This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Tory MP Lucy Allan who doctored an email from one of her constituents to make it appear like a death threat.
http://evolvepolitics.com/tory-mp-should-resign-after-faking-death-threat-e...
Should she get the sack or is this just something we have to accept from our politicians?
http://evolvepolitics.com/tory-mp-should-resign-after-faking-death-threat-e...
Should she get the sack or is this just something we have to accept from our politicians?
11
3
4
In reply to krikoman:
Its appalling, and whilst his wording on the last paragraph is a bit aggressive, she has made the whole tone completely different with those words.
Her excuse is even better.
She shouldn't get away with it, but I'm sure she will
Its appalling, and whilst his wording on the last paragraph is a bit aggressive, she has made the whole tone completely different with those words.
Her excuse is even better.
She shouldn't get away with it, but I'm sure she will
8
1
In reply to krikoman:
I thought sending a death threat in electronic communication was a criminal offence, so yes, I'd say this was pretty serious. The Robin Hood airport tweet fiasco a couple of years ago seems a whole lot less serious than this both in tone and intent.
I thought sending a death threat in electronic communication was a criminal offence, so yes, I'd say this was pretty serious. The Robin Hood airport tweet fiasco a couple of years ago seems a whole lot less serious than this both in tone and intent.
4
In reply to krikoman:
I would have thought she's more likely to get offered a ministerial position?
> Tory MP Lucy Allan who doctored an email from one of her constituents to make it appear like a death threat.
> Should she get the sack or is this just something we have to accept from our politicians?
I would have thought she's more likely to get offered a ministerial position?
9
5
In reply to krikoman:
If I conducted myself in that way at work then I would expect to be dismissed for Gross Misconduct.
This is dishonest, nasty and displays that the particular MP is not to be trusted.
If I conducted myself in that way at work then I would expect to be dismissed for Gross Misconduct.
This is dishonest, nasty and displays that the particular MP is not to be trusted.
12
In reply to krikoman:
As reported, yes she should. Would this also not be libellous?
> Should she get the sack
As reported, yes she should. Would this also not be libellous?
3
2
In reply to toad:
I think making threats to kill is a criminal offence. But, is it an offence to make threats against yourself?
Possibly some sort of order under the Mental Health Act to prevent acts self harm might be more appropriate.
> I thought sending a death threat in electronic communication was a criminal offence, so yes,
I think making threats to kill is a criminal offence. But, is it an offence to make threats against yourself?
Possibly some sort of order under the Mental Health Act to prevent acts self harm might be more appropriate.
2
In reply to toad:
Totally agree.
I bet nothing comes of it.
jk
> I thought sending a death threat in electronic communication was a criminal offence, so yes, I'd say this was pretty serious. The Robin Hood airport tweet fiasco a couple of years ago seems a whole lot less serious than this both in tone and intent.
Totally agree.
I bet nothing comes of it.
jk
1
In reply to krikoman:
Observations :
1) It's not actually a death threat
2) But yes I think she should be sacked/deselected/whatever
3) And the guy who wrote it doesn't need the three extra words from anyone else, he has already capably demonstrated he is a bit of a pr1ck with the last paragraph. The rest of his original message was pretty well put so why detract from it with the personal attack?
Observations :
1) It's not actually a death threat
2) But yes I think she should be sacked/deselected/whatever
3) And the guy who wrote it doesn't need the three extra words from anyone else, he has already capably demonstrated he is a bit of a pr1ck with the last paragraph. The rest of his original message was pretty well put so why detract from it with the personal attack?
Post edited at 16:24
1
1
In reply to mudmonkey5:
This is the beginning of the defence or justification.
"the guy who wrote it doesn't need the three extra words from anyone else, he has already capably demonstrated he is a bit of a pr1ck with the last paragraph."
Last time I looked, being a prick wasn't an offence or even an impediment to being an MP. So what he said is neither here nor there. What he didn't say is more relevant. But the issue is Ms Allan's integrity, nothing more. It seems she has none, she should go, though I don't expect it to come to anything. The worst she will face is the odd reminder should she ever appear in front of the HIGNFY panel or Eddie Mair.
> Observations :
> 1) It's not actually a death threat
> 2) But yes I think she should be sacked/deselected/whatever
> 3) And the guy who wrote it doesn't need the three extra words from anyone else, he has already capably demonstrated he is a bit of a pr1ck with the last paragraph. The rest of his original message was pretty well put so why detract from it with the personal attack?
