PDA

View Full Version : Carmicheal Case Verdict



rob murray
09-Dec-15, 12:31
Carmicheal case verdict legal bid fails http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35049150 : outwith this, which should never have went to court, I am genuinely sorry for the 4 folk who took the situation to court, even though they would have been told of concequences of losing form the off, as they now face massive costs ie their own costs, the courts costs and the costs of the other side which could well see them lose everything and face bankruptcy, maybe crowd funding can bail them out ?? see this by leslie riddoch http://www.lesleyriddoch.com/2015/09/orkney-four-have-legitimate-case.html a good fair read.

dc1
09-Dec-15, 13:10
I don't vote liberal so have no axe to grind but I thought it was politics just trying to get rid of the last liberal mp . so I have no sympathy for them

squidge
09-Dec-15, 13:14
The disappointing thing about this verdict is that it seems to suggest that lying is an acceptable way for a politician to behave. That it is acceptable for a person to put out information about another person which is not true, then to lie about doing so and then to allow a whole pile of money to be spent on an inquiry before admitting the truth.

Lets look at that for a minute,

Imagine you had a job and you lied about something a colleague had done in order to either undermine them, or to make yourself look good and advance your own prospects and the lie was exposed. What would happen? If there was an investigation and it was found out that you had told this damaging lie, I would suggest that you may indeed find yourself without your job. Imagine if you were applying for a job and lied about another candidate so that you could undermine that candidate. Do you think you would keep that job?

If if you took your employer to a tribunal do you think you would win?

Mr Z
09-Dec-15, 13:30
I have to agree with Squidge on this one. Where else but in politics can you get away with lying.
I certainly would not want him representing me

Green_not_greed
09-Dec-15, 13:31
Carmicheal case verdict legal bid fails http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35049150 : outwith this, which should never have went to court, I am genuinely sorry for the 4 folk who took the situation to court, even though they would have been told of concequences of losing form the off, as they now face massive costs ie their own costs, the courts costs and the costs of the other side which could well see them lose everything and face bankruptcy, maybe crowd funding can bail them out ?? see this by leslie riddoch http://www.lesleyriddoch.com/2015/09/orkney-four-have-legitimate-case.html a good fair read.

Don't feel sorry for them - the SNP will pay their costs from all those savings they've made in Forth Bridge maintenance......

Mr Z
09-Dec-15, 13:34
Why would the SNP pay for them. One of the four was a Green Party person

rob murray
09-Dec-15, 13:44
The disappointing thing about this verdict is that it seems to suggest that lying is an acceptable way for a politician to behave. That it is acceptable for a person to put out information about another person which is not true, then to lie about doing so and then to allow a whole pile of money to be spent on an inquiry before admitting the truth.

Lets look at that for a minute,

Imagine you had a job and you lied about something a colleague had done in order to either undermine them, or to make yourself look good and advance your own prospects and the lie was exposed. What would happen? If there was an investigation and it was found out that you had told this damaging lie, I would suggest that you may indeed find yourself without your job. Imagine if you were applying for a job and lied about another candidate so that you could undermine that candidate. Do you think you would keep that job?

If if you took your employer to a tribunal do you think you would win?

The law is the law and is a strange beast, look at the Glasow bin lorry scenario / Hillborough etc etc ?? Lying....all politicians "lie" dont they, its part of the political process ? The case was progressed by 4 constituents ( one whose sister is an SNP MSP ) and 3 non Nats but all self confessed yes voters, who would have been briefed and aware of the personal concequences involved ie if the case went against them, they never went into this without this information ( or they were plain daft taking the risk ) , they proceeded, the case went to law, carmichel admitted to "lying", the law costs a hell of a lot, so the moment the case started a cash ticking bomb started ticking off. Lets hope for their sake that the crowd funding to pay the 180k minimum legal costs continues or they will lose a hell of a lot. Lying in a job is subjective and employers would have a hard job getting rid of someone on the basis of lies, otherwise a hell of a lot of people would be sacked or could be victimised. Like I said, Im sorry for the folk, better them than me though, as I would never have proceeded any legal actions knowing if I lost I would be liable for huge costs. Thats the legal system Im afraid.

