61 replies to this topic

[Bedford Roughyed]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-11719438

Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman has faced anger from Labour MPs after her decision to disown expelled MP Phil Woolas.

It has provoked what Labour MPs and ex-ministers call a "mutiny" against the Labour leadership at Westminster, the BBC's John Pienaar says.

Ms Harman faced the backbench anger during a meeting of Labour MPs on Monday evening.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Labour MP on the radio saying judges have no place interfereing in politics....

[gingerjon]

Labour MP on the radio saying judges have no place interfereing in politics....

Yes.

MPs must be above the law.

FFS.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Yes.

MPs must be above the law.

FFS.

He also said judges have bias, implying they can't be trusted...no really!

[WearyRhino]

MPs on all sides of the house are just beginning to realise the full implications of this judgement.

What is opinion, what is fact, what is truth, what is lie?

As for MPs being above the law - yes, they are and always have been, it's 's called Parliamentary Privilege. However, it's application outside the Palace of Westminster has always been a moot point, and it doesn't really apply here.

Edited by WearyRhino, 09 November 2010 - 02:58 PM.

[gingerjon]

What is opinion, what is fact, what is truth, what is lie?

It'll be fun finding out.

As a general rule I'd guess it would be alright to say "I'd like to introduce a law guaranteeing Weary Rhino a cup of tea and a hobnob every Wednesday" as that's a pledge for the future that circumstance may mean you can't deliver but it probably wouldn't be alright to say "Vote for me because Weary Rhino is a known hobnob thief" unless you had actually been convicted for stealing McVities.

[Martyn Sadler]

MPs on all sides of the house are just beginning to realise the full implications of this judgement.

What is opinion, what is fact, what is truth, what is lie?

As for MPs being above the law - yes, they are and always have been, it's 's called Parliamentary Privilege. However, it's application outside the Palace of Westminster has always been a moot point, and it doesn't really apply here.

I've just scanned the report of the court case, and I find it slightly mystifying.

If anyone is interested it can be read here.

The conclusions of the court were as follows:

"The Respondent (Woolas) made statements of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the Petitioner which he had no reasonable grounds for believing were true and did not believe were true. Those statements were as follows:

"(i) The statement in the Examiner that the Respondent had attempted to woo the vote, that is, that he had attempted to seek the electoral support, of Muslims who advocated violence, in particular to the Respondent.

"(ii) The statement in the Labour Rose that the Petitioner had refused to condemn extremists who advocated violence against the Respondent.

"(iii) The statement in the election address that the Petitioner had reneged on his promise to live in the constituency."

I find this judgement slightly surprising, particularly as a reason to nullify an election.

(i) Given that the nature of a general election is that all candidates try to "woo the vote" of everyone in a constituency, whether extremists or non-extremists, Muslims or non-Muslims, I fail to see how this allegation could be a genuine ground for nullifying an election. Presumably all the parties were trying to woo all the voters.

(ii) This was an allegation that could easily be refuted by the LD candidate condemning what he had been accused of not condemning.

(iii) If he was living in the constituency, all he had to do was refute the point.

The biggest threat to our election system is fraudulent voting, not robust campaigning that may sometimes overstep the mark. Elections have never been about making statements that are legally 100% watertight, and they shouldn't be.

I have some sympathy for Phil Woolas on this issue, and I'm not surprised that a number of Labour MPs have rounded on Harriet Harman.

Incidentally, when he won the leadership election Ed Miliband made Woolas a Shadow Minister, knowing that the decision in this case was pending, so it now seems a sudden volte face to expel Woolas from the Party.

[ckn]

MPs on all sides of the house are just beginning to realise the full implications of this judgement.

What is opinion, what is fact, what is truth, what is lie?

As for MPs being above the law - yes, they are and always have been, it's 's called Parliamentary Privilege. However, it's application outside the Palace of Westminster has always been a moot point, and it doesn't really apply here.

I believe the test is fairly simple. If it's not true, you know it's not true and you deliberately exploit that untruth to gain electoral victory then you get Woolas'ed. If it's not true but you can show you genuinely believe that it's true then you get the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof required to get an election overturned is very high, it's nowhere near a "balance of probabilities" argument.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Lots of Labour MP's are angry but some have defended the actions of Harriot.

"I think Ed Miliband and Harriet have done absolutely the right thing," he told the BBC's Daily Politics.

Said Jack Dromey

[WearyRhino]

I believe the test is fairly simple. If it's not true, you know it's not true and you deliberately exploit that untruth to gain electoral victory then you get Woolas'ed. If it's not true but you can show you genuinely believe that it's true then you get the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof required to get an election overturned is very high, it's nowhere near a "balance of probabilities" argument.

Craig, it is not nearly that simple. The truth is not as clear as you suggest when you are talking about opinion. Moreover, how can you 'show' 'belief' to be 'genuine' to 'benefit' from the 'doubt'? In fact it is difficult to imagine a sentence to be more full of subjectivity.

[Northern Sol]

Lots of Labour MP's are angry but some have defended the actions of Harriot.

"I think Ed Miliband and Harriet have done absolutely the right thing," he told the BBC's Daily Politics.

Said Jack Dromey the well-known biscuit thief

Much better.

[ckn]

Craig, it is not nearly that simple. The truth is not as clear as you suggest when you are talking about opinion. Moreover, how can you 'show' 'belief' to be 'genuine' to 'benefit' from the 'doubt'? In fact it is difficult to imagine a sentence to be more full of subjectivity.

It is a subjective test, not an objective one. If the "prosecution" cannot show beyond reasonable doubt that you knew it to be a lie then you win.

