• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

Grant said:
But now truth will be defined by the courts, in whom you appear to have a great deal of trust. The people's selection will not count. The courts will look at a single issue in determining the outcome of an election and the people's choice be damned.

I can hear the wheels grinding already as to which political party will control the Courts and then, thusly, The Truth!

Opinions will now also be based on The Truth and The Truth, in this case, will surely not set you free.
Click to expand...

It takes a great deal of evidence to prove libel, this case in the UK was the first in around 100, years, the person in question left a trail of evidence stating he was going to lie about his opponent as a means to win the election ( he stated it was the only way for him to win


Lets say both of us were opponents running for the same MP seat. Two days before the election I get a young girl to state publically you molested her, you dont have the time to disprove the accusation, and the public who would have voted for you, either vote for me or dont vote. I win the election due to the accusation. Would that not be a subversion of democracy to a far greater extend rather then the courts throwing out the results and having a new byelection for the riding?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
It takes a great deal of evidence to prove libel, this case in the UK was the first in around 100, years, the person in question left a trail of evidence stating he was going to lie about his opponent as a means to win the election ( he stated it was the only way for him to win


Lets say both of us were opponents running for the same MP seat. Two days before the election I get a young girl to state publically you molested her, you dont have the time to disprove the accusation, and the public who would have voted for you, either vote for me or dont vote. I win the election due to the accusation. Would that not be a subversion of democracy to a far greater extend rather then the courts throwing out the results and having a new byelection for the riding?
Click to expand...

There are extreme cases which can make any law seem appealing and reasonable.
 
Harshaw said:
There are extreme cases which can make any law seem appealing and reasonable.
Click to expand...

Yes there are

But would not lies about your opponent that cause the public not to vote for your opponent be a subversion of democracy.
 
Harshaw said:
So a guy is legally stripped of his position for "lying," pursuant to a law, and that has "nothing to do with the government." :lamo
Click to expand...

Of course this Government has nothing to do with it.

Jesus Christ, the legislation used is way over a century old. This has nothing to do with the Government but the Courts unless an attempt is made to repeal the law (which won't ever happen)

I have no sympathy for him. I actually find it quite entertaining observing him disgraced, stripped of his seat, banned from public office, career ruined and bankrupt :lamo
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yes there are

But would not lies about your opponent that cause the public not to vote for your opponent be a subversion of democracy.
Click to expand...

The public has a responsibility to keep itself informed and to scrutinize anything any politician says. And, as you cannot know the mind of anyone who's voting, you don't know if the lie affected the outcome anyway.

Under this rule, using this standard, Obama could be removed from office for saying that McCain said he'd be fine with 100 years of war. McCain never said that. So, Obama lied.

But there's no way in hell I would ever support such a thing.
 
Laila said:
Of course this Government has nothing to do with it.

Jesus Christ, the legislation used is way over a century old. This has nothing to do with the Government but the Courts unless an attempt is made to repeal the law (which won't ever happen)
Click to expand...

Who cares when it was enacted?

1) I said "the government"; as the English/British government has been continuous since 1066 (save for the brief Interregnum), this word game that today's government is somehow not "the government" is silly, and

2) It doesn't matter anyway, because it's "THIS government" which heard the case and made the determination, not the government of 100 years ago.


I have no sympathy for him. I actually find it quite entertaining observing him disgraced, stripped of his seat, banned from public office, career ruined and bankrupt :lamo
Click to expand...

He, personally, doesn't matter.
 
Harshaw said:
Who cares when it was enacted?

1) I said "the government"; as the English/British government has been continuous since 1066 (save for the brief Interregnum), this word game that today's government is somehow not "the government" is silly, and

2) It doesn't matter anyway, because it's "THIS government" which heard the case and made the determination, not the government of 100 years ago.

He, personally, doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

No Government "HEARS" a case. That falls on the Judiciary, our Courts! The Government is not allowed to interfere with cases.
 
The legislation used is neither old nor unclear. From the article in the OP:

" The case was brought under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act (1983) which makes it an offence for anyone to publish "any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct" to prevent them being elected "unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true".

He was found guilty of so publishing, with ample evidence that he knew the claims to be false. This automatically makes his victory null and void and a by-election follows to fill the vacant seat. This is more democratic than giving it to the runner-up.
 
