tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post5957827075089382933..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: Why I've Donated to the Phil Woolas AppealIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger126125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-46337714667668010762010-11-18T09:48:15.827+00:002010-11-18T09:48:15.827+00:00If lying in an election leaflet is good and proper...If lying in an election leaflet is good and proper free speech, then so is lying on a benefits application form, lying about your identity to an immigration officer, lying to the Police looking for a murderer, or even lying to a young child that everyone has sex with an adult at their age.<br />Do Phil Woolas and his supporters feel all lies should be protected speech? Or only their own lies? If the latter, what's the difference?<br /> There are people in this world who will use murder, torture, rape, banishment and prison to prevent others from exercising their rights to express opinion freely. By equating the universal human entitlement to free expression with his own cynical, mendacious racism, Phil Woolas hands these tyrants a justification on a silver platter.<br /> That's about as low as you can get. Shame on you, Mr Dale, for supporting bogus politician's "right to lie."<br /> Any lie is an insult to the audience. If you truly respect the reader/ listener, you honour them with the truth. Mr Woolas lied to the electorate. They, not the former Minister of the Crown, are the victims in this affair.freespeechoneeach2https://www.blogger.com/profile/07328471936323073553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-15563081593551654522010-11-16T10:32:12.186+00:002010-11-16T10:32:12.186+00:00To paraphrase many other posters, this is not abou...To paraphrase many other posters, this is not about whether you like or dislike Woolas. It is about the law. The law was passed by Parliament and it was broken by Woolas.<br /><br />I ask in all honesty, Dale: are you really saying that courts should be free to dismiss any piece of legislation they don't like the sound of? If you think that - and you must if you are supporting Woolas - you misunderstand the entire nature of the British Constitution.<br /><br />I am sure that when you sat down to write this post, you had no intention of arguing that politicians should be above the law. Nevertheless that is what you <i>have</i> argued.<br /><br />If you think the law is wrong, say so. If you think Parliament should repeal it, say so. But you cannot decree that any law which is inconvenient to you, your friends or any other pole-climbing politico should simply be ignored. The rule of law either holds or it does not. Think - as any first year law student could think - on what would happen if courts are empowered (or, indeed, encouraged by politicians!) simply to ignore inconvenient laws. Just think and, having done that, rethink your approach to Woolas' criminality.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14210245445771564283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-32039498221846314072010-11-16T08:38:26.367+00:002010-11-16T08:38:26.367+00:00I agree with many others here that if Woolas misle...I agree with many others here that if Woolas mislead the electorate as the court has found, then the election should be re-run. Recent books imply that Clegg's promise on Tuition Fees seems to be perilously close to being a knowingly made deception as well.Grand_Inquisitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12008480897159991738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-71717941848898876382010-11-15T23:54:18.916+00:002010-11-15T23:54:18.916+00:00Instead of taking cheap shots at some of the comme...Instead of taking cheap shots at some of the comments without addressing the issues, formulate an appropriate and reasoned argument to the comments made by SteveGJ....no...thought not.When you throw your toys out of the pram you generally find your credibility goes with them.Respond and be big...the alternative is to remain small on this issue.Politics-WTFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13350321753615474247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-35024224067218856902010-11-15T22:43:06.265+00:002010-11-15T22:43:06.265+00:00Of course, he has the right to appeal the decision...Of course, he has the right to appeal the decision. And if you want to help him take that through the courts, fair enough. Your decision. I don't see the problem people have with this.David Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240242801763405583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-51512837806905140382010-11-15T22:26:44.079+00:002010-11-15T22:26:44.079+00:00I haven't followed this story all that closely...I haven't followed this story all that closely, so I'm perhaps ignorant of some of the issues involved, but here's my opinion after reading your post, Iain:<br /><br />First, I assume that the electoral court has followed a rigorous process in finding Mr Woolas's allegations unjustified. I say this because I too find the lack of a libel case puzzling. Your post says the allegations "were wrong" - but what exactly does this mean, and how does the electoral court decide? The electoral court cannot say they were libellous if there has been no libel case. So in what way were the allegations "wrong"? Or is it just that in election campaigns, you're simply not allowed to accuse your opponent of certain things, whether true or false? I don't understand this point. <br /><br />But leaving that aside, and assuming that it has been proved that Woolas was wrong to do what he did, then:<br />1. I agree with the decision to void the election result and order a re-run, in the light of what is now known.<br />2. I disagree with the decision that Woolas cannot stand as the candidate, and with his parliamentary ban. Indeed, as this is supposed to be a re-run of the May 6th contest, and not a "new" by-election as such, I think the rule should be that no party is allowed to replace or withdraw its original candidate.Gavinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10843996857494739064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-28385508718243810582010-11-15T21:45:50.940+00:002010-11-15T21:45:50.940+00:00Is it because you fear that the God-given right of...Is it because you fear that the God-given right of British politicians to lie with impunity is under threat ?<br /><br />As for you mildly snide comment about a libel action, you might consider that the standard of proof required in the election court is substantially above that in a libel trial.Nigelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18171835878570773595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-18331891277478900572010-11-15T21:27:16.186+00:002010-11-15T21:27:16.186+00:00Iain, at what point would you draw the line?
