Woolas Election Declared Void

[leeslover]

I'll forgive you for that mistake given that you're new to this story...

 

...actually no.

 

You're wrong. Again. Unforgivably wrong. Wrong on a fact that isn't a secret. Again.

 

Section 106(2)b states:

 

"A candidate shall not be liable nor shall his election be avoided for any illegal practice under subsection (1) above committed by his agent other than his election agent unless...an election court find and report that the election of the candidate was procured or materially assisted in consequence of the making or publishing of such false statements."

 

Have another go if you want. I'd just leave it there if I were you.

You do seem to have me there on the point of law - although there is of course nothing to say that 52 voters weren't convinced by Wollas' lies - after all, why did he spread malicious damaging lies in the first place if he didn't anticipate a gain? The fact that he he knowingly thought that it would, "get the white folks angry," is testimony against himself.

 

Why are you still so keen to defend him anyway? You weren't before your Damascene moment before the election.

[rudemedic]

But he was the MP for said constituency since May wasn't he? There were some consequences from him getting 103 more votes than crybaby cat man?

 

Like I said, it's a car crash, out of which a man's reputation has been trashed by a couple of out-of-towners who beg to differ with thousands of voters. Any true democrat ought to be a bit wary of that, if nothing else. But then I suspect that you're not a democrat - I know for a fact that Leeslover isn't. He wants a Puritan dictatorship, following the obvious success of the last one.

 

The hand cleared up fine after I ate some antihistamines, which I plumped for after carefully selecting drugs from my pharmacopia using the much maligned eeny-meeny-miney-mo method.

 

I'm highly wary of that, it seems very dodgy that two judges can decide a political manner, it doesn't sit right with me. The same way if I was elligible to vote in the US state which had a one-sided election (probably not the technical term), I 'd have been very tempted to stand just to give the man some oppositon. If Woolas had been thrown out despite winning the constituency by a huge margin I'd be very disempowered (if I was elligible to vote in OE+S), judges shouldn't decide elections the electorate should. However, candidates who cheat and win as a direct result (the numbers are so small that it is highly likely this happened), are just as bad.

 

The whole thing is a farce, its been run very very badly and I'd be firing more than Woolas, and the person high up is the returning officer.

 

I'm glad about the hand.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

You do seem to have me there on the point of law - although there is of course nothing to say that 52 voters weren't convinced by Wollas' lies - after all, why did he spread malicious damaging lies in the first place if he didn't anticipate a gain? The fact that he he knowingly thought that it would, "get the white folks angry," is testimony against himself.

 

Why are you still so keen to defend him anyway? You weren't before your Damascene moment before the election.

 

I'm not defending him. I'm defending the right (and indeed the ability) of the 14,186 electors to make the decision about who they want as their MP. I'm sure they wouldn't plump for a liar, and I'm sure they would know over-the-top literature when they see it. And yet they elected him, only for the court to overturn their decision. No one can be very happy about that, even you.

 

How many voters were called as witnesses?

 

I stand to be corrected, but I think the answer is zero.

[leeslover]

I'm not defending him. I'm defending the right (and indeed the ability) of the 14,186 electors to make the decision about who they want as their MP. I'm sure they wouldn't plump for a liar, and I'm sure they would know over-the-top literature when they see it. And yet they elected him, only for the court to overturn their decision. No one can be very happy about that, even you.

 

How many voters were called as witnesses?

 

I stand to be corrected, but I think the answer is zero.

Parliament set the rules. The judges applied them. Maybe it's you know needs to dry the tears and put the dummy back in? Blatent electoral fiddling is clearly a legal matter, how the hell else should it be settled? The prick broke the rules of the game for his own corrupt advantage and he got caught. Who is it that needs to stop being a crybaby?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I'm highly wary of that, it seems very dodgy that two judges can decide a political manner, it doesn't sit right with me. The same way if I was elligible to vote in the US state which had a one-sided election (probably not the technical term), I 'd have been very tempted to stand just to give the man some oppositon. If Woolas had been thrown out despite winning the constituency by a huge margin I'd be very disempowered (if I was elligible to vote in OE+S), judges shouldn't decide elections the electorate should. However, candidates who cheat and win as a direct result (the numbers are so small that it is highly likely this happened), are just as bad.

 

The whole thing is a farce, its been run very very badly and I'd be firing more than Woolas, and the person high up is the returning officer.

 

I'm glad about the hand.