rob murray
09-Dec-15, 13:48
Why would the SNP pay for them. One of the four was a Green Party person

Nope, they went to law and lost knowing the concequences and no one ( unless sympathetic crowd funders ) should bail them out : see this by leslie riddoch http://www.lesleyriddoch.com/2015/09...mate-case.html (http://www.lesleyriddoch.com/2015/09/orkney-four-have-legitimate-case.html) a good fair read. 1 was SNP 3 werent, all four voted Yes in the independence referendum but they come from a variety of party and no party backgrounds.

rob murray
09-Dec-15, 14:15
The disappointing thing about this verdict is that it seems to suggest that lying is an acceptable way for a politician to behave. That it is acceptable for a person to put out information about another person which is not true, then to lie about doing so and then to allow a whole pile of money to be spent on an inquiry before admitting the truth.

Lets look at that for a minute,

Imagine you had a job and you lied about something a colleague had done in order to either undermine them, or to make yourself look good and advance your own prospects and the lie was exposed. What would happen? If there was an investigation and it was found out that you had told this damaging lie, I would suggest that you may indeed find yourself without your job. Imagine if you were applying for a job and lied about another candidate so that you could undermine that candidate. Do you think you would keep that job?

If if you took your employer to a tribunal do you think you would win?

Dismissal For MisconductThe various offences that might cause disciplinary and dismissal procedures to be instigated by a business against an employee are grouped together under the term 'misconduct'. There's no finite definition of misconduct and a lot depends on the nature of the employer and its culture as to what constitutes misconduct. Generally it is either about the way an employee conducts themselves or their ability to do their job and includes:


Persistent poor time-keeping and absenteeism
Dishonesty
Rudeness to colleagues and/or customers
Poor discipline
Inability to keep up with work
Long-term absence or sickness

In these cases, a full disciplinary procedure must be followed before dismissal, although the aim of the procedure must be to reverse the problem and get an employee back on the job, with dismissal a last resort at the end.

rob murray
09-Dec-15, 14:20
If Carmicheal had lost would Salmon be in the dock for his lies on EU situation in 2014 ? Oh I forgot double standards at play eh, Salmon is a proven liar, could the false case put to the people of scotland over oil prices and tax contributions in 2014, now out by 6,000%, have landed those behind it in the dock...that lie deliberatly misled the elecorate who thankfully saw through the sham and voted to reject indy, where does it all end ?? Politics is not "whiter than white" despite SNP claims to contrary ( they should maybe keep their heads down what with ongoing finanical shenanigans ). Last word, the people of Orkney / SHetland can use the ballot box to rid themselves of Carmicheal at next election. A far cheaper though not as high profie a scenario !!!

squidge
09-Dec-15, 14:40
Let's just get this straight Rob. At no point have I or am I suggesting that the SNP or any other party is whiter than white.

The way these things should be judged is by the response to the thing that is happening. So we have Carmichael. He has not been found guilty of anything by a court and therefore is free to continue and try to rebuild his reputation. During the investigation however he did not resign the whip, the party did not suspend him and he faced no penalties.

The two cases with regards to the SNP MPs have both resigned the whip despite neither of them having as yet even been interviewed by the police as far as I or you can be aware. I'm sure if either of them are interviewed we will see it on the front page of the papers. Neither of them have been charged with anything either nor are they facing a court case.

I think Carmichael should have resigned the whip. I think that is the right and proper thing to do. It's a bit like suspending someone from work on full pay whilst an investigation is being carried out.

People are people and they do stupid and wicked things sometimes. Witch hunts do no one any favours and it is right that where the law makes a decision that decision is see. To be made. It is however absolutely right that especially our politicians are held to account for what they do. Whoever the Orkney 4 were or are they were right to take the case to court if they felt that strongly about it. they stood up to be counted and more of us should be prepared to do so

rob murray
09-Dec-15, 14:59
Let's just get this straight Rob. At no point have I or am I suggesting that the SNP or any other party is whiter than white.

The way these things should be judged is by the response to the thing that is happening. So we have Carmichael. He has not been found guilty of anything by a court and therefore is free to continue and try to rebuild his reputation. During the investigation however he did not resign the whip, the party did not suspend him and he faced no penalties.

