Parliamentary By-Elections - Rumoured and Ramped

[innocentabroad]

Jun 26, 2013 9:25:55 GMT @boogieeck said:

Indeed so. And when you are dealing with high profile suspects, the presence of a little bit of fame/notoriety and cash encourages spurious claims of victimhood.

This is what makes sexual offences so fiendishly difficult to police. There is no other category of offence so under reported and there is no other category of offence so liable to malicious false reporting. In addition, there is no other category of offence where the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator may sincerely both believe their own totally contradictory evidence.

At the heart of this is the question of what is more important to society, that as many criminals as possible are caught of that as few false convictions as possible occur. There is a vocal and very professional lobby which demands that more be done to secure convictions but nobody appears to be much worried if an unpleasant weirdo with odd sexual peccadillos gets convicted on the word of an attention seeker with his or eye on £200 for their story from a tabloid. Ah but, Robo might say, the witnesses corroborate each other. maybe so, maybe sometimes. maybe sometimes, the police coach the witnesses. Robo is keen enough on other threads to accuse the Police of such malpractice.

I have worked with sex offenders (through their not uncommon alcoholism) and with the victims of sexual abuse (through their not uncommon alcoholism) and with people of minimal morals (through their not uncommon alcoholism)for whom the excitement of being taken seriously is enough to encourage them to make up any old nonsense, particularly if it drops an ex in the brown stuff. Beware the motives of supposed victims. While also, contradictorily bewaring the temptation to think that because a witness is a bit dodgy and the accused respectable, that this makes the offence less likely.

This is very dodgy territory.

Indeed. I once had the pleasure of sitting on a jury trying a young black man charged with pinching the bottoms of two Belgian (white) schoolgirls while they were all strap-hanging on the Tube.

[piperdave]

Jul 13, 2013 7:45:33 GMT @boogieeck said:

For the benefit of our English readers, Mr Walker is claiming self defence with regard to the allegations of assault. He thinks that he may have slapped one of his ex wives to calm her down.

The politically opportunist among us would perhaps prefer that he is acquitted but personally I do not think it makes any difference. SNP will lose this seat at a by election or SGE. The most certain Labour gain in Scotland.

I think I could argue Anniesland (SNP majority: 7) is the most certain Labour gain next time round! And Dunfermline has been much more politically volatile of late so much less of a Labour voting habit than in other parts of Scotland.

[Deleted]

Jun 26, 2013 8:56:49 GMT johnr said:

Jun 25, 2013 15:07:58 GMT @rlemkin said:

Bill Walker MSP for Dunfermline was in court today and faces 24 counts of assault. Trial hearing July 8th.

Should there be a by-election this will be much more interesting than Donside. The old seat of Dunfermline West was held by the LDs and the new seat was notionally held by them too. Labour were only 600 votes behind in 2011 (2%)

What are the rules on resigning a seat on conviction? I know that at Westminster its for a custodial sentance of more than 12 months - although in practice its been any conviction.

and yet the member for Falkirk still remains ...

[johnr]

He didnt get a custodial sentance, though?

[Deleted]

nope of course not but you said any conviction in practice and I agree with that.

[piperdave]

But in law, it is a conviction of more than 12 months. If Eric Joyce, doesn't have any other income, I think he'd probably like to stay employed rather than volunteering his redundancy.

[Deleted]

he should have had no choice !

[marksenior]

Jul 29, 2013 12:06:18 GMT @ianrobo said:

nope of course not but you said any conviction in practice and I agree with that.

That is a nonsensical generalisation that would be wrong to put into practice .
To give just one example .
A MP leads a protest march about a government policy . He is charged with obstructing the highway or breach of the peace , found guilty and fined say £ 200 . According to you he would have to resign his seat .

[Deleted]

nope because obviously a certain level but Joyce is clear and should have gone

[Deleted]

Eee Ian, a bit harsh I think. It appears that Mr Joyce has an illness, one which claimed two of my brothers and one of my grandfathers. He is in denial about it but no great surprise there.

[Deleted]

then for his own sakes he should be taken out of situations that may inflame it. Sorry but he was done for something that in my job would 100% get me the sack, the sentence does not matter.

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2013 21:44:23 GMT @boogieeck said:

Ian, you are a deeply illiberal little brat. I would not allow you authority over a cub troop. Thankfully, more sensible voices prevail or many vulnerable souls who do not fire on all four cylinders, starting perhaps with you, would fall victim to the Current Morality Police.

