Natalie McGarry- Again

[Ad Lib]

I do wonder why Ad Lib is so anti-Natalie when she's literally married to a Tory, the dream of any Liberal Democrat.

Because she absolutely shat it at the GUU Freshers Debate when a student asked her about why the Scottish Government was imposing the Higher Education Bill despite strong protestations from several of the Universities as to its content.

She is a liability to the SNP, the Scottish Government, the wider Yes movement, to Glasgow, to Scotland and to world peace and prosperity.

[Fide]

Of course, but Fide's definition of wrongdoing for anyone associated with the SNP and the wider Yes movement appears to be successful prosecution of criminal charges. It's a question of consistency.

It's not a crime to lie.

No, that's fiction. He was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing because the lies he said were, in the opinion of the court, ones that were of a political nature and not those that related to his personal character. It's not a "technicality"; it goes to the core of what the Representation of the People Act intends to punish.

Meanwhile, Natalie McGarry has on several occasions admitted civil wrongdoing, as evidenced by the apologies and charitable donations in-lieu of damages she has made for making defamatory statements, had a criminal investigation launched with respect to missing funds under the Women for Independence banner, and looks like she might face another criminal investigation with respect to funds misappropriated in the context of an SNP branch.

That the SNP have wasted no time in dobbing in their own is laudable on their part, but also strongly indicative that Ms McGarry isn't just being stitched-up by Yoons for political purposes.

 

What, specifically, has McGarry been charged with?  The criminal investigation "launched with respect to missing funds"... where are we with that?  Is she languishing in jail.

 

I've not seen you this vocal over the missing 10k from Labour's Edinburgh East coffers.  Funny that.

With respect to McGarry and Carmichael, it's no surprise to see you digging around in the dirt regarding a person who has not been charged of a single crime, yet completely defensive surrounding a proven liar.

 

You're in the correct party, I'll give you that much.

[Ad Lib]

What, specifically, has McGarry been charged with?  The criminal investigation "launched with respect to missing funds"... where are we with that?  Is she languishing in jail.

Your efforts to shift goalposts are impressive. Well done.

I've not seen you this vocal over the missing 10k from Labour's Edinburgh East coffers.  Funny that.

With respect to McGarry and Carmichael, it's no surprise to see you digging around in the dirt regarding a person who has not been charged of a single crime, yet completely defensive surrounding a proven liar.

1. I didn't even know there was missing money in Edinburgh East Labour's coffers. I hope there's a criminal investigation and they all get the jail, naturally.

2. McGarry is a "proven liar". She has paid damages and made repeated apologies for defamatory statements! I am not "defending" Carmichael; just asking that you treat McGarry with the same contempt with which you hold him, since she too is a "proven liar" by her own admission.

3. Carmichael has not been convicted of a single crime, and has been cleared of the only illegality of which he has ever been accused. McGarry has not been cleared of anything and is the subject of what looks like being two criminal investigations, initiated at the request of her own side, which once those investigations are complete could lead to criminal charges.

You're in the correct party, I'll give you that much.

Yeah, I'm in a party where if you say that one of your government Ministers deserved to lose that job they say "fair enough", while you're in a party where a known domestic abuser was allowed to stand as a candidate in a constituency as recently as 2011 and which allows someone who wants creationism to be taught in schools on a par with scientific fact to stand, repeatedly, for Parliament, because they support independence, ken? We are definitely both in the right party.

[Fide]

Your efforts to shift goalposts are impressive. Well done.

1. I didn't even know there was missing money in Edinburgh East Labour's coffers. I hope there's a criminal investigation and they all get the jail, naturally.

2. McGarry is a "proven liar". She has paid damages and made repeated apologies for defamatory statements! I am not "defending" Carmichael; just asking that you treat McGarry with the same contempt with which you hold him, since she too is a "proven liar" by her own admission.

3. Carmichael has not been convicted of a single crime, and has been cleared of the only illegality of which he has ever been accused. McGarry has not been cleared of anything and is the subject of what looks like being two criminal investigations, initiated at the request of her own side, which once those investigations are complete could lead to criminal charges.

Yeah, I'm in a party where if you say that one of your government Ministers deserved to lose that job they say "fair enough", while you're in a party where a known domestic abuser was allowed to stand as a candidate in a constituency as recently as 2011 and which allows someone who wants creationism to be taught in schools on a par with scientific fact to stand, repeatedly, for Parliament, because they support independence, ken? We are definitely both in the right party.

 

tl;dr, but addressing what I believe to be your main point - if Natalie McGarry is found guilty of any of the allegations levelled against her, I hope she loses her job and feels the full force of the law.

 

Happy?

[Thumper]

I love the way that tweeting "I was wrong" constitutes "proof" to this particular scholar of law, but of course a literal judge literally stating something for the record in a literal court case does not.

[Ad Lib]

tl;dr, but addressing what I believe to be your main point - if Natalie McGarry is found guilty of any of the allegations levelled against her, I hope she loses her job and feels the full force of the law.

 

Happy?

Funny how you believed Carmichael should lose his job even though he wasn't found guilty of any of the allegations levied against him.

