Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Conspiring to mislead the House.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:38 pm

atticus wrote:If the necessary facts cannot be proven, an offence under the particular statute that you identified has not been committed.

We need to know, considering your considerable legal experience, whether you hold the principle that a crime is only committed when it is proven to be committed is a universal principle, or if it is specific to this particular statute.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby atticus » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:40 pm

No, in the context of this thread you do not need to know any such thing.
Hairyloon wrote:Because it appears to be a malicious communication.
But why then shy away from discussion of the very Act you cited? And why do you say the communication appeared to be malicious? In that question lies the reason I do not accept your analogy.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20295
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:59 pm

atticus wrote:No, in the context of this thread you do not need to know any such thing.

You asked a clear and direct question because we appear to fundamentally disagree on an important point. I sought to resolve that point.

But why then shy away from discussion of the very Act you cited? And why do you say the communication appeared to be malicious?

I have set out a hypothesis, you haven't shown any fault in the hypothesis: where am I "Shying away"?
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:47 am

Questions the OP has shied away from:

1. Why did he link to the Act when asking the question?

2. Why does he say that whatever communication he had in mind was malicious?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20295
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:56 am

atticus wrote:Questions the OP has shied away from:

1. Why did he link to the Act when asking the question?

Subject: Conspiring to mislead the House.

2. Why does he say that whatever communication he had in mind was malicious?

What purpose does it serve other than to diminish the reputation of the Civil Service?
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby shootist » Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:19 pm

Hairyloon wrote:
2. Why does he say that whatever communication he had in mind was malicious?

What purpose does it serve other than to diminish the reputation of the Civil Service?


Which presupposes that the civil service has not acted in a way that diminishes it's own reputation.

How much was the reputation of the civil service diminished in the series 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes, Prime Minister'? Quite a bit I would suggest.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:45 pm

shootist wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:
2. Why does he say that whatever communication he had in mind was malicious?

What purpose does it serve other than to diminish the reputation of the Civil Service?


Which presupposes that the civil service has not acted in a way that diminishes it's own reputation.


I think I covered that point in an earlier post. Either the allegation is true, in which case it is a very serious matter that needs to be properly looked at, or the allegation is false, in which case the allegation may be malicious and therefore criminal.
The answer either way is for somebody to properly look at the evidence.

How much was the reputation of the civil service diminished in the series 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes, Prime Minister'? Quite a bit I would suggest.


Not really. The extent to which it is true is largely what they are there for and that which is not true is simply comedy.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:21 pm

"May" is hardly conclusive; it leaves open the possibility "may not". It requires further investigation.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20295
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:06 pm

I think I already said that:
Hairyloon wrote:The answer either way is for somebody to properly look at the evidence.

The question is of who should conduct that investigation and how?

Meanwhile, should we put that point aside and consider the other elements? Atti expresses doubt over the malicious intent.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby dls » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:48 pm

It seems t me that this enire question is very likely to be a matter for the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the House in question.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12392
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

PreviousNext

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest