainly for boozing on the job, of all things, even though he's by no means the worst offender. You seem to have opted-out of the sanity-based community when it comes to this whole thing. You didn't even vote for crying out loud. You probably don't know who your own MP is. All these little truths will help to keep your temperature down.

You have gone well out of your way to defend Woolas. Where comes your interest in this legal process? Because you are defending the scumbag with a kneejerk pro-Labour reaction. The reason Woolas is attacting my focus is because we are discussing it on an Oldham messageboard. Does that ease your worries about my conspiracy fears? I would think someone doing the same in Somerset was also a tosser, but it wouldn't be so relevant to me.

 

And they weren't so far as the courts are concerned. Woolas was. As you say, only Woolas in 100 years. Well done that man. Buy him a bottle of wine on me. On top of the ones I already paid for him to drink himself into stupidity with DURING WORKING HOURS whilst earning a fat salary as an MP and Minister

 

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Someone drinking in working hours really gets you going doesn't it? Capital letters and bold? Blimey. This is serious. You in Beckenham now? The good Colonel Stewart MP keeps his hip flask in the top right pocket of his blazer.

 

Mark Reckless, a Tory, was recently too drunk to get carried in to vote. It's alright, it was only the budget.

 

Charles Kennedy...

 

But then I'm not in the slightest bit bothered about it. Could not care less!

[leeslover]

Someone drinking in working hours really gets you going doesn't it? Capital letters and bold? Blimey. This is serious. You in Beckenham now? The good Colonel Stewart MP keeps his hip flask in the top right pocket of his blazer.

 

Mark Reckless, a Tory, was recently too drunk to get carried in to vote. It's alright, it was only the budget.

 

Charles Kennedy...

 

But then I'm not in the slightest bit bothered about it. Could not care less!

I actually think that it's you that has tried to turn Woolas' drunkeness into the issue to disguise the fact that you have completely turned your supposed principles on your head to defend a racist campaign as a bit of electoral high spirits, after getting on your high horse about a candidate in a by-election 46 years ago having done the same. I can appreciate if you feel a bit silly doing this, especially as so many people who have had dealings with him as a constituency MP confirm that he is indeed a turd. You've dug yourself in good and proper here.

 

 

OK - I absolve him for being a piss-artist who got sloshed on the money he took off all of us, which we paid for in taxes working whilst he was glugging it down, whilst living in his subsidised and no doubt profitable accomodation drilling his piece on the side. I'm not sure if it was her's or his wife's sanitary products that he claimed for. By all means shag about, but should I pay for her jam rags?

 

He is still a horrendous little turd?

 

Is that OK?