Phil Woolas in Court

#3
If the Daily Hate is going to campaign viciously gainst anyone or anything, then Phil Woolas is a pretty inspired target. He has never done a day's proper work in his effing life - classical University, union officiaal track record with a brief sinecure at the BBC. His agitprop tactics at the last GE are now coming home to roost and I sincerely hope that the photo-shopping, image-manipulating **** gets bounced from the house and suffers the appropriate penalty, to whit: "it follows automatically that the candidate who is found to be guilty of that, has his election voided, and that candidate would be incapable of being elected to the House of Commons or being elected at a local election for three years from the decision of the election court.”

That penalty would make his life even more meaningless than it is already and would leave him barred from the gravy train at an era when the QUANGO as first resort of the parliamentarian is no longer viable. He is also a David "Banana-chimp" Milliband supporter.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
If the Daily Hate is going to campaign viciously gainst anyone or anything, then Phil Woolas is a pretty inspired target. He has never done a day's proper work in his effing life - classical University, union officiaal track record with a brief sinecure at the BBC. His agitprop tactics at the last GE are now coming home to roost and I sincerely hope that the photo-shopping, image-manipulating **** gets bounced from the house and suffers the appropriate penalty, to whit: "it follows automatically that the candidate who is found to be guilty of that, has his election voided, and that candidate would be incapable of being elected to the House of Commons or being elected at a local election for three years from the decision of the election court.”

That penalty would make his life even more meaningless than it is already and would leave him barred from the gravy train at an era when the QUANGO as first resort of the parliamentarian is no longer viable. He is also a David "Banana-chimp" Milliband supporter.
So, you're saying he's like Keith Vaz, a bit, mostly, except he went to Uni, and Vaz didn't?
 
#6
Keith Vaz went to university - and public school. Yes, Labour MP goes to public school and Oxbridge - shock probe!
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
Keith Vaz went to university - and public school. Yes, Labour MP goes to public school and Oxbridge - shock probe!
Ruddy hell, so they're more alike than even I thought. I reckon a dating service would match them up a treat. Wasted education, champagne socialist, liars, Labour, corrupt, venal, not too bright, and everyone around them has their characters pinged good and proper.
 
#8
CheersKitmarlowe, this had indeed passed me by. Its brightened my morning up now though!
I sincerely hope Woolas ends up unemployed and is crucified, homeless and living in a carboard box (whilst still nailed to his cross)
 
#9
Ruddy hell, so they're more alike than even I thought. I reckon a dating service would match them up a treat. Wasted education, champagne socialist, liars, Labour, corrupt, venal, not too bright, and everyone around them has their characters pinged good and proper.
Biped - ink and ether cost money. In future a solid description of these two would be "pair of cnuts". Simples.
 
#10
CheersKitmarlowe, this had indeed passed me by. Its brightened my morning up now though!
I sincerely hope Woolas ends up unemployed and is crucified, homeless and living in a carboard box (whilst still nailed to his cross)
Bloody fence sitter!

On the thread itself... Somehow doubt that Woolas will be found guilty, we can but hope.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#11
Much as I'd like to see Phil Woolas ejected from Parliament, I can't see it happening over this. It seems to me the complaint is a bit 'woolly' (see what I did there?).

I'm also surprised to see a Lib-Dem describing free speech as a 'privilege'. What's that all about?
 
#12
Bloody fence sitter!

On the thread itself... Somehow doubt that Woolas will be found guilty, we can but hope.
I apologise, I shall try to be more assertive in my criticism in future!!

I'm surprised this has even got to court, funny how the world turns and the likes of Woolas no longer live in quite the same protective cocoon they used to wrap themselves in isn't it?

There is a certain sweey irony in all of this. Watkins (Woolas's oponent) is being represented in court by Matrix Chambers, the company of the wide mouthed bitch Mrs Blair.
 
#13
Don't knock it cpunk! If only more people bought into the concept that our "yooman rights" are in fact democratic privileges, earned and protected by actions over the centuries, then people might think a bit more clearly about them.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
Don't knock it cpunk! If only more people bought into the concept that our "yooman rights" are in fact democratic privileges, earned and protected by actions over the centuries, then people might think a bit more clearly about them.
Wooooaah there horsey! Democratic privileges? I beg to differ. I'd prefer to think of them as 'British Rights' that people have fought and died for, and the government messes with them at their peril. If you mean oooman rights as they apply to prisoners, law-breakers, non-citizens and the permanently unemployable, fcuk'em, they didn't earn them.

Equality in Action.
 
#15
I think that if people describe "rights" as inalienable, then they tend to think that they are so, regardless of what you do to defend them. The British rights you are thinking of are the same as the democratic privileges I refer to. They were earned by campaigning, when campaigns involved field artillery, pikes and iron rations and not a party political broadcast on C4. They were maintained through the exercise of the common law of the UK and by the deaths of those who defended the liberty of the UK. It is easy to get a bit emotional about them especially when people who didn't earn them and haven't defended them take the piss.

edited to add: I choose to use the expression privileges because the word conveys a sense of continuing to earn and qualify for them, rather than taking them for granted and spunking them up the wall. Everyone and his **** of an uncle seems to know their rights these days but few of them could explain where they originated from, the train of campaigners, heroes and statesmen responsible, from Magna Carta via the Chartists and Peel etc.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#17
edited to add: I choose to use the expression privileges because the word conveys a sense of continuing to earn and qualify for them, rather than taking them for granted and spunking them up the wall. Everyone and his **** of an uncle seems to know their rights these days but few of them could explain where they originated from, the train of campaigners, heroes and statesmen responsible, from Magna Carta via the Chartists and Peel etc.
I take your point but the problem with using 'privilege' is that it implies - often to states or governments - they can be taken from you or restricted. Woolas may have abused his 'right' to free speech and having done so must face the consequences; he hasn't abused the 'privilege' of free speech, except in some meaninglessly relative sense in comparison to what he might be allowed to put on an election leaflet in China or Burma...
 
#18
Woolas has form on this. His 1995 by-election campaign was also a disgrace. Behold the word of Mandleson:

“After the campaign was over, not only our opponents but some in Labour would denounce our ‘negative’ tactics in highlighting Lib Dem front-runner Chris Davies’ support for higher taxes and a Royal Commission to liberalise drugs laws. For tactical reasons, I felt we had had little choice.”

“Labour was starting from third place, and especially in a by-election, the bulk of Tory tactical voting was always going to flow to the Lib Dems. If we were to win, we would have to make that option as distasteful as possible.”

Of course it is not as if such tactics are confined to Woolas. Oh no.

In 2007 Waltham Forest Labour councillor Miranda Grell (one of those Labour ethnic female "risng stars") lost an appeal today over her conviction under the Representation of the People Act 1983 for making a false statement of fact about a candidate's personal character or conduct for electoral advantage. She was fined £500, forced to pay £3000 costs, slung out of her seat and banned from holding public office for three years.

She had falsely smeared her (openly gay) LibDem opponent in the 2006 elections as being a nonce, which led to him being abused, threatened, spat at in the street and being stalked so that he had to move away.

Labour rising star found guilty of smearing her election rival - Times Online

Oddly enough the Labour party funded her defence until they woke up to the fact it was a PR train wreck in progress.
 
#19
I take your point but the problem with using 'privilege' is that it implies - often to states or governments - they can be taken from you or restricted.
Well they can - remember DORA 1914? What about the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939?
 
#20
There is a certain sweey irony in all of this. Watkins (Woolas's oponent) is being represented in court by Matrix Chambers, the company of the wide mouthed bitch Mrs Blair.
According to the BBC, Watkins' brief claims that Woolas 'set out to make the white folk angry'. I was unaware of the fact that Reginald D Hunter had a side-line with Matrix as a barrister specialising in electoral law...
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top