http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32849065%5D
Another error of judgement by a toadying politician.
When will we the people ever have decent moral and ethical representation?

Lying toad

Both?

When will we the people ever have decent moral and ethical representation?

Probably a fair reflection of the population, I’ve met plenty who use all sorts of tactics to get ahead in life, some more and some less honorable.

Surely by definition this kind of behaviour is the antithesis of honourable? Or am I niave and unrealistic?

He leaked meno, lied about it then set up a £1.5m, tax payer funded, enquiry to find out it’s source.

In light of all the austerity, he should be booted out! How many bobbies would that £1.5mil cover?

Duplicitous scum bag who should resign as a MP,

toad, by-election should be called, that’d send him packing

Is it not the case that the leaked memo is also a fake, given that all parties now agree the claimed conversation never took place?

IMO he has to go and the SNP will win the by-election.

I’m going with incompetent lying toad.

If you’re gonna be a scumbag, at least be respectful enough to be good at it.

Lied to cover his own backside. Libdems have confirmed he won’t be disciplined he should resign but he won’t.

If the election was in a month’s time there, there is no way would he have his 800 majority (down from circa 2000 last time iirc). So yes if one of the advantages of fptp is that you vote for the individual candidate as well as the party, then he should stand again in a by-election and let his constituents decide based on this rather new and important information.

I think he would be sunk without trace if a by-election was called

Is it not the case that the leaked memo is also a fake, given that all parties now agree the claimed conversation never took place?

Well, they would say that wouldn’t they!

There is no evidence to say that the memo is false, indeed everything points towards the memo being a true record of the conversation.

Following the leak of a Scotland Office memorandum that formed the basis of a story in the Daily Telegraph on 3 April, the Cabinet Secretary instigated a Cabinet Office-led leak inquiry to establish how this memo came to be written and how it got into the public domain. The inquiry process is now complete.

The memo
The investigation team interviewed the civil servant in the Scotland Office who produced the memo. He confirmed under questioning that he believed that the memo was an accurate record of the conversation that took place between him and the French Consul General, and highlighted that the memo had stated that part of the conversation between the French Ambassador and the First Minister might well have been “lost in translation”.

Senior officials who have worked with him say that he is reliable and has no history of inaccurate reporting, impropriety or security lapses. The Cabinet Secretary has concluded that there is no reason to doubt that he recorded accurately what he thought he had heard. There is no evidence of any political motivation or ‘dirty tricks’.

The leak
In investigating the source of the leak, the investigation team searched all relevant official phone records, emails and print logs. Those who had access to the memo were asked to complete a questionnaire on what they did with the memo when they received it. They were then interviewed.

The investigation established the following facts:

an official mobile phone was used to make telephone calls to one of the authors of the Daily Telegraph story. This phone was held by Euan Roddin, previously Special Adviser to the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael
Mr Roddin confirmed that he provided a copy of the Scotland Office memo to a Daily Telegraph journalist on 1 April 2015, and discussed the memo with the journalist on a number of occasions. He told the investigation team that he acted in what he saw as the public interest and that in his view the public needed to be aware of the position attributed to the First Minister
Alistair Carmichael confirmed that he had been asked by Mr Roddin for his view of the possibility of sharing the memo with the press. Mr Carmichael agreed that this should occur. He recognises that, as a Secretary of State, he was responsible for his own conduct and that of his Special Adviser. He could and should have stopped the sharing of the memo and accordingly accepts responsibility for what occurred
no-one else had any involvement in the leaking of the memo
The investigation team has therefore concluded that Mr Roddin, with the assent of Mr Carmichael in the circumstances described above, was the direct source of the Daily Telegraph story. The Cabinet Secretary has accepted their findings in full. Mr Carmichael and Mr Roddin have also accepted the conclusions.

Neither Mr Carmichael nor Mr Roddin will take their severance pay.

Of which, the response is of course ‘well, they would say that wouldn’t they?’

THIS
I am not sure what is worse the lying, being crap at it or the cover up or the costs
Either way we dont need peope llike this in politics

There is no evidence to say that the memo is false, indeed everything points towards the memo being a true record of the conversation.

Christ man you dont have like to murder some points to death
I will just leave this here rather than engage directly

He recognises that, as a Secretary of State, he was responsible for his own conduct and that of his Special Adviser. He could and should have stopped the sharing of the memo and accordingly accepts responsibility for what occurred
no-one else had any involvement in the leaking of the memo

Ninfan, whataboutery. He still stated several times before the election that he knew nothing of the leak, and gambled on the inquiry turning up no evidence against him (as is more often the case in leak enquiries iirc). Does the disputed accuracy of the memo change the significance of the above? -(coped from your cut’n’paste)

There is no evidence to say that the memo is false, indeed everything points towards the memo being a true record of the conversation.

That’s not what it says. The enquiry accepts that it was a fair recording of what the civil servant thought he heard, barring translation issues and barring the fact that neither he or the person he was talking to were actually at the original meeting. Even if the memo is accurate we’ve no idea of how much of what was said was 2nd or 3rd hand interpretation (or even jokes), but given everyone that actually was involved in the original meeting denies it was true (and no-one has disputed that) then in fact all the evidence points to the memo being inaccurate.

Indeed you can argue its a genuine mistake or an accurate recording of chinese whispers etc but you cannot [ well you can but not credibly] say its true.

That’s not what it says.

I was referring to it being a true record of the conversation between the Consul General and the civil servant who wrote it (I thought that was obvious, since the civil servant who wrote it was not at the meeting between Sturgeon and the Ambassador)

I thought Jivehoneyjive was a bit mad but ninfan is utterly delusional

I was referring to it being a true record of the conversation between the Consul General and the civil servant who wrote it (I thought that was obvious, since the civil servant who wrote it was not at the meeting between Sturgeon and the Ambassador)

Not even that’s true, as the guy that wrote the memo has said he there may well be translation issues so it might not even be an accurate record of a discussion between two people who weren’t even at the meeting.