 

At first sight it looks like a small number of people, but it's actually quite a large number. The number is 14,186*, which is 103 more than voted for cat man. 103 is incidental. Which of the 14,186 people who voted for Woolas did so because they were swayed by his leaflet? Did the judges make any attempt to find out? No. They just guessed, so overturning a decision that those voters had made of their own accord, in their own free time. Scandalous.

 

*I appreciate that you'd take postal and proxy votes out of that number because they were cast before the leaflet was out. Then again, pollsters will tell you that hardly anyone changes their mind in the week before the election, which is when the leaflet came out.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Parliament set the rules. The judges applied them. Maybe it's you know needs to dry the tears and put the dummy back in? Blatent electoral fiddling is clearly a legal matter, how the hell else should it be settled? The prick broke the rules of the game for his own corrupt advantage and he got caught. Who is it that needs to stop being a crybaby?

 

Parliament set the rules a hundred years ago, when things were a lot more after-you-Sally than they are now. The law was not tested in court or in Parliament in all that time. If someone had proposed such a law in, say, 1994, it would have been probed in standing committee. Someone would have postulated the outcome we are talking about, and whoever proposed the measure would have said okay, we need to insert a right of appeal. We cannot have a court decide on the balance of probability that voters were swayed. It's a car crash because it's an oversight by Parliament.

 

I'm crying only because the court has presumed to know the mind of an unspecified number of the 14,186 people who voted for Woolas. That might have been fine in the 1900s or whenever, but it ain't now.

[leeslover]

Parliament set the rules a hundred years ago, when things were a lot more after-you-Sally than they are now. The law was not tested in court or in Parliament in all that time. If someone had proposed such a law in, say, 1994, it would have been probed in standing committee. Someone would have postulated the outcome we are talking about, and whoever proposed the measure would have said okay, we need to insert a right of appeal. We cannot have a court decide on the balance of probability that voters were swayed. It's a car crash because it's an oversight by Parliament.

 

I'm crying only because the court has presumed to know the mind of an unspecified number of the 14,186 people who voted for Woolas. That might have been fine in the 1900s or whenever, but it ain't now.

If it had been proposed in 1994 it would have been steamrollered through by whichever majority party wanted it. I think you are a little rash to assume that PArliamentarians had less respect for their office and care for legislation than the shower we have in their now. Anyway, if he has been hard done by and has a case, no doubt he will make a mint when it gets to Europe. Bet he doesn't though, because it's a plainly reasonable law and he was caught bang to rights.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

If it had been proposed in 1994 it would have been steamrollered through by whichever majority party wanted it. I think you are a little rash to assume that PArliamentarians had less respect for their office and care for legislation than the shower we have in their now. Anyway, if he has been hard done by and has a case, no doubt he will make a mint when it gets to Europe. Bet he doesn't though, because it's a plainly reasonable law and he was caught bang to rights.

 

So it's reasonable for judges to decide what voters are and are not thinking or what they are or are not deceived by? That ain't reasonable, and no one but you is pretending it is.

 

I'm not saying that Parliamentarians before WWI were any less or more competent than they are now. But it ain't reasonable to suppose that elections have stayed the same since 1900. We've had the emancipation of women, for instance, and the reduction in the voting age since then, and dozens of other changes. Maybe a court in 1900 would have known the mind of voters in 1900, but you can't say that it would now.

 

It also ain't reasonable to suppose that judges know enough about elections and voting and polling and so on to decide that an electorate, or a proportion of an electorate, have been swayed by this or that. Since the law was last debated, television has been invented. Woolas's stuff didn't appear on television, but anyone who knows anything (perhaps including you) knows that you take more from the television when it comes to making up your mind than from any other medium.

 

No one would even propose such a measure now (nor would they in 1994) because it's clearly unsafe in all kinds of ways. Everyone but cat man had clearly forgotten all about it.

[leeslover]

So it's reasonable for judges to decide what voters are and are not thinking or what they are or are not deceived by? That ain't reasonable, and no one but you is pretending it is.

 

I'm not saying that Parliamentarians before WWI were any less or more competent than they are now. But it ain't reasonable to suppose that elections have stayed the same since 1900. We've had the emancipation of women, for instance, and the reduction in the voting age since then, and dozens of other changes. Maybe a court in 1900 would have known the mind of voters in 1900, but you can't say that it would now.