The two cases with regards to the SNP MPs have both resigned the whip despite neither of them having as yet even been interviewed by the police as far as I or you can be aware. I'm sure if either of them are interviewed we will see it on the front page of the papers. Neither of them have been charged with anything either nor are they facing a court case.

I think Carmichael should have resigned the whip. I think that is the right and proper thing to do. It's a bit like suspending someone from work on full pay whilst an investigation is being carried out.

People are people and they do stupid and wicked things sometimes. Witch hunts do no one any favours and it is right that where the law makes a decision that decision is see. To be made. It is however absolutely right that especially our politicians are held to account for what they do. Whoever the Orkney 4 were or are they were right to take the case to court if they felt that strongly about it. they stood up to be counted and more of us should be prepared to do so

Yeah, count me out I wont take any stupid chances with the law, been there done it paid the dough. Glad we agree no one is whiter than white although a certain party leader promised a new politics and all people see is the same ol same !!!! if every politician who lied resigned the whip there would be next to know one left eh ? Read the Leslie Riddoch url I put on, they ( Orkney 4 ) are all named and its a good read. Yep they stood up and now have to pay the conequences, personally speaking as I said Carmicheal can be got rid of at the next election it would cost zero, instead the poor folk are really screwed, the stress they must be under will be enormous and I really feel sorry for them, but they did know the concequences of what they were doing so maybe I should be more pointed, they fought they lost they pay...tough....but Im not like that as I know the legal process / law works in strange ways ( they actually won 2 out of 3 legal arguements but the third pulled them down , so near yet so far ). Put it this way, just to put things into perspective,96 people died at a football game and it took nearly 20 years to get near the truth of why it happened and expose the lies told, , the Orkney 4 are alive, have their health / freedom and hopefully crowd funding will help them out of their financial predicament as crowd funding raised allegedy 80k to part finance the case.

rob murray
09-Dec-15, 15:01
Let's just get this straight Rob. At no point have I or am I suggesting that the SNP or any other party is whiter than white.

The way these things should be judged is by the response to the thing that is happening. So we have Carmichael. He has not been found guilty of anything by a court and therefore is free to continue and try to rebuild his reputation. During the investigation however he did not resign the whip, the party did not suspend him and he faced no penalties.

The two cases with regards to the SNP MPs have both resigned the whip despite neither of them having as yet even been interviewed by the police as far as I or you can be aware. I'm sure if either of them are interviewed we will see it on the front page of the papers. Neither of them have been charged with anything either nor are they facing a court case.

I think Carmichael should have resigned the whip. I think that is the right and proper thing to do. It's a bit like suspending someone from work on full pay whilst an investigation is being carried out.

People are people and they do stupid and wicked things sometimes. Witch hunts do no one any favours and it is right that where the law makes a decision that decision is see. To be made. It is however absolutely right that especially our politicians are held to account for what they do. Whoever the Orkney 4 were or are they were right to take the case to court if they felt that strongly about it. they stood up to be counted and more of us should be prepared to do so

I cannot comment on Natalie.

rob murray
09-Dec-15, 16:35
if interested read the court proceddings and reasoning behnind the verdict http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=9452fba6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 IM really surprised that this case actually went to court, as the legal case is very clear and covered by long established legal procedures and case law, in other words to get a guilty verdict they needed to get existing case law over turned, these are laws which have been in force for over 100 years, and would have been advised that the case came down to 2 simple arguements. Apparently a politican can "lie" on political issues, as the public are judged capable enough of making up their own minds on whats said...ie STurgeon tells French ambassoder that she hopes Cameron will win....that "political remark" is judged to be one on which the electorate can make their own mind up on just cos its said doent imply people believe it cart blanche, in the judgement the judges refer to evidence that Salmons EU claims that Scotland had taken legal advice about an independent Scotland’s membership of the European Union ( long proven lies ) is deemed a lie but not a lie which is in relation to personal character or conduct. So a lie made which is personal ( STurgeon has a drinking issue ) can be challenged, as the public dont have access to all private facts. So politicans can lie on political matters as its up to us as adults to believe or reject what we hear, politicians lying in relation to personal character or conduct is something entirley different, and theres a very clear distinction between the two that would have been obvious from the off, why oh why did they then proceed with the case knowing this, as it would have been explained to them very clearly from the off that they had no chance.

davth
09-Dec-15, 19:02
If they couldn't afford the litigation expenses then they should not have raised the litigation.

rob murray
09-Dec-15, 20:55
If they couldn't afford the litigation expenses then they should not have raised the litigation.

The hadn't a pot to p..in but crowd funding helped raise money to progress an action, one of the 4 was on radio tonight hoping crowd funding will pay off all the expenses that they have to pay...otherwise shes' bankrupt.

squidge
09-Dec-15, 21:44
I cannot comment on Natalie.

lol Rob I didn't comment on Natalie on the case of the details but I commented on the procedure and I think for ANY MP, MSP facing a court case or any potential criminal, legal, or internal investigation they should- as you and I would- face suspension with pay or something similar until such a time as any investigation is completed. Whereby there will be no further action - as in the Carmichael case - or further penalties.

Procedures Rob, procedures - fairness, people being held to account- people being treated fairly when facing accusations. Like I said if you or I had been in the position of - as the court said- telling a blatant lie to undermine a colleague then we would have been subjected to disciplinary procedures until such a time as it was resolved one way or another. In fact, Alistair Carmichael is a solicitor I believe. How would being found to have lied by a court affected his fitness to be a solicitor, had he not been an MP?

I would just like to see politicians held to the same standards they set for civil servants, police, nurses etc.

rob murray
10-Dec-15, 10:45
lol Rob I didn't comment on Natalie on the case of the details but I commented on the procedure and I think for ANY MP, MSP facing a court case or any potential criminal, legal, or internal investigation they should- as you and I would- face suspension with pay or something similar until such a time as any investigation is completed. Whereby there will be no further action - as in the Carmichael case - or further penalties.

Procedures Rob, procedures - fairness, people being held to account- people being treated fairly when facing accusations. Like I said if you or I had been in the position of - as the court said- telling a blatant lie to undermine a colleague then we would have been subjected to disciplinary procedures until such a time as it was resolved one way or another. In fact, Alistair Carmichael is a solicitor I believe. How would being found to have lied by a court affected his fitness to be a solicitor, had he not been an MP?

I would just like to see politicians held to the same standards they set for civil servants, police, nurses etc.


You mentioned 2 cases, there are actually 3 now, I could make comments but decided as regards Natalie Mcgarry not to, as the facts on her situation arent out there so I would be going on very, very little media speculation, loads in media on the other 2, little on Natalie. The law is the law and unfortuntaly a politican can "lie", eg Salmon blatantly lied over EU stuff in 2014, the legal reasoning is that we the elctorate are wise enough to make up our minds as regards politicians remarks, ie we are all adults and thats fair enough, I mean I never believed for one minute that Sturgeon wanted Cameron in !! You will never get a situation whereby a system is in place ( with legal changes as the law will need changed ) to make / police politicians to tell "truths", say someone through a third pary leaks an untruth bltant lie, covers their tracks / plausble deniability, it goes on all the time, politics everywhere is a dirty game as its focused on one thing POWER, getting it and retaining it. . The ultimate jury is the ballot box, Carmichel can be voted out in next election. I do however suport you, politicians have to be held to account, however acts of criminality are dealt with by criminal courts, politicians cant make personal / character remarks or face laws of liable and can fall into the scope of the Representation of the People Act. He may have won as the law stands supports him, he prevailed in the election court on a strict interpretation of the law, but thats how the leagl process operates, it is however doubtful that he or his party will survive the court of public opinion. I heard one of the Orkney 4 on radio last night, suggesting that this law be changed as it was "unfair" and lets politicians off, she openly admits facing large legal expenses which she cannot pay, if she doesnt get help / crowd funding then she will be made bankrupt and ironically she is a trainee solicitor so wouldnt be able to practice. If the 4 did not access to crowd funding theres no way the case would have proceeded and the 4 were bound to have been advised that the case was unwinnable due to existing legal precedents, I susoect they carried on to show the country that legally politicians can lie, she mentioned wanting a cleaner politics, fair enough, but I dont hear any parties supporting a call for a complete review of the Representation of the People Act which is the crux of the matter and allowed Carmechael to get off and not on a legal technicality, the case didnt satisfy the requirements of the Representation of the People Act ( and read the legal findings, Carmichel is called for all sorts and his repution is hammered, rightly so )

squidge
10-Dec-15, 11:26
It is only by challenging laws in a court that they change. I worry that access to legal recourse is disappearing for all but the wealthy. Look at employment tribunals, look at the reduction in legal aid, even the proposals to charge benefit claimants to make an appeal - the direction of travel is a worrying thing.