[WearyRhino]

It is a subjective test, not an objective one. If the "prosecution" cannot show beyond reasonable doubt that you knew it to be a lie then you win.

How can you show a belief in something beyond a reasonable doubt?

[ckn]

How can you show a belief in something beyond a reasonable doubt?

Our criminal justice system has worked on that basis for centuries. It gives a massive benefit of the doubt to the accused and rightly so. The judges have to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" that the accused knew it to be a lie. There is no "reasonable man" test, it's an entirely subjective test of whether the judges believed Woolas knew it to be a lie.

[WearyRhino]

Our criminal justice system has worked on that basis for centuries. It gives a massive benefit of the doubt to the accused and rightly so. The judges have to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" that the accused knew it to be a lie. There is no "reasonable man" test, it's an entirely subjective test of whether the judges believed Woolas knew it to be a lie.

But the criminal justice system is tasked with establishing whether, within reasonable doubt, something happened or did not happen. It is not tasked with establishing whether someone believed something or not. Surely?

Edit: "knew" changed to "believed".

Frankly I am now very confused!!

Edited by WearyRhino, 09 November 2010 - 04:35 PM.

[gingerjon]

But the criminal justice system is tasked with establishing whether, within reasonable doubt, something happened or did not happen.

And it happened that Woolas put out material containing untruths about another candidate.

In any other context he'd probably stand a good chance of coming off worse in a libel case.

[ckn]

But the criminal justice system is tasked with establishing whether, within reasonable doubt, something happened or did not happen. It is not tasked with establishing whether someone believed something or not. Surely?

Edit: "knew" changed to "believed".

Frankly I am now very confused!!

The greatest majority of criminal offences are split into two points that the prosecution must prove:

1. That you did the act
2. That you had a guilty intent

That guilty intent makes the difference between it being a crime and not. For the case in question, the prosecution's "guilty intent" burden was to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Woolas knew it was a lie. This is a factual burden of proof based on the opinion of those judging, be it a judge as in this case or a jury in conventional trials. Note, the prosecution does not have to prove beyond all doubt, just beyond reasonable doubt.

As a side note, there are many minor crimes that have no requirement for the prosecution to prove intent.

[JohnM]

Thanks for the link. I've read the document and find it clear and logical.

Here are some extracts that reveal the squalor of this episode.

In our judgment the article in the Labour Rose contains a statement of fact that the Petitioner has breached the law and has accepted undeclared donations from the Sheikh. These statements are an attack on his personal character and integrity.

Whilst we accept that promises made by politicians may not be honoured because of changes in political circumstances,

On 16th February 2010, the Petitioner entered into an assured shorthold tenancy for 3 High Street, Delph for 6 months and on the unchallenged evidence moved into occupation and commenced living there. The lease has since been extended for a further 6 months.

Indeed, a letter was deliberately planted in the edition of the Oldham Chronicle for 9th March 2010 by John Battye, a Labour Party volunteer, questioning whether this was a long term arrangement.

The Respondent (and his election agent Mr. Fitzpatrick) denied any knowledge of the article in the Jewish Chronicle reporting what the Petitioner had said in response to the Respondent’s letter. This is surprising

We concluded that she was an unreliable witness, for several reasons. First, we have already referred to inconsistencies between her statement and her oral evidence. Second, her complaint about being paid the minimum wage does not ring true. Her own evidence was that she was a volunteer. She therefore expected no payment yet the Petitioner offered to pay her (and other volunteers) as much as he could afford from his own earnings. Further, if she was entitled to the minimum wage she made no complaint at the time. She said that she did not ask to be paid the minimum wage because she was being harassed by the Liberal Democrats. However, she said the harassment began in October 2009 yet, on her evidence, she had been paid less than the minimum wage for months before that. Third, when cross-examined she could not explain where the figure of £30,000 came from. Fourth, in addition to complaining about the Petitioner to the Electoral Commission and to HM Revenue and Customs she made complaints about a number of Liberal Democrat councillors and also complained to the RSPCA alleging that Julie O’Brien had ill-treated her cat. In her oral evidence she added a further complaint against the Liberal Democrats; they had thrown stones at her windows. We were not persuaded that there was substance in any of these complaints and concluded that they demonstrated, unhappily, a preparedness on her part to make unfounded complaints.


Woolas has been found guilty. He now refuses to recognise the legitimacy of the court. The Speaker's Labour activist wife wades in on Woolas's side live on national TV and guess what. The Speaker follows her advice.

It is true, though that this judgement is important, though not in the way that the left are saying. Rather than " chilling" the expression of opinion, it is reinforcing that, because it explains the difference between opinion and fact etc.

as for "The truth is not as clear as you suggest when you are talking about opinion. Moreover, how can you 'show' 'belief' to be 'genuine' to 'benefit' from the 'doubt'? In fact it is difficult to imagine a sentence to be more full of subjectivity.".....the court document explains all that in stark clarity.

So, that ls it: Woolas is guilty. So he'll clear off...no doubt with suitable termination payments from Parliament..

From now on, and I don't care who it is from which party, lies of this nature must not be tolerated.

[Trojan]

I believe the test is fairly simple. If it's not true, you know it's not true and you deliberately exploit that untruth to gain electoral victory then you get Woolas'ed. If it's not true but you can show you genuinely believe that it's true then you get the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof required to get an election overturned is very high, it's nowhere near a "balance of probabilities" argument.

How come it suddenly applies now when it didn't before? How do you know when a politician is lying? It's when he opens his mouth to speak - a cliche but nonetheless true to some extent. Alan Clarke confessed on TV to being "economical with the actualite" no action was taken.

[ckn]

Woolas loses latest court hearing