 

It also ain't reasonable to suppose that judges know enough about elections and voting and polling and so on to decide that an electorate, or a proportion of an electorate, have been swayed by this or that. Since the law was last debated, television has been invented. Woolas's stuff didn't appear on television, but anyone who knows anything (perhaps including you) knows that you take more from the television when it comes to making up your mind than from any other medium.

 

No one would even propose such a measure now (nor would they in 1994) because it's clearly unsafe in all kinds of ways. Everyone but cat man had clearly forgotten all about it.

You still haven't explained why your man bothered to spread vicious and socially damaging lies if he didn't think it would work. Did he not employ clever enough people to help him cheat? The fact that he thought his cheating would be effective is surely substantial evidence that it could have affected a close contest.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

You still haven't explained why your man bothered to spread vicious and socially damaging lies if he didn't think it would work. Did he not employ clever enough people to help him cheat? The fact that he thought his cheating would be effective is surely substantial evidence that it could have affected a close contest.

 

Substantial evidence? Not really. I don't know what they were thinking to be honest. You'd have to ask him. They would have known when people make up their minds just as much as anyone else. There's really no point doing anything in the last week, but people do.

 

For all the judges know, the leaflet might have cost him votes. Maybe the judges should have done a little more to find out. Maybe they should have done a bit more than nothing at all in that respect, instead of taking their rather patronising stance.

[leeslover]

Substantial evidence? Not really. I don't know what they were thinking to be honest. You'd have to ask him. They would have known when people make up their minds just as much as anyone else. There's really no point doing anything in the last week, but people do.

 

For all the judges know, the leaflet might have cost him votes. Maybe the judges should have done a little more to find out. Maybe they should have done a bit more than nothing at all in that respect, instead of taking their rather patronising stance.

Shame for weasal face if the judges actually thought he had had a decent idea.

[rudemedic]

At first sight it looks like a small number of people, but it's actually quite a large number. The number is 14,186*, which is 103 more than voted for cat man. 103 is incidental. Which of the 14,186 people who voted for Woolas did so because they were swayed by his leaflet? Did the judges make any attempt to find out? No. They just guessed, so overturning a decision that those voters had made of their own accord, in their own free time. Scandalous.

 

*I appreciate that you'd take postal and proxy votes out of that number because they were cast before the leaflet was out. Then again, pollsters will tell you that hardly anyone changes their mind in the week before the election, which is when the leaflet came out.

 

Your logic isn't right, 14186 people voted for Woolas, 14083 voted for Watkins, if 52 (which is 14186 is about 0.4%) of those people who voted for Woolas did so as a result of this leaflet, and would have voted for Watkins, otherwise (this number goes up if the votes would have gone elsewhere, to a maximum of 104) then the election is wrong.

 

Woolas could have had 35000 votes and Watkins 34897, the important number is the 103.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Shame for weasal face if the judges actually thought he had had a decent idea.

 

The problem here is for cat man. Most MPs can probably see how the law doesn't really work as you would like, either because no one knows how it should work or, more likely, because everyone dislikes the way it has worked in this case, notwithstanding the leaflet itself.

 

My feeling is they'll rethink the law, perhaps by sticking a right of appeal in or directing judges in electoral courts. The Tories want it mainly because they have to fend off horrible Liberals the whole time, and Labour want it because they have to fend off horrible Liberals the whole time. But the man in charge of such constitutional reforms is one Nick Cl***. Difficult one. Will it happen? Probably not, but everyone will know how cat man got there and what he did in his own self interest, to the detriment of the House and democracy itself.

 

Usually when someone wins a case like this they're cockahoop, but cat man has disappeared. It's not exactly the Birmingham Six is it? Where'd he go?

Edited November 9, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Your logic isn't right, 14186 people voted for Woolas, 14083 voted for Watkins, if 52 (which is 14186 is about 0.4%) of those people who voted for Woolas did so as a result of this leaflet, and would have voted for Watkins, otherwise (this number goes up if the votes would have gone elsewhere, to a maximum of 104) then the election is wrong.

 

Woolas could have had 35000 votes and Watkins 34897, the important number is the 103.

 

 

My question is which of the 14,186 constitute the 53 who were influenced by leaflet, meaning which ones who materially changed the result as a consequence of failing to spot Woolas's lies? Was a sample interviewed by the court as to their voting decision? The important number is 14,186, because the court has presumed to know the minds of precisely that many people.

 

There's more. The leaflet was designed to get Tory voters to vote Tory rather than Liberal on the grounds of cat man's laxity in clamping down on extremists. So you could say that the court has strayed into their minds too. I think that's quite more than enough for a court to decide in 2010.