I would like to see costs met by Carmichael or at the least shared. His almost righteous indication on last nights television news was arrogant and at odds with the comments made in the judgement. He complained this was a politically motivated action, bloody right it was. He was a politician and his lies were politically motivated. Without his politically motivated deceit this action would never have taken place. HE was responsible for this whole thing and shirking that just makes him look even more untrustworthy.

And that's without taking into account the 1.5 million which was the cost of the enquiry into his lies in the first place. Disgusting.

EDIT: Rob has kindly and with his usual grace pointed out that the figure of 1.5 million which came from Paul Flynn a labour MP is likely to be wrong. Whilst this figure was widely reported at the time as the cost of the enquiry into the leak, it is likely that it cost considerably less. The cost has been met from the budget of the department concerned but that does not mean that it didn't cost anything. It did. However, there are no figures available which give us a clear figure so I'm happy to point out that the figure I quoted above is wrong.

davth
10-Dec-15, 12:52
Why would he pay any costs for something he is not responsible for?

What makes you think that he can afford it also?

rob murray
10-Dec-15, 13:15
Why would he pay any costs for something he is not responsible for?

What makes you think that he can afford it also?

Exactly the case against him was funded by crowd funding it wasnt the orkney 4's personal money, they lost, costs are against them now which they were well aware off from the off, they would have been told from the off that they had no chance of winning, but hey it wasnt their money then was it. However repulsive people see the judgement the law is the law and the O4 lost, they have to pay costs including Carmicheals as they raised the action. It doesnt matter if he is a multi millionaire, the case found for him so he doesnt pay a single penny, but his costs have to be paid, the crowd funders can pay the O4 costs, afterall crowd funding funded the action to start with.

davth
10-Dec-15, 14:22
Exactly the case against him was funded by crowd funding it wasnt the orkney 4's personal money, they lost, costs are against them now which they were well aware off from the off, they would have been told from the off that they had no chance of winning, but hey it wasnt their money then was it. However repulsive people see the judgement the law is the law and the O4 lost, they have to pay costs including Carmicheals as they raised the action. It doesnt matter if he is a multi millionaire, the case found for him so he doesnt pay a single penny, but his costs have to be paid, the crowd funders can pay the O4 costs, afterall crowd funding funded the action to start with.

But will the crowdfunders be so keen to fund an already lost case?
I hope not

squidge
10-Dec-15, 21:18
Why would he pay any costs for something he is not responsible for?

What makes you think that he can afford it also?

i think it could be argued that he WAS responsible for the case being brought as he told the lies in the first place.i have no opinion about whether he can afford it or not. The reason for suggesting that he should pay costs was about him being forced to take responsibility for his actions and the consequences of such.

He he hasn't declared the 8 thousand odd pounds he raised through crowd funding either so he needs to do that pretty sharpish.

rob murray
11-Dec-15, 11:02
i think it could be argued that he WAS responsible for the case being brought as he told the lies in the first place.i have no opinion about whether he can afford it or not. The reason for suggesting that he should pay costs was about him being forced to take responsibility for his actions and the consequences of such.

He he hasn't declared the 8 thousand odd pounds he raised through crowd funding either so he needs to do that pretty sharpish.

There's going be a further enquiry by parliament so his head will likely roll and so it should : should Salmon be called to account for lying about EU in referendum....his lies on EU situation are mentioned in the court case evidence as an example of a politician lying on a political matter, so legally he could this without any court actions...I only mention this as its in he court transcript althoguh lets face it most if not all politicians tell porkkies or are rather loose with the truth .Is this law going to change and how can it be enforced ie getting politicians to tell the truth or is lying part of the job ? Getting rid of Carmicheal doenst really chaneg the overall situation really as the law would have to change, although if there is an enquiry he deserves to go as his already shattered reputation will be destroyed.

