Road rules1 min ago
Tower Hamlets- Rahman Guilty.
Answers
The introduction of postal voting and, ultimately, electronic voting will only lead to more of this cheating.
12:37 Thu 23rd Apr 2015
the published judgement is linked from the BBC report into this matter - it's a weighty read (200 pages) but contains some very interesting information - not least that the 4 petitioners took a huge fiscal gamble in persisting with the case, and surprise was expressed that the labour party (whose candidate mr biggs was well and truly smeared by the THF machine) chose not to be a part of the petition, particularly they would likely be the larger benificiary of a successful petition. it was suggested that the labour party drew back for fear of accusations of racism.
Paradoxically, acting in certain ways "for fear of accusations of racism" is probably racism: treating one group one way and another group in a different way is at the core of the meaning of the word.
The law is the law. Treat all colours equally under the law and you cannot be accused of doing wrong, or being racist.
Labour party disappearing up their own rectum, as per usual.
The law is the law. Treat all colours equally under the law and you cannot be accused of doing wrong, or being racist.
Labour party disappearing up their own rectum, as per usual.
//Did anyone see Galloway and Livingstone supporting this "democratically" elected mayor? //
mr livingstone is still supporting him. he said tonight:-
"Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
mr livingstone is still supporting him. he said tonight:-
"Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
I’m about halfway through reading the full judgement.
It is very interesting. Particularly with respect to Mr Livingstone’s apparent dismissal of the proceedings. Commissioner Mawrey addresses the criticism of election courts being made up of “unelected officials” wielding power to dismiss democratically elected representatives.
He is at pains to point out that the resolution of electoral disputes is not a task the judiciary took upon themselves. Parliament decided that politicians could not be trusted to resolve such disputes themselves and the obvious question is that, having accepted that, who is left but the judiciary? Election courts have thus lasted from 1868 to the present and have run under an evolution of legislation culminating in the 1983 Representation of the People Act.
Even more interesting is the standard of proof that the court has applied to the various charges. I naturally assumed that the civil standard of proof (“on a balance of probabilities”) would apply. But Mr. Mawrey explains, as part of his lengthy preamble, that the court applied:
(a) the criminal standard of proof (“Beyond Reasonable Doubt”) to the charges that Mr Rahman and/or his agents have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices
(b) the criminal standard of proof to the question of whether there has been general corruption
(c) the civil standard of proof to the question of whether the general corruption may reasonably be supposed to have affected the result of the election
Mr Livingstone obviously gives little or no credit to an enquiry which heard evidence over more than five weeks (in addition to Mr Mawrey’s own examination of paperwork in November 2014) and during which Mr Rahman was represented (at the expense of Tower Hamlets' taxpayers) by two senior QCs. He should be ashamed of himself.
It is very interesting. Particularly with respect to Mr Livingstone’s apparent dismissal of the proceedings. Commissioner Mawrey addresses the criticism of election courts being made up of “unelected officials” wielding power to dismiss democratically elected representatives.
He is at pains to point out that the resolution of electoral disputes is not a task the judiciary took upon themselves. Parliament decided that politicians could not be trusted to resolve such disputes themselves and the obvious question is that, having accepted that, who is left but the judiciary? Election courts have thus lasted from 1868 to the present and have run under an evolution of legislation culminating in the 1983 Representation of the People Act.
Even more interesting is the standard of proof that the court has applied to the various charges. I naturally assumed that the civil standard of proof (“on a balance of probabilities”) would apply. But Mr. Mawrey explains, as part of his lengthy preamble, that the court applied:
(a) the criminal standard of proof (“Beyond Reasonable Doubt”) to the charges that Mr Rahman and/or his agents have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices
(b) the criminal standard of proof to the question of whether there has been general corruption
(c) the civil standard of proof to the question of whether the general corruption may reasonably be supposed to have affected the result of the election
Mr Livingstone obviously gives little or no credit to an enquiry which heard evidence over more than five weeks (in addition to Mr Mawrey’s own examination of paperwork in November 2014) and during which Mr Rahman was represented (at the expense of Tower Hamlets' taxpayers) by two senior QCs. He should be ashamed of himself.
This is one of many instances where they are trying to infiltrate our systems and change our way of life to suit theirs. They will try anything to gain a foothold into politics, health, schooling. I'm pleased that their scams are becoming news, the race and religion card has been played too often. This example shows that the ambitious among them can coerce the ordinary (possible ignorant) immigrant with language difficulty and turn it to their advantage.
Keith has a sister who is also an MP.
http://
http://
No, no blames was attached to the EDL, Svejk. What the Commissioner did say was that the EDL was used in same strange logical reasoning by Rahman to support the view that criticism of him was racist. It goes like this (from about page 80 of the judgement
----------------
Because it [the EDL] dislikes Mr Rahman – undoubtedly, in the
case of the EDL, because he is non-white – the EDL seizes on any criticism of Mr Rahman and repeats it on social media. This enables Mr Rahman and his cohorts to argue as follows: criticisms of Mr Rahman by his political opponents are adopted and repeated by the EDL: the EDL is a racist organisation: therefore anyone who criticises Mr Rahman is giving aid and comfort to the EDL: therefore anyone who gives aid and comfort to the EDL is himself a racist: therefore it is racist to criticise Mr Rahman.
---------------------------------
As I said, it makes interesting reading
----------------
Because it [the EDL] dislikes Mr Rahman – undoubtedly, in the
case of the EDL, because he is non-white – the EDL seizes on any criticism of Mr Rahman and repeats it on social media. This enables Mr Rahman and his cohorts to argue as follows: criticisms of Mr Rahman by his political opponents are adopted and repeated by the EDL: the EDL is a racist organisation: therefore anyone who criticises Mr Rahman is giving aid and comfort to the EDL: therefore anyone who gives aid and comfort to the EDL is himself a racist: therefore it is racist to criticise Mr Rahman.
---------------------------------
As I said, it makes interesting reading
This was not a criminal court, Eddie, but an "Election" court. It's more of an enquiry than a court but the Commissioner can (and has) barred Mr Rahman from office and order a fresh election.
The Boys in Blue declined to launch an investigation (despite many, many complaints made to them). It was left to the four "petioners" to bring the action which led to the enquiry. The police are now "considering" whenether they should launch investigations.
The Boys in Blue declined to launch an investigation (despite many, many complaints made to them). It was left to the four "petioners" to bring the action which led to the enquiry. The police are now "considering" whenether they should launch investigations.
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Is This The Final Nail In The Coffin For...
News14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.