I think you are being a bit harsh. Is it that unreasonable to suggest that one should get sacked for starting multiple fights and being drunk and disorderly at work.

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2013 20:56:25 GMT @ianrobo said:

nope because obviously a certain level but Joyce is clear and should have gone

This "certain level" seems to be what you find acceptable or not. An MP blocking the highway on a protest, suspended sentence or a fine, that's OK; Eric Joyce, suspended sentence, same type of sentence but he has to fgo.

What you're rtying to get at is nice in theory ,but the law doesn't work like that in reality. You don't seem to have thought this through,.

[Deleted]

my judgement is 'Would that offence get me and millions other sacked' ?

I can guarantee in any of my jobs if I had done what Joyce did I would be sacked for 'Gross Misconduct' esp on what are in his case company premises. Why should MP's be any different ?

Maybe the answer is if any MP is found guilty of a criminal offence they should face an immediate by-election ?

[Deleted]

The questions you set echo the two (or more?) right to recall threads. It's something I support, as we all know by now(!!), but it's HOW the system is implemented which gets us into tussles like this.

Almost makes you want an MP to fall under a bus.....(note, I hope none do.)

[marksenior]

Jul 30, 2013 8:32:34 GMT @ianrobo said:

my judgement is 'Would that offence get me and millions other sacked' ?

I can guarantee in any of my jobs if I had done what Joyce did I would be sacked for 'Gross Misconduct' esp on what are in his case company premises. Why should MP's be any different ?

Maybe the answer is if any MP is found guilty of a criminal offence they should face an immediate by-election ?

I am sure I could make up examples where an MP could be found guilty of a criminal offense but you would praise him/her and not insist on an immediate by election .
You want to make up the law and use your own judgement as to whether to apply it or not . Life is not simply black and white there are all shades of grey in between .

You seem to view all things in the same black and white way . For example that an unpaid parish councillor on Little Snoring Parish Council should have to declare his and his
families financial interests at the same level as a Met Borough councillor in Walsall . If that results in no one wanting then to bother giving their time to sitting on the Parish council
you just shrug your shoulders .

[Crimson King]

Jul 30, 2013 8:32:34 GMT @ianrobo said:

my judgement is 'Would that offence get me and millions other sacked' ?

I can guarantee in any of my jobs if I had done what Joyce did I would be sacked for 'Gross Misconduct' esp on what are in his case company premises. Why should MP's be any different ?

You seem to have forgotten that being an MP is not a job to which you have been appointed by your employer, and for which your employer can, subject to fair proccesses, remove you, but is an elected position in a democracy into which you have been placed by the votes of your constituents. So the analogy with 'any job I have done' is a false one.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 8:32:34 GMT @ianrobo said:

Maybe the answer is if any MP is found guilty of a criminal offence they should face an immediate by-election ?

But then you're back to the situation above in the thread, an MP on a p[rotest march blocking the highway gets found guilty of blocking the highway, under your rule that's an immediate by-election, but then you contradict yourself and say "No that's different that's alright". You really need to think about things before putting fingers to keyboard.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 9:31:41 GMT @peawet said:

Jul 30, 2013 8:32:34 GMT @ianrobo said:

Maybe the answer is if any MP is found guilty of a criminal offence they should face an immediate by-election ?

But then you're back to the situation above in the thread, an MP on a p[rotest march blocking the highway gets found guilty of blocking the highway, under your rule that's an immediate by-election, but then you contradict yourself and say "No that's different that's alright". You really need to think about things before putting fingers to keyboard.

then that MP faces his voters and justifies him/herself

It is about a right to recall and to see Joyce still get public wages and expenses frankly sickens me. HE has already said he would not stand again so now on a cushy job.

[marksenior]

Jul 30, 2013 9:40:11 GMT @ianrobo said:

Jul 30, 2013 9:31:41 GMT @peawet said:

But then you're back to the situation above in the thread, an MP on a p[rotest march blocking the highway gets found guilty of blocking the highway, under your rule that's an immediate by-election, but then you contradict yourself and say "No that's different that's alright". You really need to think about things before putting fingers to keyboard.

then that MP faces his voters and justifies him/herself

It is about a right to recall and to see Joyce still get public wages and expenses frankly sickens me. HE has already said he would not stand again so now on a cushy job.

No it is about a right to recall in circumstances where you personally are the one who decides whether they should face the voters .