Mr Z
11-Dec-15, 12:04
Carmichael should have quit as soon as he was found out or admitted to it. He had at that point already cost the taxpayer a large some of money. He had the title Right Honourable - what was honourable about telling lies?
I don't think he can be trusted or believed in the future.
Funny enough he may still have won his seat had he claimed credit to the leak at the time. My opinion is his actions were a schoolboy level revenge at Nicola following their referendum debate where she wiped the floor with him.
I say to others if they feel Salmond has lied by all means take him to court but if you lose it could cost a lot as the Orkney 4 have found out.

rob murray
11-Dec-15, 12:22
Carmichael should have quit as soon as he was found out or admitted to it. He had at that point already cost the taxpayer a large some of money. He had the title Right Honourable - what was honourable about telling lies?
I don't think he can be trusted or believed in the future.
Funny enough he may still have won his seat had he claimed credit to the leak at the time. My opinion is his actions were a schoolboy level revenge at Nicola following their referendum debate where she wiped the floor with him.
I say to others if they feel Salmond has lied by all means take him to court but if you lose it could cost a lot as the Orkney 4 have found out.

Thats my point, if you took every politician to court who lied in an election / referendum then where does it all stop, theres only a certain limit to crowd funding and most ordinary people havent the money to launch court actions....its totally impracticable, Carmicheal is a solicitor and would have known, been advised of the case law behind the scope of the Representation of the People Act, he knew he would win this, but he ultimatly lost...his reputation and possible his seat after the parliamentary enqury. He played it "smarmy" that I agree. There were no winners in this. Oh and 100% Salmon s EU "explanation/s" are cited as evidence of proven lying, look up the court transcriot and see for your self, but its not under the scope of the Representation of the People Act as the remarks were made during a referendum not an election and secondly the law as stands, is based on the public being mature and intelligent enough to make their own minds up, its only when a politican uses personal / character remarks against another politician that can be construed to influence votes, that issues get hot. So Salmon did lie over EU thats proven, he can do so with legal impunity, but 55% of the vote made their own minds up on the EU and other issues relevant to independance.

rob murray
11-Dec-15, 15:47
It is only by challenging laws in a court that they change. I worry that access to legal recourse is disappearing for all but the wealthy. Look at employment tribunals, look at the reduction in legal aid, even the proposals to charge benefit claimants to make an appeal - the direction of travel is a worrying thing.

I would like to see costs met by Carmichael or at the least shared. His almost righteous indication on last nights television news was arrogant and at odds with the comments made in the judgement. He complained this was a politically motivated action, bloody right it was. He was a politician and his lies were politically motivated. Without his politically motivated deceit this action would never have taken place. HE was responsible for this whole thing and shirking that just makes him look even more untrustworthy.

And that's without taking into account the 1.5 million which was the cost of the enquiry into his lies in the first place. Disgusting.

You are either lying or ignorant of the facts, by stating costs of 1.5 millions : which is it...lies or ignorance ? " see below :

Cabinet Office
General Election 2015: Scotland

Commons

861

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the cost to the Government was of the inquiry into the leaking of a memorandum relating to the First Minister of Scotland during the General Election campaign.
A

Answered by: Matthew Hancock (http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/matthew-hancock/4070)

Answered on: 08 June 2015



The inquiry into this leak was conducted by serving Cabinet Office officials responsible for security and propriety matters; it was carried out within existing resources and no additional costs were incurred.

squidge
11-Dec-15, 16:54
Well let's see. The figure 1.5 million is one that has been regularly reported in the press. I believe it originated from Paul Flynn - a labour MP - who quoted 1.4million as the figure he was given so it appears that the figure was rounded up to 1.5 million.