[rudemedic]

My question is which of the 14,186 constitute the 53 who were influenced by leaflet, meaning which ones who materially changed the result as a consequence of failing to spot Woolas's lies? Was a sample interviewed by the court as to their voting decision? The important number is 14,186, because the court has presumed to know the minds of precisely that many people.

 

There's more. The leaflet was designed to get Tory voters to vote Tory rather than Liberal on the grounds of cat man's laxity in clamping down on extremists. So you could say that the court has strayed into their minds too. I think that's quite more than enough for a court to decide in 2010.

 

No it didn't it claimed to know the minds of less than 1% of those people. It doesn't matter the identity of the electorate that make up the less than 1%. I do take your point though, the court has decided the minds of those people for them without asking even a very small sample. That is not on. If they find the requisite number of people (52-104) who voted for Woolas who wouldn't have done so without the offending leaflet then its a different story. Going on to your point, it could be that Woolas' leaflet actually cost him votes (I can certainly see some logic in that), but the two judges didn't even bother to research that.

 

It wouldn't take much to research this.

 

If Labour wins the next election in that constituency do you care?

[leeslover]

My question is which of the 14,186 constitute the 53 who were influenced by leaflet, meaning which ones who materially changed the result as a consequence of failing to spot Woolas's lies? Was a sample interviewed by the court as to their voting decision? The important number is 14,186, because the court has presumed to know the minds of precisely that many people.

 

There's more. The leaflet was designed to get Tory voters to vote Tory rather than Liberal on the grounds of cat man's laxity in clamping down on extremists. So you could say that the court has strayed into their minds too. I think that's quite more than enough for a court to decide in 2010.

I think you are, frankly, talking :censored: by digging into this basis of how individual voters might or might not have acted. As if the original legislators thought that their judges had similar insight into the voters of the day. I can only imagine that you prefer some of the possible alternatives:

 

1) Voters can always spot any lies, so candidates should be allowed to say anything they like if they think it will get them elected

2) Candidates who believe they have been cheated should sue for libel but the cheating MP gets to stay on as MP with salary, expenses, pension, staff etc, as the electorate choose their Member

3) Some procedure within the House decides complaints

4) Judges decide on firstly whether the winning candidate was corruptly lying, and then invite a panel of psephologists to sit and decide whether the lying materially affected the outcome.

 

 

I rather thnk that the judges got it right. The liar Woolas knew it was tight and broke the law to try for an advantge. He got caught. He is thrown out in disgrace. What's not to like?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

No it didn't it claimed to know the minds of less than 1% of those people. It doesn't matter the identity of the electorate that make up the less than 1%. I do take your point though, the court has decided the minds of those people for them without asking even a very small sample. That is not on. If they find the requisite number of people (52-104) who voted for Woolas who wouldn't have done so without the offending leaflet then its a different story. Going on to your point, it could be that Woolas' leaflet actually cost him votes (I can certainly see some logic in that), but the two judges didn't even bother to research that.

 

It wouldn't take much to research this.

 

If Labour wins the next election in that constituency do you care?

 

Damn right. Not a single question asked to a single witness. Could it cost votes if you go over the top with a leaflet? You and I know it could. If that leaflet came through my letter box and I thought someone was taking me for a ride, I might abstain or vote communist or something. I don't think I'd be too impressed.

 

This general election was deeply weird in many ways - like I said earlier, lots of safer Labour seats with less...controversial incumbents were lost. Guessing which voters went which way and why and at what margin is a mug's game - and it's undiscoverable later because everyone forgets the circumstances of the moment and moves on. You can't presume - you just have to say, "That's how it went for all the reasons it did." You might discover later that Woolas played too rough, but that would stain his reputation later and more proportionately than now - like with Simon Hughes and his straight choice dirge in 1983. I don't like courts guessing, especially when it comes to what voters think.

 

The law is unsafe, which means that I have a lot of sympathy for Woolas, but I mainly care because the case is a victory for cat man, who's disappeared without trace, and I just don't like cat man and his politics. I'd like him to stand and lose again - hopefully by no more or less than 103 votes.

