Tweet
And this from a country with a supposedly broken/ineffective system of governance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11699888
5 November 2010 Last updated at 16:18 GMT
Shadow minister Woolas vows to fight election decision
Phil Woolas intends to take the decision to a judicial review
Shadow immigration minister Phil Woolas has vowed to fight on after his 2010 election win was declared void and he was suspended by the Labour party.
Mr Woolas faces a three-year parliamentary ban after being found guilty of deliberately making false statements about a Lib Dem rival in campaign literature.
A by-election must be fought in Oldham East and Saddleworth, pending appeal.
Mr Woolas won the seat by 103 votes over Lib Dem rival Elwyn Watkins.
But his opponent argued the false allegations probably swayed the vote in such a close contest.
Mr Woolas, who served as a Home Office immigration minister in the last Labour Government, is to apply for a judicial review of the decision, handed down by two High Court judges.
Through his solicitor he issued a statement saying the judgement would "chill political speech".
A specially-convened election court - the first of its kind for 99 years - was set up in Saddleworth in September to hear the charges against Mr Woolas.
He was accused of stirring up racial tensions in his campaign leaflets by suggesting Mr Watkins had pandered to Muslim militants, and had refused to condemn death threats Mr Woolas said he had received from such groups.
Mr Woolas ran a "risky" campaign, the court was told, designed to "galvanise the white Sun vote" because he feared he faced defeat on poling day.
The former minister was also accused of making a false statement that Mr Watkins had reneged on a promise to live within the constituency prior to the election.
Declaring the May poll result void, Mr Justice Nigel Teare and Mr Justice Griffith Williams said Mr Woolas knew all three statements were untrue, and was therefore guilty of illegal practices under election law.
They said: "In our judgment to say that a person has sought the electoral support of persons who advocate extreme violence, in particular to his personal opponent, clearly attacks his personal character or conduct.
"It suggests that he is willing to condone threats of violence in pursuit of personal advantage......
read the rest at the website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11699888
5 November 2010 Last updated at 16:18 GMT
Shadow minister Woolas vows to fight election decision
Phil Woolas intends to take the decision to a judicial review
Shadow immigration minister Phil Woolas has vowed to fight on after his 2010 election win was declared void and he was suspended by the Labour party.
Mr Woolas faces a three-year parliamentary ban after being found guilty of deliberately making false statements about a Lib Dem rival in campaign literature.
A by-election must be fought in Oldham East and Saddleworth, pending appeal.
Mr Woolas won the seat by 103 votes over Lib Dem rival Elwyn Watkins.
But his opponent argued the false allegations probably swayed the vote in such a close contest.
Mr Woolas, who served as a Home Office immigration minister in the last Labour Government, is to apply for a judicial review of the decision, handed down by two High Court judges.
Through his solicitor he issued a statement saying the judgement would "chill political speech".
A specially-convened election court - the first of its kind for 99 years - was set up in Saddleworth in September to hear the charges against Mr Woolas.
He was accused of stirring up racial tensions in his campaign leaflets by suggesting Mr Watkins had pandered to Muslim militants, and had refused to condemn death threats Mr Woolas said he had received from such groups.
Mr Woolas ran a "risky" campaign, the court was told, designed to "galvanise the white Sun vote" because he feared he faced defeat on poling day.
The former minister was also accused of making a false statement that Mr Watkins had reneged on a promise to live within the constituency prior to the election.
Declaring the May poll result void, Mr Justice Nigel Teare and Mr Justice Griffith Williams said Mr Woolas knew all three statements were untrue, and was therefore guilty of illegal practices under election law.
They said: "In our judgment to say that a person has sought the electoral support of persons who advocate extreme violence, in particular to his personal opponent, clearly attacks his personal character or conduct.
"It suggests that he is willing to condone threats of violence in pursuit of personal advantage......
read the rest at the website.
Comment