Advertisement
Watkins tries to speed up historic hearing
Date published: 05 July 2010
Defeated general election candidate Elwyn Watkins hopes to force the pace of the first election court hearing in 100 years which could unseat a sitting MP.
The Liberal-Democrat said his legal team was still waiting for a response from Labour’s Phil Woolas, who was re-elected as MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth on May 6.
So Mr Watkin’s legal team has gone to the Elections Court, part of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, to set out how it hopes the case will proceed.
If the court agrees, he hopes there will be full disclosure of the evidence from both sides on July 16, a further preliminary hearing at the end of the month, ready for a hearing in Oldham in September.
Mr Watkins issued an election petition because he alleges Labour’s campaign literature — published, with Mr Woolas’s consent by his agent Joe Fitzpatrick — made three false claims. Both men are named in the petition.
Mr Woolas’s re-election came after a bad-tempered campaign and an election night count which lasted 12 hours. The former Labour minister was elected after two recounts by 103 votes.
Mr Watkins says it is not about the small margin of the win and says he would be taking action whatever the majority.
Mr Woolas said: “In my view Elwyn Watkins is making a complete fool of himself, which shows he is such a bad loser. He needs to get a life.”
Comments
I wonder who will be found at fault Woolas Watkins or Fitzpatrick I hate to think of the cost or sentence. Id love to be a fly on the wall listening to the conversations between Woolas and Fitzpatrick “it wasn’t me it was you” “not it was you” I think we all want to know is it true or is Watkins making it all up. The sooner we all find out the better, either way I would be emptying my piggy bank and praying it was not me. Who would you sacrifice your MP or your Agent?
kick them both out and give the position to the tory candidate.
between watkins and woolas they had a continuous slanging match between themselves in their leaflets they handed out.
they also called the tories on everything they where standing for.
but i dont remember anything bad said from the tories themselves. why? because they didnt want to lower themselves down to such a low level.
Looks like you are right Barros. Red Delpher is already trying to pass off the blame onto Woolas' agent. I'll be interested to see if RD really can come up with any literature about Woolas that was anywhere near as offensive as those he put out himself.
If RD looks at the law he will see that it doesn't matter whether the leaflets were counter productive or not. What matters is whether they were knowingly untruthful.
On the other hand fedupoldhamer couldn't be more wrong. The Conservative candidate repeated several of the spurious allegations that were made by Woolas and Fitzpatrick. For someone who is supposedly highly legally trained I found this surprising.
Maybe his agent did it on his behalf.
Truthful Steven Acres ? Lord help us if candidates started taking legal action because leaflets aren't 'truthful'!! - they're politicians for goodness sake - it would be a goldmine for lawyers.
Its a rarity to find a truthful election statement these days.
Steven Acres, the difference was that it was only repeated words that where mentioned by others and printed in the local papers. the tory leaflets did not resort to allegations and just got on with what they'd tackle.
there was a difference in tactics from their side. and it worked. especially as the libdems and labour said it was only a two horse race between themselves.
not any longer!
Alas you didn’t read the Tory leaflets or you have forgotten. Some of the unfounded allegations made by Labour were repeated by the Tories in print. They also produced some rather dodgy two-horse-race arguments.
As for Red Delpher’s stance that anything goes. That’s why this particular law was written and why it should be tested in court. If he doesn’t believe that to be correct then I can’t wait for the next time he stands for election.
No.1 a majority of 1 would have been sufficient to win. Phil Woolas, was elected by the people, and should be removed by the people. 2. who reads these election leaflet? All political parties resort to smear tactic, yet real candidate are usually able to grin and bear it. I call these real people. Those who are interested politically, will read all the leaflets, just as I do, other go straight in the recycle bin, without being opened. Why do these Lib_Dems want to waste time and money?
Have Your Say
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ! Frankly they're both as bad as each other and the leaflets Phil Woolas's agent put out were counter productive - they lost him votes around here.
The last thing we want are fat cat lawyers telling us who our MP should or shouldn't be - that's our job as citizens.
By Red Delpher @ 05/07/2010 12:25:15