 

And then he'll reappear in court again with his leaflets and his gripes and so on and his nappies and toys everywhere. Only then will I lose interest.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I think you are, frankly, talking :censored: by digging into this basis of how individual voters might or might not have acted. As if the original legislators thought that their judges had similar insight into the voters of the day. I can only imagine that you prefer some of the possible alternatives:

 

1) Voters can always spot any lies, so candidates should be allowed to say anything they like if they think it will get them elected

2) Candidates who believe they have been cheated should sue for libel but the cheating MP gets to stay on as MP with salary, expenses, pension, staff etc, as the electorate choose their Member

3) Some procedure within the House decides complaints

4) Judges decide on firstly whether the winning candidate was corruptly lying, and then invite a panel of psephologists to sit and decide whether the lying materially affected the outcome.

 

 

I rather thnk that the judges got it right. The liar Woolas knew it was tight and broke the law to try for an advantge. He got caught. He is thrown out in disgrace. What's not to like?

 

1 - Yes.

 

2 - Yes. Same burden of proof as for libel to apply. There is no way Watkins would have got away with a libel case.

 

3 - It already can, although it is reluctant to do so, on the grounds that the electorate decides who is a Member of Parliament, not the House itself. Basic democratic principle there.

 

4 - A jury decides whether what a candidate said was true or untrue, and provides a reasoned verdict of some kind on the circumstances (whether the candidate knowingly lied and so on). The judge can apply sanctions up to and including fines, plus the electorate get to pass their opinion on such findings via a recall mechanism, which I also favour.

 

We know you think the judges got it right, even though you obviously have no clue as to why you think that, since you haven't a clue on what grounds they decided to void the election first place. Thanks for that.

 

You see we've got ideas about this now, but it's too late. The crash has already happened.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

One more thing. Leeslover:

 

You say that Woolas is a weasel and he cheated and lied and all this. However, like the Doctor says, if the result had been, say, a 1,000 majority, or a 10,000 majority, the judges might not have found that Woolas's leaflet materially affected the result, even if it was untrue and inflammatory and so on. There was nothing intrinsically or inherently wrong with the leaflet, legally.

 

(You read something that the Doctor writes and you think, "Jesus, who cares about the size of the majority?" and then the very next day, no fewer than 24 hours later, you think, "I see what you mean there. That is the deciding factor, like you say." He should have been a lawyer.) *Cap doffed*

 

 

[leeslover]

Finally, we have meat on the bones.

 

 

 

1 - Yes.

 

So you don't actually object to the judgement, or the methodology of the judgement, but you think that any behaviour, public or covert, is acceptable because the public are somehow knowlegeable enough to spot it all? Hate to say it, but some people aren't as interested in elections as you and I. Some people are elderly and more open to suggestion. Some aren't well educated or just aren't very clever. You want to let the likes of Woolas benefit from him throwing any lies he likes at them, and that's for democracy? Remember, he is allowed to attack his opponents, just not to knowingly lie.

 

 

2 - Yes. Same burden of proof as for libel to apply. There is no way Watkins would have got away with a libel case.

You have little understanding of law if you think so. This ruling suggests a cut and dried libel case. But that's not the point. Do you propose that Watkins should bring a libel case but Woolas should still sit there on his fat salary, racking up his pension, having been shown to have lied to his constituents to try and win the seat? Is that what you really think is right?

 

 

 

 

 

3 - It already can, although it is reluctant to do so, on the grounds that the electorate decides who is a Member of Parliament, not the House itself. Basic democratic principle there.

Or it could devolve the power to an independant impartial body - not some quango of twats such as your favourite party would have set up, but a free judiciary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 - A jury decides whether what a candidate said was true or untrue, and provides a reasoned verdict of some kind on the circumstances (whether the candidate knowingly lied and so on). The judge can apply sanctions up to and including fines, plus the electorate get to pass their opinion on such findings via a recall mechanism, which I also favour.

 

We know you think the judges got it right, even though you obviously have no clue as to why you think that, since you haven't a clue on what grounds they decided to void the election first place. Thanks for that.

 

You see we've got ideas about this now, but it's too late. The crash has already happened.

The judges did decide on whether what was said was true or not and they knew that Woolas knew it was being done, so your points are a lickle weak. Sanctions up to and including fines. As stiff as that? Throw a few quid into the charity box andcarry on being Immigration Minister? Not what happens to a bloke who applies to the most humble of jobs if he gets found out to have lied on his CV. You think it should be different for someone wanting to exercise power on behalf of the very people he lied to.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Finally, we have meat on the bones.

 

 

 

 

 

So you don't actually object to the judgement, or the methodology of the judgement, but you think that any behaviour, public or covert, is acceptable because the public are somehow knowlegeable enough to spot it all? Hate to say it, but some people aren't as interested in elections as you and I. Some people are elderly and more open to suggestion. Some aren't well educated or just aren't very clever. You want to let the likes of Woolas benefit from him throwing any lies he likes at them, and that's for democracy? Remember, he is allowed to attack his opponents, just not to knowingly lie.

 

I object to the judgment and the methodology of the judgment, and the law as it stands, because the electorate are perfectly capable of telling bull:censored: from horse:censored:. Any lies you like. Either side. Everyone knows the difference.

 

 

You have little understanding of law if you think so. This ruling suggests a cut and dried libel case. But that's not the point. Do you propose that Watkins should bring a libel case but Woolas should still sit there on his fat salary, racking up his pension, having been shown to have lied to his constituents to try and win the seat? Is that what you really think is right?

 

A libel trial is out of the question, since it would have to be heard by the high court, and the high court can't rule on a verdict of the high court...but then I'm no lawyer. I'm just guessing.

 

Yes. Catkins should contest that he has been libeled, and Woolas should be the MP. If the judge finds against Woolas, he is honour-bound to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds or some such and then we get the re-run.

 

Or it could devolve the power to an independant impartial body - not some quango of twats such as your favourite party would have set up, but a free judiciary.

 

Or it could mean recall. If the electorate don't like the court's verdict on who they elected, they can tell the court where to go. You see what I've done there. The electorate decides - twice if necessary, no matter what the court decides. We know you're a puritan and not all that fond of the electorate, but that's just modern times for you.

 

[Yard Dog]

NG to stand for BNP in the re-run.

 

Here we go again...

[leeslover]

Stack it up any way you like, mix it up with me not liking him making a total arse of himself and his office by being mauled by Lumley, whatever. The substance of our argument:

 

You are going sooooo far out of your way to defend a man who though it was a good idea to make untrue racially incendiary comments about his opponent. And yes, this was the serving Immigration Misnister and the Shadow in opposition. Yet you harped on about Tory racist electioneering based on something from 1964. This suggests that you are the biggest hypocrit since well. Well since... I can't think. Maybe Phil Woolas?

 

 

 

You have decided that you don't like the rule of law as decided by Parliament being applied when a filthy liar has been caught at it. You are way out of step, there are very few people of whatever opinion who are sad to see him get shafted for what he has done.

 

 

 

 

PS - bankers got it wrong, accidentally. Woolas did it wrong on purpose. You are happy for Woolas to continue to draw his salary but think bankers should be punished. Go figure.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

NG to stand for BNP in the re-run.

 

Here we go again...

 

So far he's the only candidate. Where's Wally?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Stack it up any way you like, mix it up with me not liking him making a total arse of himself and his office by being mauled by Lumley, whatever. The substance of our argument:

 

You are going sooooo far out of your way to defend a man who though it was a good idea to make untrue racially incendiary comments about his opponent. And yes, this was the serving Immigration Misnister and the Shadow in opposition. Yet you harped on about Tory racist electioneering based on something from 1964. This suggests that you are the biggest hypocrit since well. Well since... I can't think. Maybe Phil Woolas?

 

 

 

You have decided that you don't like the rule of law as decided by Parliament being applied when a filthy liar has been caught at it. You are way out of step, there are very few people of whatever opinion who are sad to see him get shafted for what he has done.

 

 

 

 

PS - bankers got it wrong, accidentally. Woolas did it wrong on purpose. You are happy for Woolas to continue to draw his salary but think bankers should be punished. Go figure.

 

I didn't defend Woolas. The Doctor and I have done a fair enough demolition of the law on which the court adjudicated, but we're not the only ones. No one thinks that law is sound. Everyone forgot about it.

 

The Tory electioneering was racist. Woolas's wasn't racist. It was incendiary, which is totally different. I don't mind the rule of law, but when it comes to elections this particular law has been shown to be anything but watertight or reasonable or anything else. I mind when voters are denied their say, and when courts presume to know what they are thinking. Parliament also doesn't like it - but it never came to Parliament's attention before that someone might complain on such weird grounds.

 

You see you just wanted to see Woolas get shafted, without knowing really what he'd done or not done, or what the offence was. That's not very rule-of-law now is it?

 

*Pointless comparison between bankers and Woolas duly discarded*

 

*Man wakes up from doze and announces, apropos a dream, "Seahorses aren't like real horses at all!"*

 

Our argument is that you hate Woolas and I hate Catkins. The difference is I'm not going fully bonkers about it.