This is the beginning of the defence or justification.
"the guy who wrote it doesn't need the three extra words from anyone else, he has already capably demonstrated he is a bit of a pr1ck with the last paragraph."
Last time I looked, being a prick wasn't an offence or even an impediment to being an MP. So what he said is neither here nor there. What he didn't say is more relevant. But the issue is Ms Allan's integrity, nothing more. It seems she has none, she should go, though I don't expect it to come to anything. The worst she will face is the odd reminder should she ever appear in front of the HIGNFY panel or Eddie Mair.
4
8
In reply to Name Changed 34:
I think you have a point. I don't think MPs can be sacked - I seem to remember there have been situations in the past when this has been tried unsuccessfully.
> can you sack a MP
I think you have a point. I don't think MPs can be sacked - I seem to remember there have been situations in the past when this has been tried unsuccessfully.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Because the system to become elected suits those kind of people.
How did we get to a state where there are professional politicians, by which I mean without real world experience to draw on.
The problem is greed. You need 500 people who will work for a not excessive amount for 5 years or better still 15 (time to learn enough), and contribute based on their experiences for the good of the population.
Because the system to become elected suits those kind of people.
How did we get to a state where there are professional politicians, by which I mean without real world experience to draw on.
The problem is greed. You need 500 people who will work for a not excessive amount for 5 years or better still 15 (time to learn enough), and contribute based on their experiences for the good of the population.
2
In reply to Trangia:
I think the LD tried to introduce the right to recall. I think it got dropped, and isn't the same thing. Should be possible for the speaker to force a bielection in situations that being the integrity of parliament into disrepute.
I think the LD tried to introduce the right to recall. I think it got dropped, and isn't the same thing. Should be possible for the speaker to force a bielection in situations that being the integrity of parliament into disrepute.
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
It's not unique to our democracy. Unfortunately there are other systems where the people are governed by low life shits - Syria, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, North Korea for example
> Why do we accept a system where we are governed by low-life shits?
It's not unique to our democracy. Unfortunately there are other systems where the people are governed by low life shits - Syria, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, North Korea for example
Post edited at 18:32
1
In reply to krikoman:
If she had any integrity she would resign. She won't though and will be content taking her salary. If I did something like that at work I would face disciplinary action and be referred to my professional body.
If she had any integrity she would resign. She won't though and will be content taking her salary. If I did something like that at work I would face disciplinary action and be referred to my professional body.
5
In reply to Removed User:
Erm, no it's not - I stated quite clearly I believe that she should be "sacked/deselected/whatever!" I'm just surprised that nobody seems to realise that it wasn't a death threat that she fabricated! I don't see a death threat anywhere, I would be happy to stand corrected if anyone could point it out for me.
You're absolutely correct, being a prick is neither a criminal offence nor an impediment to being an MP. I never said it was. It was merely an observation and labelled as such.
Couldn't agree more with the remainder of your points. Did you actually read the post?! It seems you perhaps think I'm somehow defending or justifying what she did!
> This is the beginning of the defence or justification.
Erm, no it's not - I stated quite clearly I believe that she should be "sacked/deselected/whatever!" I'm just surprised that nobody seems to realise that it wasn't a death threat that she fabricated! I don't see a death threat anywhere, I would be happy to stand corrected if anyone could point it out for me.
> "the guy who wrote it doesn't need the three extra words from anyone else, he has already capably demonstrated he is a bit of a pr1ck with the last paragraph."
> Last time I looked, being a prick wasn't an offence or even an impediment to being an MP. So what he said is neither here nor there. What he didn't say is more relevant. But the issue is Ms Allan's integrity, nothing more. It seems she has none, she should go, though I don't expect it to come to anything. The worst she will face is the odd reminder should she ever appear in front of the HIGNFY panel or Eddie Mair.
You're absolutely correct, being a prick is neither a criminal offence nor an impediment to being an MP. I never said it was. It was merely an observation and labelled as such.
Couldn't agree more with the remainder of your points. Did you actually read the post?! It seems you perhaps think I'm somehow defending or justifying what she did!
In reply to Trangia:
Totally agree but aren't we supposed to be better than them?
> It's not unique to our democracy. Unfortunately there are other systems where the people are governed by low life shits - Syria, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, North Korea for example
Totally agree but aren't we supposed to be better than them?