The answer to the parliamentary question says that the enquiry was "carried out within existing resources" that does not mean there was no cost Rob. It might have been met out of existing budgets but there was a cost even if it was the case that there was no additional resource used on top of existing budgets. Resources were used and those resources come at a cost to the public purse. After all whilst that enquiry was going on the people involved were not doing other work. I was surprised at the amount but I have seen nothing which has stated any other figure or even challenged that figure as incorrect.

rob murray
11-Dec-15, 17:04
Well let's see. The figure 1.5 million is one that has been regularly reported in the press. I believe it originated from Paul Flynn - a labour MP - who quoted 1.4million as the figure he was given so it appears that the figure was rounded up to 1.5 million.

The answer to the parliamentary question says that the enquiry was "carried out within existing resources" that does not mean there was no cost Rob. It might have been met out of existing budgets but there was a cost even if that wax the case. Resources were used and those resources come at a cost to the public purse. I was surprised at the amount but I have seen nothing which has stated any other figure or even challenged that figure as incorrect.

Oh come off it....even if existing resources used were costed, they, as you well know, would never in a million years have come to what youve...... stated 1.5 millions !!! How come you can be so selective with sources when it suits you and swerve / ignore other proven facts, Salmons lies on EU for one amongst many many..... The truth is once again, your relying on saying something wrong ( badly wrong ) so that people remember your version over the truth. Well it wont wash wi me, unless you can post a url with the 1.5 millions alleged figure, Ive googled and found nowt. So over to you !

squidge
11-Dec-15, 18:05
You are absolutely right Rob. Why bother?

The figure of 1.5 million was widely bandied about at the time as the cost of the enquiry. I told you where the figure seems to originate from and I am happy to be proved wrong as I think I have said. A quick Google tells me that you are probably right but I still do not agree that there was "no cost". I'm perfectly happy to change my post and indeed have done.

It's a shame that after managing a civilised discussion and conversation for Oooh at least what? 3or 4 posts? You - once again - start slinging accusations and allegations around using perjorative words that are designed to inflame and irritate.

Comments like "are you a liar or ignorant" are uncalled for. You could simply have said something like " I think you might be wrong about that figure Squidge" but no - off you go with your name calling.

I have swerved no facts Rob. You made a point about lies which you didn't actually ask any questions about. I did not comment on your previous post because I didn't particularly disagree with your post.

I have responded to the post in which you actually asked me some questions. I explained where the figure came from and I don't mind it being pointed out that something which I have said is wrong Rob, I do however mind that you are so bloody rude about it. It's tiresome and boring and once again has spoiled this thread.

rob murray
11-Dec-15, 21:24
You are absolutely right Rob. Why bother?

The figure of 1.5 million was widely bandied about at the time as the cost of the enquiry. I told you where the figure seems to originate from and I am happy to be proved wrong as I think I have said. A quick Google tells me that you are probably right but I still do not agree that there was "no cost". I'm perfectly happy to change my post and indeed have done.

It's a shame that after managing a civilised discussion and conversation for Oooh at least what? 3or 4 posts? You - once again - start slinging accusations and allegations around using perjorative words that are designed to inflame and irritate.

Comments like "are you a liar or ignorant" are uncalled for. You could simply have said something like " I think you might be wrong about that figure Squidge" but no - off you go with your name calling.

I have swerved no facts Rob. You made a point about lies which you didn't actually ask any questions about. I did not comment on your previous post because I didn't particularly disagree with your post.

I have responded to the post in which you actually asked me some questions. I explained where the figure came from and I don't mind it being pointed out that something which I have said is wrong Rob, I do however mind that you are so bloody rude about it. It's tiresome and boring and once again has spoiled this thread.

OK............................................yer back I see / goodbye

squidge
11-Dec-15, 21:45
Sigh.......

rob murray
12-Dec-15, 20:44
Sigh.......

Yep thats all you are capable of and you've a lot to sigh about eh ?

squidge
12-Dec-15, 22:16
And again - why so unpleasant Rob?

rob murray
12-Dec-15, 22:50
And again - why so unpleasant Rob?

What...moi ??

squidge
12-Dec-15, 23:44
Yes Rob, you :)

piratelassie
14-Dec-15, 01:56
Squidge, your wasting your time replying to some people, just ignore him .

Mr Z
14-Feb-16, 17:13
I see Carmichael has to pay his legal bill of around 150000. Had to laugh at his lawyer saying Carmichael was not a wealthy man. In his job he earns a lot more than average wage