Carmichael Live Stream On Stv - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Carmichael Live Stream On Stv


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As much as I would love to see Carmichael found guilty, and hung out to dry, I do think watching it would be almost as bad as what we watched last Friday night.

Not much between them for the masochists among us! Good preparation for the boot in the baws tonight!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Rennie also claimed the campaign against Carmichael had a “slightly vindictive nature” in the beginning, and was “quite intimidating”, although tempers had cooled over the summer.

He said: “I’m sure some people in Orkney and Shetland agree with [those taking Carmichael to court]. But I think they’ll lose.

“It was quite intimidating after a while - the dog’s abuse that we were getting through emails and Twitter was constant, from the Nationalist movement generally. There was a lot of that.

“I’m pretty confident that Alistair will win through, and I think they know it - that the case is not very sound. So I’m confident that Alistair will win through. Because he’s a good guy.”

He added, however, that Mr Carmichael deeply regretted his part in the scandal.

Willie Rennie is a waste of DNA, elected with less than 6% of the vote last time, get this tosser out of Holyrood ASAP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I would love to see him shown up. I agree with rennie, he'll "win" simply because he has not broken any law against another candidate.

Watching it live though, hardly OJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rennie is probably right, but he's still a fud.

Everytime I see him smiling he looks like a bairn in his primary class photo. How did he get to be leader? McInnes and McArthur are more more states(woooo)man like than him. Not that I care, I hope they expire in 2016 - the Libs, not the people who represent them of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I would love to see him shown up. I agree with rennie, he'll "win" simply because he has not broken any law against another candidate.

Watching it live though, hardly OJ.

I don't think the case is based on what he has done to another candidate. I think their case is based on the possibility that he misrepresented himself by lying about his involvement in Frenchgate. They are saying that he lied to the public about himself and he was a candidate. Not convinced it will work but it sounds like quite a clever idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What vote percentage do the lib dems need to get any list MSPs? I can see them getting 4-5% nationally next year. Though I would expect them to get at least one of Orkney or Shetland.

I'd say Carmichael has scuppered Tavish Scott and Liam McArthur's chances of being re-elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Carmichael case is to go ahead. AS far as I understand the initial ruling, the judges have ruled that that the act applies to the candidate talking about themselves, as well as talking about other candidates. So his defence of not standing against Nicola Sturgeon is irrelevant - it's the fact he's made himself out to be innocent of the leak when in fact he was the one who leaked it that matters.

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1490/Timothy-Morrison-and-others-v-Alistair-Carmichael-MP-and-Alistair-Buchan

Key questions

1. Is section 106 of the 1983 Act engaged by “self-talking”, as opposed to attacking another?;

2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, do the words complained of in the petition amount to “false statements of fact … in relation to the personal character or conduct” of Mr Carmichael, within the meaning of section 106?; and

3. If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, do the averments in the petition disclose a relevant offer to prove that the words complained of were uttered “for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”?

They've ruled that the answer to 1. is yes, it does, and they want to hear more evidence about 2 and 3.

Edited by biffer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carmichael case is to go ahead. AS far as I understand the initial ruling, the judges have ruled that that the act applies to the candidate talking about themselves, as well as talking about other candidates. So his defence of not standing against Nicola Sturgeon is irrelevant - it's the fact he's made himself out to be innocent of the leak when in fact he was the one who leaked it that matters.

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1490/Timothy-Morrison-and-others-v-Alistair-Carmichael-MP-and-Alistair-Buchan

Key questions

1. Is section 106 of the 1983 Act engaged by “self-talking”, as opposed to attacking another?;

2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, do the words complained of in the petition amount to “false statements of fact … in relation to the personal character or conduct” of Mr Carmichael, within the meaning of section 106?; and

3. If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, do the averments in the petition disclose a relevant offer to prove that the words complained of were uttered “for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”?

They've ruled that the answer to 1. is yes, it does, and they want to hear more evidence about 2 and 3.

Wasn't number one the stumbling block ? 2 and 3 seem to be strong yes answers. If that is the case then it's popcorn time :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Carmichael case is to go ahead. AS far as I understand the initial ruling, the judges have ruled that that the act applies to the candidate talking about themselves, as well as talking about other candidates. So his defence of not standing against Nicola Sturgeon is irrelevant - it's the fact he's made himself out to be innocent of the leak when in fact he was the one who leaked it that matters.

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1490/Timothy-Morrison-and-others-v-Alistair-Carmichael-MP-and-Alistair-Buchan

Key questions

1. Is section 106 of the 1983 Act engaged by “self-talking”, as opposed to attacking another?;

2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, do the words complained of in the petition amount to “false statements of fact … in relation to the personal character or conduct” of Mr Carmichael, within the meaning of section 106?; and

3. If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, do the averments in the petition disclose a relevant offer to prove that the words complained of were uttered “for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”?

They've ruled that the answer to 1. is yes, it does, and they want to hear more evidence about 2 and 3.

I was wondering if the actual action against Carmichael was not quite leveled in the right way.

He deliberately lied about being responsible for leaking a fabricated story, the motive being of affecting the outcome of an election. This not being enough of a disgrace he then allowed an investigation to take place at the taxpayers cost. I fail to understand why this is not enough to have him removed from his position at a party level alone nevermind for it to have got this far. Can you imagine the reaction if an SNP MP had been found to have behaved in this kind of manner?

If this court case can be won then I will be shocked and of course genuinely delighted, the man's a damned disgrace as are the Lib Dems for allowing him to get away with it and attempting to brush it off in a "everyone makes mistakes", "everyone deserves a second chance" kind of way. Also I find it absolutely astounding that in a so called democracy, it is not illegal for an MP to lie.

Sometimes this damned union really does disgust me, as do some of the vermin that infest it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Shetland MSP Tavish Scott, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, told the election court it was a "political show trial".

He said: "It's being funded by people, principally the nationalists, who don't like opposition."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shetland MSP Tavish Scott, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, told the election court it was a "political show trial".

He said: "It's being funded by people, principally the nationalists, who don't like opposition."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810

Saw that. He seemed perturbed to be called by the plaintiffs and ruining his Monday. Idiot of a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...