Carmichael court result...

[HirplesWithHaggis]

...due tomorrow.

[myotherusernameisbetter]

I hadn't heard anything about this.

is the premise that he leaked info that Nicola Sturgeon had said that she would prefer Cameron as PM after the election and that she denied it so SNP supporters have crowd funded to get him knocked out of his seat?

[prettybird]

The premise is that he approved a leak of a document that everyone who was there said was incorrect but then denied that he had anything to do with it, even to the inquiry, until after the election (inquiry cost us as taxpayers)

He has freely admitted to lying but said that it was in his capacity as a government minister and that it didn't make any difference to his electorate.

4 of his electorate beg to differ - only one of whom is/was apparently an SNP voter.

[myotherusernameisbetter]

I've been living under a rock as I've never heard anything about this.

[HirplesWithHaggis]

Prettybird has a good summation.

It's a very-finely nuanced case, with highly technical legal arguments. Carmichael and his lawyer thought it would get chucked out at first hearing, but the two judges involved (both well respected, despite smear attempts on one of them) wanted to know more.

So they asked for, and got, more evidence, which they have been considering.

The summary will be issued at 10.30am, with the full judgement being released at noon.

It could go either way.

If you're interested, have a browse through LallandsPeatWarrior's blog. (By Andrew Tickell, lecturing in aspects of law at Glasgow) His language can be a bit flowery but his messages are clear.

[myotherusernameisbetter]

Might do when I have time to kill. I absolutely hate the SNP btw for clarity, but I am equally no fan of dishonesty and corruption wherever that is.

[HirplesWithHaggis]

And that's absolutely fair enough.

I'm back to biting my fingernails. It really could go either way, but the consequences are potentially huge, whichever way it goes.

[Behooven]

Member of parliament in lying scandal - who've thought it

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

It's a really interesting case this one - I am looking forward to reading the outcome.

Carmichael is pretty screwed either way - if he "wins" he still happily fessed up to lying for political gain.

[HirplesWithHaggis]

Which was pretty much Carmichael's argument, til four of his constituents took him to court.

[HirplesWithHaggis]

X post with Itsall, there!

[HirplesWithHaggis]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35050429

Carmichael won. :(

Not unexpected, but still :(

[myotherusernameisbetter]

I'm sorry you are disappointed hirples and I wouldn't like to not see justice served, but tbh regardless of whether he had evidence or should have leaked it, we all know that was the preferred option for the SNP. It would effectively kill off their opposition and rile up Scots even more that once again they were not getting the government they voted for. The SNP are not and have never claimed (as far as I am aware) to be a Socialist party, the notion exists though and I don't think they have done anything to dispute it.

I still haven't read through everything though so I have probably missed loads of relevant facts.

[myotherusernameisbetter]

and the above doesn't change the facts of whether he did something wrong or not.

[HirplesWithHaggis]

I'm not going to rehash the entire election again, but no-one in the SNP wanted to see the whole population of the UK suffer under the Tories as they are now, with massive cuts in benefits and now, bombing Syria. It was hoped Labour would be the biggest party but without a majority, so that the SNP would have a bigger voice in WM.

But that was not to be, either.

However I will agree that this Tory majority gvt is probably boosting the support for indyref2, and a yes vote next time. It's just a horrible way to get it. Feels manky.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

The full judgement makes very depressing reading

"In evidence, the first respondent gave the impression that the timing of his admission was purely as a result of the rate of progress of the Cabinet Office inquiry. In our opinion however, the first respondent’s approach to the inquiry was at best disingenuous, at worst evasive and self-serving. We consider that he could and should have been straightforward and candid in his response to the inquiry. That would have been likely to reveal his involvement in the leak at some time prior to the election, so that his constituents, when voting, would have been “in full possession of the facts during the election” (in the third petitioner’s words, transcript 9 November 2015 page 20). It is our opinion that his failure to be straightforward and candid with the inquiry resulted from his hope that he would not be identified as being involved in the leak – preferably not identified at all, but at least not identified until after the election on 7 May 2015, as otherwise his chances of electoral success might be prejudicially affected."

So effectively he did blatantly lie, so that his election votes wouldn't be affected, but it isn't against the law. I'm sure he will be out at the next election, if he doesn't have the sense to stand down.

I just hope the petitioners get the money they need to pay for this, and don't lose their houses...

[myotherusernameisbetter]

Maybe I am just more cynical hirples but I think NS would have been perfectly happy with the result tbh.

It seems like he has been very self serving and dishonest though and unfortunately he wont be only one. I'm sure the constituents will cast their votes accordingly.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Analysis of the outcome here:
lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk

It sounds almost as if the judges are regretful that Carmichael's case didn't fit into the very narrow legal definition

"Ultimately however the first respondent’s unimpressive response to the inquiry, although showing him in a bad light, and resulting in his constituents being initially misled and then justifiably shocked and dismayed on discovering that they had been so misled, cannot alter our conclusion that section 106 does not, on a proper application of the law to the facts proved, apply in this case."

[HirplesWithHaggis]

Ah, I was just about to post Mr Tickell's item. Yes, it does sound as though the judges were disappointed they couldn't "do him", it's certainly far from a ringing endorsement of his behaviour.

The coats of Tavish Scott and Liam McArthur hang on very shoogly pegs. May will be an interesting month.

[prettybird]

So in essence, it's been confirmed by the Scottish courts that politicians are allowed to lie without repercussions.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Yup. It's depressing. This quote when the case was first brought sums up parliaments contempt for the people perfectly.:

But asked if MPs should be sacked for telling lies, he said: “If you are suggesting every MP who has never quite told the truth or even told a brazen lie, including cabinet ministers, including prime ministers, we would clear out the House of Commons very fast.”

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Sorry, that was Sir Michael Bruce.

[prettybird]

I agree: I found Malcolm Bruce's comment particularly depressing. I had always believed naively that the LibDems were more honest than the mainstream parties.