ANOTHER SERVANT OF DEMOCRACY FALLS.

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.
Conclusion
6. 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.