Obvi...Iain, at what point <i>would</i> you draw the line?<br /><br />Obviously not at fomenting racial tensions with the possibility of inflaming local tensions and causing a race war. But, hey! Phil Woolas though himself so special that he was willing to run that risk.<br /><br />Well, if not that, how about stuffing ballot boxes with fake or forged votes?<br /><br />How about intimidating people and forcing them to vote for the 'right' candidate or risk the health and well-being of themselves and family members?<br /><br />Exactly where does it become such a serious breach of the election laws that you would think: "Yes, that's going too far!"?Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17774822085901274565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-17865224408589312712010-11-15T21:18:37.223+00:002010-11-15T21:18:37.223+00:00Well at least one publication is running with &quo...Well at least one publication is running with "Top Tory backs Woolas Appeal"<br /><br />Shame it's only the Saddleworth News, but some return at least for your £100 publicity investmentHampsteadOwlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10579484010636107402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-50133418195300379182010-11-15T21:06:08.523+00:002010-11-15T21:06:08.523+00:00Would you mislead the electorate if you decide to ...Would you mislead the electorate if you decide to stand again?<br /><br />A simple 'yes' or 'no' will nail your colours to the mast. Are you brave enough to give a 1 word response?<br /><br />Not only should Woolas be banned, he should personally pay for the re-election. After all why should us taxpayers pick up the tab?Joe Publichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07829909061904690380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-41269317070354017572010-11-15T21:05:55.113+00:002010-11-15T21:05:55.113+00:00Iain, I accept that there needs to be an effective...Iain, I accept that there needs to be an effective appeal mechanism. <br /><br />However, I remain astonished that you appear to be taking such a different position on this from the Miranda Grell case. Have you changed your mind, and if so, why?<br /><br />At that time, when a Labour candidate won an election by spreading the false accusation that her Lib/Dem opponent was a paedophile, you not only didn't give to her appeal, you described it in these words<br /><br />"However, despite being banged to rights Grell has decided to launch a fund so she can appeal."<br /><br />You also quoted Andy Mayer's comments as follows which could have been written to include the Woolas case:<br /><br />"The continued mealy-mouthed defence of her by some Labour commentators ... is disgraceful and frankly does their party a disservice. There are plenty of Labour campaigners who do not exploit hate to get elected ...<br /><br />The Labour party needs to get on with expelling Grell ... <br /> remind some of their bloggers that the party does not endorse the use of homophobia or other forms of hate in their campaigning, and restate their<br />commitment to eradicating prejudice."<br /><br />Your post made clear that you were not defending the vile leaflets put out by the Woolas campaign. But given the overwhelming evidence which convinced two judges that those leaflets broke electoral law, surely Woolas stole the election as blatantly as Grell did?Chris Whitesidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02888720969479013951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-34223471598248081582010-11-15T20:44:28.426+00:002010-11-15T20:44:28.426+00:00Parliament decided that this is how these issues s...Parliament decided that this is how these issues should be decided. The election court is a creature of statute not an ordinary court applying ordinary common law principles. Parliament determined the consequences ie mandatory disqualification. It also limited the avenues for appeal. <br /><br />By supporting Woolas you impugn the sovereignty of Parliament.Bardirecthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12167919762034389133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-36849624023763193822010-11-15T20:43:26.381+00:002010-11-15T20:43:26.381+00:00Everybody is entitled to make a mistake. I support...Everybody is entitled to make a mistake. I supported David Davis and then again when he caused a bye-election. But, come to think of it so did Iain and he also supports West Ham.<br /><br />Of course Woolas is entitled to appeal - he will of course lose that as it seems that he is not appealing the judgement but appealing whether the two judges had the right to deprive him of his seat. Since the Special Electoral Court appears to have been properly appointed under an Act of Parliament it is hard to see his point being successful. However, Sunderland beat Chelsea over the weekend so all is possible.<br /><br />Labour MPs are becoming quite deviant in their objection to the validity of Acts of Parliament - what bloody right do legislators have after all.Victor, NW Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14778890471547456396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-30045162396824834372010-11-15T20:39:48.171+00:002010-11-15T20:39:48.171+00:00Trying too hard