Harshaw said:
The public has a responsibility to keep itself informed and to scrutinize anything any politician says. And, as you cannot know the mind of anyone who's voting, you don't know if the lie affected the outcome anyway.

Under this rule, using this standard, Obama could be removed from office for saying that McCain said he'd be fine with 100 years of war. McCain never said that. So, Obama lied.
But there's no way in hell I would ever support such a thing.
Click to expand...

Would that lie pass over into the arena of being libelous?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Would that lie pass over into the arena of being libelous?
Click to expand...

It could, though the standard for libel as used against a public figure is quite high. If the standard were that for a non-public figure, it very well could.

It could also have had considerable impact on how people vote.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The case was brought under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act (1983) which makes it an offence for anyone to publish "any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct" to prevent them being elected "unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true".
Click to expand...

That's even worse. And yeah, under this standard, in my example above, Obama would be toast.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
It takes a great deal of evidence to prove libel, this case in the UK was the first in around 100, years, the person in question left a trail of evidence stating he was going to lie about his opponent as a means to win the election ( he stated it was the only way for him to win


Lets say both of us were opponents running for the same MP seat. Two days before the election I get a young girl to state publically you molested her, you dont have the time to disprove the accusation, and the public who would have voted for you, either vote for me or dont vote. I win the election due to the accusation. Would that not be a subversion of democracy to a far greater extend rather then the courts throwing out the results and having a new byelection for the riding?
Click to expand...

No, i think people should be allowed to lie but also that people should educate themselves in order to better recognize lies. Sooner or later people are going to have to use and rely on their own judgment rather than seeking help and protection from the government, which can often have a conflict of interest. Certainly we will elect liars and scoundrels but such is democracy. The people should be responsible for who they elect, not the courts.
 
Harshaw said:
That's even worse. And yeah, under this standard, in my example above, Obama would be toast.
Click to expand...

Not really a strong case could be made for McCain supporting 100 years of war, certainly strong enough to indicate Obama had reasonable grounds for believing it, and did believe it

What the court would require as it did in this case is evidence that the lie was not believed by the person making it, and that itwas intended to prevent McCain from being elected
 
Harshaw said:
That's even worse. And yeah, under this standard, in my example above, Obama would be toast.
Click to expand...

This has what to do with British law and British politics? Oh wait, nothing whatsover! I realise this is an American site but the parochial mindset of the denizens gets depressing.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Not really a strong case could be made for McCain supporting 100 years of war, certainly strong enough to indicate Obama had reasonable grounds for believing it, and did believe it
Click to expand...

No, McCain was talking about troops being left in country after the war is over, and he specifically cited South Korea and Germany as examples of what he's talking about. And his exact words were:

That's fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.
Click to expand...

If you'd like to make the case from it that he wants to continue a war, please do.


What the court would require as it did in this case is evidence that the lie was not believed by the person making it
Click to expand...

Obama said:

You know, John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years.
Click to expand...

According to the standard, Obama has to show that he believed or had reasonable grounds to believe that the statement is true. It does NOT have to be shown that he knew it to be false.


and that itwas intended to prevent McCain from being elected
Click to expand...

Considering it was in the middle of the campaign, what else could it be intended to do?
 
Manc Skipper said:
This has what to do with British law and British politics? Oh wait, nothing whatsover! I realise this is an American site but the parochial mindset of the denizens gets depressing.
Click to expand...

Keep up with the convo.
 
Harshaw said:
No, McCain was talking about troops being left in country after the war is over, and he specifically cited South Korea and Germany as examples of what he's talking about. And his exact words were:



If you'd like to make the case from it that he wants to continue a war, please do.
Click to expand...

Ok not a problem

He said as long as Americans are not being killed, injured etc, he said nothing about afghanis or other people just Americans. Does that mean he wants Americans to be injured or killed right now, of course not. He does not want americans to be killed or injured of course. He never stated he against being in a war for 100 years, just as long as US soldiers are not being killed
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Ok not a problem

He said as long as Americans are not being killed, injured etc, he said nothing about afghanis or other people just Americans. Does that mean he wants Americans to be injured or killed right now, of course not. He does not want americans to be killed or injured of course. He never stated he against being in a war for 100 years, just as long as US soldiers are not being killed
Click to expand...

