Friday, 3 December 2010


Posted by Picasa
Tarnished, like himself;  surely they can get these things polished-up on expenses.

Beasted by an elderly  luvvie.

And rubbished by the Court:
  1. However when it was asserted in The Examiner that those whose votes were being wooed by Mr Watkins were those who were not simply extremists but those who advocated extreme violence, in particular against Mr Woolas, it plainly suggested, as the Election Court found, that Mr Watkins was willing to condone threats of violence in pursuit of political advantage. It was not then a statement about the type of support he was wooing, but a statement that he was willing to condone threats of violence. That farther statement took the statement from being a statement as to Mr Watkins' political position to a statement about his personal character - that he condoned criminal conduct. It is not simply an implied statement in relation to a political matter, but a statement that goes to his personal character as a man who condones extreme violence.
  2. Similarly where the statement in Labour Rose went on to say Mr Watkins had not rejected the endorsement of him by those who advocated violence and was refusing to condemn their threats of violence, this was again a statement that Mr Watkins was a man whose personal character was such that he refused to condemn threats of violence. In the same way as the statement in The Examiner it ceased to be a statement about the political support he was wooing, and became a statement about his personal character as a man who refused to condemn threats of violence.
  3. Although in the present case, it might be said that Parliament can have been in little doubt that a person who like Mr Woolas on the findings of the Election Court made such statements in The Examiner and Labour Rose of the nature described about a candidate which were made dishonestly should be guilty of an illegal practice, it is necessary to test our conclusion on the basis that the statements were negligently made, as our interpretation of the law applies not only to untrue statements that are dishonestly made but to untrue statements that are made carelessly.
  4. There is in our judgment a very significant difference between a statement that goes to the political conduct of a candidate and one that goes beyond it and says something about his personal character. We can think of no reason why Parliament cannot have intended that where a statement was made about the personal character or conduct of a candidate, it did not intend due care to be exercised. Freedom of political debate must allow for the fact that statements are made which attack the political character of a candidate which are false but which are made carelessly. Such statements may also suggest an attack on aspects of his character by implying he is a hypocrite. Again, imposing a criminal penalty on a person who fails to exercise care when making statements in respect of a candidate's political position or character that by implication suggest he is a hypocrite would very significantly curtail the freedom of political debate so essential to a democracy. It could not be justified as representing the intention of Parliament. However imposing such a penalty where care is not taken in making a statement that goes beyond this and is a statement in relation to the personal character of a candidate can only enhance the standard of political debate and thus strengthen the way in which a democratic legislature is elected.
  5. Nor in our judgment for the reasons we have expressed would the conclusion we have reached in any way infringe the balance that Article 10 requires. The statements made were not of a trivial nature; they were a serious personal attack on a candidate by saying he condoned violence by extremists and refused to condemn those who advocated violence.
  6. Conclusion
  7. We consider that we should therefore grant Mr Woolas permission to bring judicial review, but, although he is entitled to have one of the findings made against him set aside, this does not affect the certificate as the findings of an illegal practice in relation to the other two matters cannot be impugned on our view as to the law.
He was always a slimy turd, smirking, Jeremy, happy to lie, Kirsty, distort and exaggerate, John,  as though he really was a clever fucker and not a hollowed-out excuse of a man.  Like so many of them, Phil was a  grinning pile of shit in a suit, confident, with good reason,  that none would call his bluff;  that he got away with it for so long, only being called to account by an aggrieved rival, and one of the ToiletMen to boot, is a dreadful indictment of our overpaid and overexposed, worthless caste of  political interviewers. But of course he was one of their own, like Baron Mandelstein, whoring up and down the busy thoroughfare between Media and Minster.  F ilth, all of them.


Bellaoffon said...

Perhaps he hoped Mr Mandelstein would stand behind him.

Dick the Prick said...

I can't speak for anyone - I had a smack dealing, people traffickin'. kidnappin', restaurant ownin', rude talkin' mudda fucker to get elected. Whaddya gonna do?

yardarm said...

And probably through the media will this lacklustre bagman find his rehabilitation. I made the mistake of stumbling across Brillo`s late evening show and I`ll be damned if Jacqui Smith wasn`t on the sofa next to Portaloo, himself having trodden this path.

Smith, who if she shouldn`t be in Holloway at least should be pointed out and laughed at publicly, this dunderhead, overpromoted even by Brown`s miserable standards, so thick and greedy she included bath plugs and her husband`s choice of onanistic relaxation on her exxies, too confused to remember where she lived, was actually the minister in charge of, I can`t stop laughing, law enforcement.

Apparently she`s now ' working ' for some major City beancounters, KPMG ? No wonder the City fucked it up so royally if she`s emblematic of their avarice and lack of competence. Which seems to be the case.

Blair must be their exemplar, their archetype. Started of as Derry Irvine`s tea boy, twenty five years of political bullshit and now rich lunatics throw millions at the bastard to hear him speak.

call me ishmael said...

Amen to all of that. She should, of course, be working for the people of Redditch, or Burglarsville, as it is known in North Worcestershire but an MP working fulltime as an MP - perish the thought. I tell you what, I'll send Brillo and his producers a cuntmail, will you?

Dick the Prick said...

Just for the record - a young copper came round, all of 28 and just got into CID to interview me on voting irregularities. It was Saturday morning and I started drinking & smoking a good couple of hours before he got his notebook out. The level of corruption i saw at voting night in the sports hall was pallpable.

Nobody else was round the Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Kasmiri tables except guys on mobile phones. Everywhere it was bunting and abuse but there it was like arrid, deserted, baron bullshit. Tories tried to buy 3,000 votes; Labour bout 4,000 - just the way it goes, sometimes.

My mate got screwed for being a Tory and introducing him - kinda like the mafia i guess. The voting fraud that my friend was brought through was proxy voting but the voter fraud that we both got hung out for was mass oppression of communities through force so we probably should have lost! I did print posters i shudn't had done. Whoopsy daisy. I was fighting Libs not Labs. Never fucked up a Lab campaign by smear. Hmm...fine line!!!

Dick the Prick said...

I also told the divisional superintendant, the mayor, the ex-mayor, the leader, the mayors secretary, the chief legal officer, the democratic services manager, the Labour political asst and the staff knew everything before me. You can spot a wrong un at distance and voting shouldn't be like that. Sure, buy votes, but don't fuck people - limits exist. This is ain't resting on some laddo with a badge, bless his cotton socks.

I'm quite a good bar man; worked in a town centre boozer for a couple of years and never got me head caved in = result. The candidate thought i was his servant which may simply be a misundertanding of the way politics works or rather an apiration of how he would expect it to be.

I do have a problem in hoping that the Tory party is an element of New York in that if 'you can make it there, you can make it anywhere' and i managed to blag an economics degree and i'm worried. We didn't join the Euro - Ruin has been put off for a bit. I want to relax for a bit and strategicaaaaallly, reckon need to learn how to plumb that watch Labour be toxic.

Big time best to you & yours, as always.


DtP said...

than watch Labour' be toxic. Hmm, Libs are just a sideshow

call me ishmael said...

Understudies they may be - but without them the show can't go on; it is the disproprotionality of proportional representation writ large - shabby opportunism available to whores and slags hanging around under the redlight of inconclusive elections. Fuck 'em and their ghastly self-serving reforms.

DtP said...

They have to vote..

The wife of the Labour leader (he was a former Lib Dummer and she could have bagged herself a proper socialist) used to hit me quite regularly. She was a Cllr also and we gave her education, standards, constitutional affairs and a general roving remit to do whatever. Nice lady. I like Labour, I understand it - it makes sense. They can be and usually are good people; thouroughly misguided and full of shit but nice.

Lib Dems on the other hand....

It's not for me to attack Lib Dumps tho - that would seem churlish, beneath my pay grade; at least in public.