Nice try Ian...but no sale.<b>Trying too hard</b><br /><br />Nice try Ian...but no sale.JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05239651363530826401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-28277317201598938672010-11-15T20:38:44.364+00:002010-11-15T20:38:44.364+00:00What I find very disappointing, Iain, is that your...What I find very disappointing, Iain, is that your only response to overwhelmingly negative comments on this thread has been to call them "risible" and those making them "idiots".<br /><br />There's nothing wrong with taking a controversial view. That's free speech. But then to fail to defend it in the face of reasoned arguments is pretty pathetic.<br /><br />The points have been made time and again and you haven't responded:<br /><br />- Woolas was "caught" by a law enacted by Parliament, and most recently revisited by a Government of which he was a member.<br /><br />- The court followed due and thorough process and Woolas had every opportunity to make his case on the facts. You're factually wrong on appeals - if Woolas has a point of law he has recourse to "normal" appeal; in fact he wants a tool to revisit the facts so is pursuing a highly dubious judicial review route.<br /> <br />- The lies were despicable and cut to the heart of Watkins' character. That he "wooed extremists" and that he failed to condemn people allegedly making death threats against his opponent in particular. Would you be doing the same if the allegations went to the person's sexuality or even accused them of sexual offences (as in the Miranda Grell case)?<br /><br />- There can be little doubt in a knife edge election that the lies were decisive in swinging at least 52 votes.<br /><br />- The libel courts provide no adequate remedy to Watkins (although he may well yet pursue an action there too) and none whatsoever to Oldham voters, who were grotesquely misled.<br /><br />- Your decision to send a cheque shows grossly distorted priorities given the many worthy cases for your charity which plainly exist.<br /><br />You haven't even attempted to answer these or other good points made by your readers.James Chardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12462461338641340836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-39706527574666849802010-11-15T20:35:58.921+00:002010-11-15T20:35:58.921+00:00You seem to be unpopular on this Iain, but you are...You seem to be unpopular on this Iain, but you are right. If all the politicians who lied during their campaigns were excluded from the Commons there would only be a couple of dozen remaining in the House. It should be for the electorate, not the courts, to decide which lies matter and which don't. This is an appalling precedent, not least because the next time some exceptionally unpleasant terrorist, charlatan or crook stands for office, those who oppose him or her will probably not dare to mention it and the electorate will be denied a chance to evaluate them properly.Salmondnethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04135160187810480222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-40296035581306323712010-11-15T20:13:35.932+00:002010-11-15T20:13:35.932+00:00I have little to add to what has been said above. ...I have little to add to what has been said above. I believe you are profoundly wrong on this issue. I think it's important to distinguish between spin and hyperbole based on policy (which the electorate have to weigh and judge) and lies about an opponent's character or actions (which the electorate may take at face value). Woolas was completely and despicably in the wrong, and the law (for once) took its course. You are defending the indefensible.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743685798068014455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-57592862370201561652010-11-15T19:53:08.005+00:002010-11-15T19:53:08.005+00:00Iain, have you considered the costs involved in a ...Iain, have you considered the costs involved in a libel case. Mr Watkins could only reclaim his costs to the extent that Mr Woolas was able to pay them after spending a small fortune on his own expensive lawyers. It is quite possible that Mr Woolas would declare himself bankrupt and Mr Watkins would be left with a huge bill.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-34282640301864504882010-11-15T18:55:22.125+00:002010-11-15T18:55:22.125+00:00Iain, you're wrong.
It is up to the voters to...Iain, you're wrong.<br /><br />It is up to the voters to decide - provided that the candidates play by the rules and don't lie to them about each other's personal character.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14992173417106615152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-68401147405066901582010-11-15T18:54:49.261+00:002010-11-15T18:54:49.261+00:00Mr Dale, you are wrong on many counts.