While making the comparison to 60 years in Germany and 50 in South Korea. There's no war there.

Plus, in what war does only one side get harmed?
 
Harshaw said:
While making the comparison to 60 years in Germany and 50 in South Korea. There's no war there.

Plus, in what war does only one side get harmed?
Click to expand...

One that is heavily using drones or long range missile attacks and sends out hired mercs to do the infantry fighting. Using my basis as the defense stating McCain wanted 100 years of war would be allowed, provided I did not leave a trail that indicated I didnt believe that is what McCain wanted, and that I was using that statement to hurt his chances at election. McCain would have to prove I knew what I said was a lie
 
Manc Skipper said:
This has what to do with British law and British politics? Oh wait, nothing whatsover! I realise this is an American site but the parochial mindset of the denizens gets depressing.
Click to expand...

The first to mention the Americans is apparently posting from London.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
One that is heavily using drones or long range missile attacks and sends out hired mercs to do the infantry fighting.
Click to expand...

Where did McCain say anything remotely resembling that? He was referring, specifically, to troops remaining after hostilities had ceased, just as they did in Germany and South Korea. If you have to go to such lengths to read so much into the statement, then I've made my point.

Using my basis as the defense stating McCain wanted 100 years of war would be allowed, provided I did not leave a trail that indicated I didnt believe that is what McCain wanted, and that I was using that statement to hurt his chances at election. McCain would have to prove I knew what I said was a lie
Click to expand...

Again, how could it have been anything BUT to hurt his chances at election? It was said BY THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE, AT A CAMPAIGN FUNCTION.

And no, by the standard as set in the law, the burden of proof is on Obama to show he had a reasonable basis to believe it was true, not McCain to show it was a lie. Look, I didn't write the law, but that's what it says.
 
Harshaw said:
Where did McCain say anything remotely resembling that? He was referring, specifically, to troops remaining after hostilities had ceased, just as they did in Germany and South Korea. If you have to go to such lengths to read so much into the statement, then I've made my point.



Again, how could it have been anything BUT to hurt his chances at election? It was said BY THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE, AT A CAMPAIGN FUNCTION.

And no, by the standard as set in the law, the burden of proof is on Obama to show he had a reasonable basis to believe it was true, not McCain to show it was a lie. Look, I didn't write the law, but that's what it says.
Click to expand...

He didnt say it, but he did not say it.

All he said was he would be ok with soldiers in those countries for 100 years provided americans were not being killed. You said it was similar to what happened in Germany and Japan, but McCain did not say that. You had to infer it. I could infer something else, and provided I "believed it" I would not be subject the law that striped the UK MP of his office. The amount of evidence that will be required to strip any MP of his office using this law will be quite high (a paper trail stating he was going to lie about his opponent, and that said lies were the only way he was going to win was required in this case) The vast majority of politicians are going to be able to lie to their hearts content, they just have to ensure they dont send an email, a letter or leave other permanent evidence of their intent and planning
 
PeteEU said:
HELL no.. the truth is the truth. It is your attitude that have lead to the worst atrocities in human history, because the "audience" denied the truth or facts, and took it out on others.
Click to expand...

Yeah, grey area never exists...
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
He didnt say it, but he did not say it.

All he said was he would be ok with soldiers in those countries for 100 years provided americans were not being killed. You said it was similar to what happened in Germany and Japan, but McCain did not say that. You had to infer it. I could infer something else, and provided I "believed it" I would not be subject the law that striped the UK MP of his office. The amount of evidence that will be required to strip any MP of his office using this law will be quite high (a paper trail stating he was going to lie about his opponent, and that said lies were the only way he was going to win was required in this case) The vast majority of politicians are going to be able to lie to their hearts content, they just have to ensure they dont send an email, a letter or leave other permanent evidence of their intent and planning
Click to expand...

Dude.

He compared it to South Korea and Germany.

And "he didn't not say it" is one of the dumbest things I've read recently. You didn't NOT say a whole lot of things -- shall I accuse you of saying them?

As I said, the lengths that you feel you need to go to here make my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom