R2OK! Forum Index R2OK!
Contact R2OK! admin

Click here for R2OK! Website


 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Labour MP's demand Harman Resignation

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    R2OK! Forum Index -> News and Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Clive55



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1336

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:14 pm    Post subject: Labour MP's demand Harman Resignation Reply with quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/09/harriet-harman-phil-woolas-backbench-mutiny

Furious Labour MP's are demanding Harriet Harman's resignation as Deputy Leader after her disasterous handling of the Woolas affair. Harman rushed to state that Woolas would never be allowed to stand for Labour again even before his appeal is heard.
Ms Harman has long been considered a liability by Labour insiders for her frequently iunept handling of party affairs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Minx



Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 4088
Location: France/Spain/Peterborough/Tenerife

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Harriet Harman has long been recognised as being a "talking head". I doubt whether she has a bone of political conviction in her body, she simply responds in sound-bytes to the populist theme of the day.

I smiled when she was applauding and cheering about some reversal of policy within the labour party recently, and David Milliband sitting beside her, turned and snapped "What are you applauding for? You voted for it."
And that for me just sums her up. Rolling Eyes
_________________
Minx

To err is human, to forgive - canine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Clive55



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1336

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minx wrote:
Harriet Harman has long been recognised as being a "talking head". I doubt whether she has a bone of political conviction in her body, she simply responds in sound-bytes to the populist theme of the day.

I smiled when she was applauding and cheering about some reversal of policy within the labour party recently, and David Milliband sitting beside her, turned and snapped "What are you applauding for? You voted for it."
And that for me just sums her up. Rolling Eyes

Yep. That was re- the Iraq war. Ed opposed it. Harriet- like david- supported it. And then she applauded ed opposing it
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clive55



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1336

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee have been crowing on their website at having got rid of another Jew "One More Zionist Down & Out!" they crowed.
The MPAC have vowed to rid Britains Parliament of all Jewish MP's. The Liberal Democrats have been working hand in glove with the MPAC in local constituencies towards this end.
Now Harriet Harman appears to want to appease the MPAC. This will be tricky as her party leader is Jewish. And in any case the MPAC is wedded to the Liberal Democrats that a switch to Labour would not happen even if Labour became "juden-frei"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
undiscovered



Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 650
Location: Peterborough

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well according to JV's listeners the courts were right to dismiss him.
My argument is that if it was a lie then surely the LD candidate should be able to sue for libel. It sounds to me more mirky than that.

Saying that I guess on current trends since May the LD candidate will struggle to get his deposit back
_________________
You will hear gospel and rhythm and blues and jazz, all those are just labels, we know that music is music.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clive55



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1336

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have read quite a bit about this case & fail to see where Mr Woolas was supposed to have "lied".
He claimed that Watkins was campaigning in alliance with the MPAC. Watkins has NOT denied this
He claimed that Watkins had refused to condemn Islamist Death threats against Woolas.
There is no record of Watkins condemning such threats.
What part of Woolas' claims were "lies"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clive he also claimed that his opponent did not live in the constituency and had exceeded spending on his campaign over and above what is allowed by law
I don't understand why people want to persist in defending such a person
We have a proper legal system to deal with such matters and people should leave it for the law to take its course
The Lib Dems are going to be wiped out in the forthcoming by election anyway so I don't see why you are making such a big issue out of this
Mr Woolass has behaved like an idiot whatever you may think of his views and he should have had more sense than to hand his opponent the advantage by scoring a massive own goal
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clive55



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1336

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because it is contrary to democracy when judges not the electorate decide elections.
Furthermore, why is the MPAC allowed to carry on its current vendetta against Jewish MPs. Jews have lived in the UK a few centuries longer than Muslims have. Yet the MPAC are now in an influential position in Britain courtesy of their Lib Dem allies.
The power of the Muslim Lobby can be seen in British policy towards the middle east.
William Hague used to be quite a sensible, level headed polotician with a good grasp of foreign affairs.
Now we hear him issuing condemnations of Israel for building houses in Jerusalem, its own capital city. The Lib Dem parttners in govt are calling for a ban on arms sales to Israel & in favour of selling arms to Syria, a close ally of Iran & supplier of weapons to Hizbollah & Hamas
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clive I have quite a lot of sympathy with what you are saying but you are mixing up what is a perfectly valid point about Muslim extremism and its effect on British political life with trying to defend a man who has been found guilty of electoral lies by a properly convened English court of law
As I have said before I am concerned about the growing Muslim influence within this country but to link yourself with this discredited former MP is to undermine your own credibility concerning the very valid points which you are making and this only makes it harder to get your views across
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
undiscovered



Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 650
Location: Peterborough

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clive55 wrote:
William Hague used to be quite a sensible, level headed polotician with a good grasp of foreign affairs.


I can't say that I noticed this

Clive55 wrote:
Now we hear him issuing condemnations of Israel for building houses in Jerusalem, its own capital city.


you don't have to be pro muslim to condemn Israel for building new townships over the border NEAR Jerusulem

IF Woollas had lied then there should be a case for libel being called, it hasn't casting doubt into whether he lied at all
_________________
You will hear gospel and rhythm and blues and jazz, all those are just labels, we know that music is music.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem with libel is that to take action is extremely expensive which puts it off limits for most people even if they have a good case
Most top London solicitors would want around 100000 just to look at such a case so the fact a person has not taken action should not be seen as an admission that there has been no libel
Some solicitors may do the actual case on 'No Win No Fee' but only when they are sure there is a substantial guarantee of winning and it costs a lot of money to get to that point with no guarantee the case will even get off the ground
Libel action is fine for the very rich but generally out of reach for most ordinary people and I have long said that legal aid should be available for defamation cases provided the Legal Services Commission accepts that there is a good case but at a time of public spending cuts unfortunately the opposite is happening and legal aid is being cut which will cause problems for thousands of ordinary people on everything from divorce to housing and debt problems
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
undiscovered



Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 650
Location: Peterborough

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ruddlescat wrote:
Libel action is fine for the very rich but generally out of reach for most ordinary people


are these ordinary people then ?
_________________
You will hear gospel and rhythm and blues and jazz, all those are just labels, we know that music is music.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know the exact financial circumstances of the Lib Dem candidate nor do I know much about his background but I would imagine that he would need to be fairly rich in order to get a libel action off the ground
Just because a person is a Parliamentary candidate it does not mean they are necessarily well off and thankfully we have not yet quite got to the situation in America where a candidate needs millions behind them in order to stand in an election
I think that perhaps the Lib Dems have rather less of what might be described as professional politicians within their ranks compared to the two other major parties so I really don't think it is right to assume that money would necessarily be available to the candidate to bring an action for libel in this case
If we were talking about Nick Clegg then that would be an entirely different ball game as everybody knows he is a millionaire probably many times over
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    R2OK! Forum Index -> News and Current Affairs All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com