"It i...Mr Dale, you are wrong on many counts.<br /><br />"It is for electors to decide who sits in parliament, not the courts", but it is for the courts to decide when an offense has been committed and offer suitable redress, not for the public.<br /><br />In my view, Mr Woolas's wrongful action caused his libdem opponent to suffer damage (possibly the loss of a seat in Parliament) that is not only pecuniary damage but also a loss affecting personal rights and prestige. As such, the courts must intervene to restore the situation to the state before the damage occurred - i.e. to declare the election void - which, in this case, is an appropriate and achievable redress.<br />You cannot make Mr Watkins's right to extract justice for himself dependant on the whimsies of others (i.e. the electors). That would not be fair.<br /><br />As far as I know, libel actions can only offer compensatory damages (which, if used to settle such a case, would mean that the results of an election can be 'bought')and only when actual malice has been proven (which is not what motivated Mr Woolas; he was more likely motivated by self-interest)gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12852087594641044352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-3489106265813275532010-11-15T18:53:41.916+00:002010-11-15T18:53:41.916+00:00Just seen this on Nick Thorby's blog. Yes, he ...Just seen this <a href="http://nickthornsby.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/wheres-woolas/" rel="nofollow">on Nick Thorby's blog</a>. Yes, he is a LibDem but it speak to my point about public opinion: 'Talking to voters – including (former) Labour supporters – in Oldham today, what really struck me was just how angry people are about what Woolas did. It’s no surprise really that people are extremely unhappy about having been lied to, and going to the polls in May having been told complete untruths about one of the candidates.'paulocanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17499916652508144662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22143988027229925832010-11-15T18:51:49.119+00:002010-11-15T18:51:49.119+00:00You miss the point Iain. Would the voters have ret...You miss the point Iain. Would the voters have returned Woolas had they known on election day he had broken electoral law to discredit his opponent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-21808647663424078832010-11-15T18:40:32.948+00:002010-11-15T18:40:32.948+00:00Woolas did use homophobic slurs. I don't have ...Woolas did use homophobic slurs. I don't have the exact quote but it was something like 'he's single and he lives with his mum, nudge, nudge'.<br /><br />As regards your argument, which I understand as "it is for electors to decide who sits in parliament, not courts" and "it is right that he should be allowed to take the legal process to its conclusion" and your suggestion that libel courts should decide disputes rather than electoral courts.<br /><br />Of course he should be 'allowed' his judicial appeal, though what benefit it could possibly bring him I don't understand. Of your entire comment this appears to be the bit which resembles your ethical issue and reason for the donation. Others have made the point that libel is not a just solution for various reasons. Do electors really want a proven libeler continuing as their MP?<br /><br />As for courts throwing MPs out, what is the point of ANY electoral law that does not have that potential consequence? Further, it was MPs, voted for by us, that created the law. And for good reason if you read up on the circumstances. It is judges job to interpret it.<br /><br />The existing law I would venture would seem perfectly reasonable to most people, if they actually understood it rather than what seems to be the common and simple idea that its about the usual lies told ('I promise to do/not do X'). So I suspect that your view that "we need to ensure that robust debate continues", which presumably means that the lying about your opponents character tactic should have little consequence, would similarly see you on the wrong side of public opinion.paulocanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17499916652508144662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-55083265106602896242010-11-15T18:39:09.733+00:002010-11-15T18:39:09.733+00:00Iain
I think you have done a good thing for the C...Iain <br />I think you have done a good thing for the Conservative party. Giving Woolas the money to continue his fight, means that this will go on longer. The longer this goes on the grubber and grubber he looks, which reflects badly for both him and the Labour party. Well done a good Pro Conservative strategic movealistairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13447406108028693551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-16799254212838355372010-11-15T18:34:42.570+00:002010-11-15T18:34:42.570+00:00Iain: Of course you write blogposts so that people...Iain: Of course you write blogposts so that people will agree with you! You just love to share your views all over the place. Let's face it, in the last few months you've been all over the media like a bad rash.<br />The thing is, although I can agree with you that just because you are in a minority you are not necessarily wrong (wonder if you feel the same about the 'concensus' on CAGW? Sometimes, I'm sure minorities can be right).<br />However, you failed, once again, to address my comment, as you did with all the other commenters you responded to; you just resorted to name calling and self-inflation.<br />Not to worry, I figure I'm in good company in calling your argument wrong, but do take the time to figure out how your argument stands were a judge to send and MP to prison and therefore deprive the electorate of their MP - rather then they.<br />Your serve....Snotrockethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08365372497381385121noreply@blogger.com