Cambridgeshire Apr 29, 2013 15:36:55 GMT
Post by stepney on Apr 29, 2013 15:36:55 GMT
No you ignorant twit. The election court is there to find whether an offence has been committed. It can only report that. It cannot find anyone guilty because that requires a full criminal court, and the DPP declined to prosecute anyone over Oldham. Were someone charged, then several defences would be open to them which are not open to anyone before an election court.
Note that an election court can (among other things) admit hearsay evidence which is inadmissible in a criminal court, and the usual privileges against self-incrimination do not apply (or at least apply in reverse: the election court can grant a certificate to a witness granting them immunity from prosecution but only if it is convinced they have told the whole truth and confessed all their criminal involvement).
Phil Woolas has not been convicted of any electoral offence and has no criminal record for it.
Have it your way if you like, you pedantic pompous moron, but none of this semantic rubbish detracts from the fact that Woolas was guilty of a breach of RPA 1983; that he was found guilty - whether you call it "being found guilty" or any other form of words that turns you on - that his election was declared void as a result; that he was barred from standing for election for three years as a result; and that he ran an odious and filthy campaign which went beyond the bounds of the law, and got rightly punished for it.
Of course, all this drivel on your part was only a deliberate ploy to distract us from the argument that was being had, which was that red-rosetted people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at the way the Lib Dems conduct their campaigns. Insofar as you were successful in this, well done! You must be really proud of yourself.