[Ad Lib]

I love the way that tweeting "I was wrong" constitutes "proof" to this particular scholar of law, but of course a literal judge literally stating something for the record in a literal court case does not.

Judges saying that you lied isn't the same as saying that you are guilty of wrongdoing. Judges finding you guilty of a crime or making a finding of illegality against your actions constitutes wrongdoing.

[Thumper]

Judges finding you guilty of a crime or making a finding of illegality against your actions constitutes wrongdoing.

 

And what judge presided over Rowling vs McGarry, again?

[Ad Lib]

And what judge presided over Rowling vs McGarry, again?

There didn't have to be one, because McGarry admitted civil wrongdoing, specifically, defamation, before legal action was necessary.

At absolutely no point have I said that anything the judges said in the Carmichael Election Court case was anything other than completely authoritative. I merely question whether there is anything that they said that amounts to accusing, convicting or implicating, Carmichael in a civil or criminal wrong.

[Thumper]

There didn't have to be one, because McGarry admitted civil wrongdoing, specifically, defamation, before legal action was necessary.

At absolutely no point have I said that anything the judges said in the Carmichael Election Court case was anything other than completely authoritative. I merely question whether there is anything that they said that amounts to accusing, convicting or implicating, Carmichael in a civil or criminal wrong.

 

So informal resolution of a legal case which was merely implied by a Twitter threat is in fact more binding than findings of fact in a court. Gotcha.

[Ad Lib]

So informal resolution of a legal case which was merely implied by a Twitter threat is in fact more binding than findings of fact in a court. Gotcha.

You're literally just making this up. I am saying nothing of the sort.

What I am saying is that findings of fact as to wrongdoing are just as valid if they take the form of an express admission as if they take the form of a judicial conclusion.

In McGarry's case, admitting she had committed defamation, a civil wrong, amounts to a reliable and conclusive determination that she is guilty of wrongdoing.

In Carmichael's case, the mere fact that a court found that he had lied, when he admitted he had lied already, does not amount to being able to establish either a civil or a criminal wrong. Indeed, the authoritative conclusion of the court was that the criminal wrong alleged against him was unsubstantiated and he was cleared.

I am giving respect and prominence to the conclusions of the court when I say that Carmichael did not commit a civil or a criminal wrong.

[Fide]

_{Jesus Christ Ad Lib, I tried to be civil to you for once and engage with you, but you're all over the place now.}

[Thumper]

In McGarry's case, admitting she had committed defamation, a civil wrong, amounts to a reliable and conclusive determination that she is guilty of wrongdoing.

 

"Wrongdoing" being a crime here, due to the Wrongdoing Act 1972.

 

Meanwhile, lying is perfectly okay, because it is not a crime, but merely the, erm, doing of a wrong thing which is not illegal in any way.

[ICTChris]

Neil Hamilton was never convicted of a crime due to what he did when he was an MP.

[Ad Lib]

"Wrongdoing" being a crime here, due to the Wrongdoing Act 1972.

 

Meanwhile, lying is perfectly okay, because it is not a crime, but merely the, erm, doing of a wrong thing which is not illegal in any way.

No, "wrongdoing" being the word used by Fide to describe what needed to be shown for him to criticise a Nat politician. In the context of courts, "wrongdoing" relates to things which are "illegal", whether in civil or criminal law.

I have never said that "lying is perfectly okay because it's not a crime".

You are making this shit up as you go along.

[Lex]

What a continual source of embarrassment she is.

[Thumper]

In the context of courts, "wrongdoing" relates to things which are "illegal", whether in civil or criminal law.

 

And in the context of a Twitter argument, what legal standing does an (implied!) admission of wrongdoing relate to?

 

This isn't even relating to an out-of-court settlement. It's related to someone apologising for something on the Internet and offering a token to charity. And yet you've continually implied that this is, in concrete legal terms, weightier than the Carmichael example whereby he escaped a literal criminal conviction only on a purely philosophical basis.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Thumper

[Ad Lib]

And in the context of a Twitter argument, what legal standing does an (implied!) admission of wrongdoing relate to?

 

This isn't even relating to an out-of-court settlement. It's related to someone apologising for something. And yet you've continually implied that this is, in concrete legal terms, weightier than the Carmichael example whereby he escaped a literal criminal conviction only on a purely philosophical basis.

1. It wasn't an implied admission. There was an explicit admission, an apology, and donations to charity made in lieu of damages.

2. An explicit admission of this sort is tantamount to what we lawyers would call "personal bar" or "estoppel". Admitting defamation and settling is as conclusive as you can get short of gratuitously wasting a court's time for a remedy all parties have already agreed to.

3. I am not implying, have not implied, and will never imply that Natalie McGarry's public admission of making false and defamatory statements, and her agreed undertaking to make charitable donations in lieu of damages, is "in concrete legal terms, weightier" than any court judgment. You're just a fucking liar.

4. Carmichael did not "escape a criminal conviction on a purely philosophical basis". He escaped a criminal conviciton because he didn't commit a crime.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Ad Lib

[Fide]

What a continual source of embarrassment she is.

 

 

 

Just when I thought Ad Lib's mewling's couldn't be out-lolled.

[Ira Gaines]

Tbf, McGarry is an absolute fucking idiot.