1
In reply to krikoman:
He should sue her for libel. She should, if the case succeeds as I imagine it would, resign in disgrace.
Appalling.
He should sue her for libel. She should, if the case succeeds as I imagine it would, resign in disgrace.
Appalling.
1
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Except she didn't name him - she didn't even reveal the internet pseudonym he uses for his trolling, he did that. And she didn't report it to the police. Yes she took his nasty rant slightly out of context, and merged it with another rant she claims she got from elsewhere (quite believable I'm afraid)
It wouldn't, and you are naive if you believe she would resign over what is a relatively small lie for a tory.
Embarrasing to be caught, but not in the Grant Schapps league.
> He should sue her for libel.
Except she didn't name him - she didn't even reveal the internet pseudonym he uses for his trolling, he did that. And she didn't report it to the police. Yes she took his nasty rant slightly out of context, and merged it with another rant she claims she got from elsewhere (quite believable I'm afraid)
> She should, if the case succeeds as I imagine it would, resign in disgrace.
It wouldn't, and you are naive if you believe she would resign over what is a relatively small lie for a tory.
> Appalling.
Embarrasing to be caught, but not in the Grant Schapps league.
1
2
In reply to mudmonkey5:
To be clear, I was not implying you were attempting a defence of Lucy Allan though I can see why it looks as if I may have been. However, Rusty Shackleford's latent prickishness is irrelevant and highlighting it does come over as diversionary, and I can imagine it will be used by Ms Allan's supporters to deflect attention from what she has done and dilute its perceived severity. It's a popular tactic.
To be clear, I was not implying you were attempting a defence of Lucy Allan though I can see why it looks as if I may have been. However, Rusty Shackleford's latent prickishness is irrelevant and highlighting it does come over as diversionary, and I can imagine it will be used by Ms Allan's supporters to deflect attention from what she has done and dilute its perceived severity. It's a popular tactic.
1
In reply to krikoman:
I wouldn't expect 'better' from MPs as human beings but I'd expect them to behave with professional integrity. As others have said, if most of us did something comparable at work we'd be at least suspended and referred to our respective professional institutes, and if found in breach most likely fired and struck off. I certainly would, and she should too. It takes a special kind of arrogance to get caught doing this kind of thing and still be able to look people in the eye while trying to justify it.
> Totally agree but aren't we supposed to be better than them?
I wouldn't expect 'better' from MPs as human beings but I'd expect them to behave with professional integrity. As others have said, if most of us did something comparable at work we'd be at least suspended and referred to our respective professional institutes, and if found in breach most likely fired and struck off. I certainly would, and she should too. It takes a special kind of arrogance to get caught doing this kind of thing and still be able to look people in the eye while trying to justify it.
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Because the 'low-life shits' who could actually do something about it don't want to rock the gravy train (to mix my metaphors) and the French experience seems to have rather put us off revolution.
jk
> Why do we accept a system where we are governed by low-life shits?
Because the 'low-life shits' who could actually do something about it don't want to rock the gravy train (to mix my metaphors) and the French experience seems to have rather put us off revolution.
jk
1
In reply to krikoman:
Described by the BBC Midlands political reporter fellow as a "Twitter storm in a Telford teacup."
I pretty much agree.
Described by the BBC Midlands political reporter fellow as a "Twitter storm in a Telford teacup."
I pretty much agree.
1
1
In reply to earlsdonwhu:
Yes. If you receive death threats you notify the police, you don't post it on social media.
Did anyone take it seriously other than the excitable rabble that trawl the Internet in an effort to find something to be outraged about?
> Described by the BBC Midlands political reporter fellow as a "Twitter storm in a Telford teacup."
> I pretty much agree.
Yes. If you receive death threats you notify the police, you don't post it on social media.
Did anyone take it seriously other than the excitable rabble that trawl the Internet in an effort to find something to be outraged about?
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Yes, but there's a difference between what you are saying here and attributing a death threat to someone who did not make it. This is about integrity. It's about the integrity of someone who is an elected representative. That integrity is lacking. Am I outraged? Nope. Do I think she's trustworthy? Nope. Should she be sacked? Well it's not up to me, but as I posted earlier, if I behaved this way at work I would expect to face a gross misconduct charge.
> Yes. If you receive death threats you notify the police, you don't post it on social media.
> Did anyone take it seriously other than the excitable rabble that trawl the Internet in an effort to find something to be outraged about?
Yes, but there's a difference between what you are saying here and attributing a death threat to someone who did not make it. This is about integrity. It's about the integrity of someone who is an elected representative. That integrity is lacking. Am I outraged? Nope. Do I think she's trustworthy? Nope. Should she be sacked? Well it's not up to me, but as I posted earlier, if I behaved this way at work I would expect to face a gross misconduct charge.
In reply to Rampikino:
No. What I'm saying is that if you read that you'd expect she had notified the police and not just stuck it up on social media.
I'm now at the point on the internet that I question whatever anyone posts as 99.9% of the time it's completely doctored to suit some agenda. I'm particularly wary if its from a politician, celebrity, large company or media outlet.
No. What I'm saying is that if you read that you'd expect she had notified the police and not just stuck it up on social media.
I'm now at the point on the internet that I question whatever anyone posts as 99.9% of the time it's completely doctored to suit some agenda. I'm particularly wary if its from a politician, celebrity, large company or media outlet.
Post edited at 14:55
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Ahh yes - I see your point - if she considered the comments to be a credible death threat she should be contacting the Police and not just throwing up comments on social media. I agree.
What she has ended up doing is making herself look very willing to make things up...
Ahh yes - I see your point - if she considered the comments to be a credible death threat she should be contacting the Police and not just throwing up comments on social media. I agree.
What she has ended up doing is making herself look very willing to make things up...
In reply to earlsdonwhu:
Well he would say that wouldn't he??
I happen to think if you're in public office you should tell the truth. I realise I'm being a little delusional, yet tend to base my thoughts on what would happen in the real world, i.e. working in an office, factory or shop, and you acted like they do, then what would you expect to happen.
Implying someone is suggesting you should die, isn't a very nice thing to do.
The real question is why would she do this? What what she hoping to get out of it? If she'll lie about this, what else will she be willing to lie about?
> Described by the BBC Midlands political reporter fellow as a "Twitter storm in a Telford teacup."
> I pretty much agree.
Well he would say that wouldn't he??
I happen to think if you're in public office you should tell the truth. I realise I'm being a little delusional, yet tend to base my thoughts on what would happen in the real world, i.e. working in an office, factory or shop, and you acted like they do, then what would you expect to happen.
Implying someone is suggesting you should die, isn't a very nice thing to do.
The real question is why would she do this? What what she hoping to get out of it? If she'll lie about this, what else will she be willing to lie about?
In reply to krikoman:
I heard Damian McBride, the labour spin doctor on the radio yesterday saying politicians can be so practiced in misleading/deception that it “seeps out” into all aspects of their life. The program made a distinction between misleading and a barefaced lie which politicians try to avoid as it can be more damaging if caught out.
> The real question is why would she do this? What what she hoping to get out of it? If she'll lie about this, what else will she be willing to lie about?
I heard Damian McBride, the labour spin doctor on the radio yesterday saying politicians can be so practiced in misleading/deception that it “seeps out” into all aspects of their life. The program made a distinction between misleading and a barefaced lie which politicians try to avoid as it can be more damaging if caught out.
In reply to krikoman:
What would happen if no one voted at all? Would the incumbents stay in or would we have no parliament?
What would happen if no one voted at all? Would the incumbents stay in or would we have no parliament?
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
I think one of the problems is the word "spin", I know I'm a bit naive but wouldn't it be nice to live in a world without spin (obviously the world should still spin, I'd still like to have some night and day).
Where our MPs can say what they think, apologise if the get it wrong and just get on with making things the best they can for everyone.
Instead of bickering at each other and scoring points off each other, actually trying to work together to solve the problems we have.
Anyhow, I'm off to have a lobotomy reversed.
I think one of the problems is the word "spin", I know I'm a bit naive but wouldn't it be nice to live in a world without spin (obviously the world should still spin, I'd still like to have some night and day).
Where our MPs can say what they think, apologise if the get it wrong and just get on with making things the best they can for everyone.
Instead of bickering at each other and scoring points off each other, actually trying to work together to solve the problems we have.
Anyhow, I'm off to have a lobotomy reversed.
In reply to teflonpete:
Imagine?
> What would happen if no one voted at all? Would the incumbents stay in or would we have no parliament?
Imagine?
In reply to krikoman:
Some of the comments on this are interesting http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mp-defends-faking-death-...
Some of the comments on this are interesting http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mp-defends-faking-death-...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...