Harping on about the contents of the memo is 100% pure Tory spin – it’s completely devalued and denied by all relevant parties.

[/quote]I thought Jivehoneyjive was a bit mad but ninfan is utterly delusional

That, on the other hand, does appear to be accurate…

actual text:

• The Ambassador also had a truncated meeting with the FM (FM running late after a busy Thursday…). Discussion appears to have focused mainly on the political situation, with the FM stating that she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats; that she had no idea ‘what kind of mischief’ Alex Salmond would get up to; and confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.

……

Harping on about the contents of the memo is 100% pure Tory spin

Eh? What’s it got to do with the tories? It was leaked by a Scottish Lib Dem!

Classic behaviour, I see it all the time, where people only really read the first part of an email.

Everything after the first paragraph may as well not have been written, like the bit about being “lost in translation”.

I bet about only 25% of STW will read this sentence, so I can put pretty much anything I like here!

To be fair here JHJ tends to believe what he says whilst being far more outrageous than Ninfan who likes to say argue things for the sake of it* and occasionally actually agrees with himself

There is no evidence to say that the memo is false[1], indeed everything points towards the memo being a true record of the conversation[2].

1. Everyone accepts that what is said was not true
2.The author accepts that it may be “lost in translation”

Even using your narrow definition its still not a reasonable claim ; both premises are false.
* not a dig, at either, to be clear but that was pretty daft even by your standards

Much earlier in the thread:

He leaked meno, lied about it then set up a £1.5m, tax payer funded, enquiry to find out it’s source.

Ninfan, the content and accuracy is one issue, perhaps we should have a thread about that too. Getting back to the title of the thread, he still lied more than once about being involved in the leak. In fact there were only 2 people involved and one was him, a minister to boot.

It almost sounds as though like you think that the content of the leak justified both leaking it, and lying to the public about his involvment in it just before a general election. I seem to remember you having opinions on the legitimacy of other famous leaks in discussions on here. Are there ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ones then?

julianwilson – Member

If the election was in a month’s time there, there is no way would he have his 800 majority (down from circa 2000 last time iirc)

Down from nearly 10,000 last time.

Is it not the case that the leaked memo is also a fake, given that all parties now agree the claimed conversation never took place?

1) There is no credible suggestion that the memo is fake. The memo is unquestionably real.

2) There doesn’t seem to be any credible suggestion that the author of the memo was being duplicitous or misleading. S/he even flags up that the Sturgeon assertion may be inaccurate.

3) Carmichael certainly leaked the memo.

It almost sounds as though like you think that the content of the leak justified both leaking it, and lying to the public about his involvment in it just before a general election.

I dont know where you got any of that from? Sure as hell it’s not anything I said!

He lied, for his own political reasons – that’s clearly wrong, as was leaking it, but as far as I can see, the only people involved here were the French, the Limp Damps and the SNP, so to me I’m afraid it’s all a bit ‘no humans involved’ 😉

So a Yellow Tory lied with the intension of damaging the SNP’s chances, right in the run up to an election. I used to be a Lib supporter. I now find that so embarrassing.

He should, of course, stand down and consider whether to take part in a new election. In which the Libs would likely lose their last Scottish MP. Or he can try to bluff it out.

His next visit to his constituency is going to be interesting.

There is no credible suggestion that the memo is fake. The memo is unquestionably real.

Its true its real but its true [ what it says] is false

Its a real true falshood hence the confusion when the word “true” or “fake” is used

I assume fake meant false or not genuine rather than the memo itself was faked Ninfans true meant real as in it is a “true” account of what happened but what was said was all not true/accurate.

I dont know where you got any of that from? Sure as hell it’s not anything I said!

Ninfan, why else would you derail a thread about the morals and future of a (now former) minister lying to the public, just beforea general election in which he was returned with a slim majority, with paragraphs about the truth/untruth of what it was he was actually lying about? I am sure you have seen and challenged may instances of such whataboutery on here over the years.

Anyone would think you are just oppositional for oppositional’s sake. It is quite possible that right now you could be having just as much fun are arguing just the opposite on a lib dem chatroom somewhere.

Eh? I was answering someone else’s question on whether it was fake!

JY – you make a good point, we needed to seperate real/fake from accurate/inaccurate

He should be sent to bed with no pudding!

Its true its real but its true [ what it says] is false

Correct. On the date on which it was said it was written, a document was written, and the person who said wrote it, wrote it, on the date on which they said it was written. The author entirely faithfully recorded what they think they had heard, but also clearly and faithfully recorded ambiguity. I think any error (if there is any) is with the reader, not the writer).

Malkyavellian: Trying to be crafty and cunning in politics, but failing spectacularly through stupidity.

Carmichaels next meeting with his msp colleagues Liam Maccarthur and Tavish Scott should be lively

I think any error (if there is any) is with the reader, not the writer).

The best we can say is there was no malice in the initial chinese whisper being recorded by the CS but what he said happened did and yet it did not. To clarify someone said that someone said something but the someone they spoke of never said what they said they said

Hopefully we have cleared that up

I can faithfully record someone saying the moon landings were faked, that prince charles is made of cheese.
IMHO there is considerable error there.

It would be better if Prince Charles was made of cheese…. something ripe old and slightly crumbly

To clarify someone said that someone said something but the someone they spoke of claims they never said what they said they said

We’re in to known knows and known unknowns here, but we really can’t ascertain whether NS did or didn’t say it.