Carmicheal Case Verdict

[rob murray]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Sigh.......

[rob murray]

Sigh.......

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

[squidge]

And again - why so unpleasant Rob?

[rob murray]

And again - why so unpleasant Rob?

What...moi ??

[squidge]

Yes Rob, you

[piratelassie]

Squidge, your wasting your time replying to some people, just ignore him .

[Mr Z]

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