@Haquers @redflagac Lutfur Rahman has been convicted a criminal offence. Has it been proven beyond reasonable doubt? That is all I ask.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac I hope this is not yet another case of the judiciary dispensing with the criminal standard of proof when it suits them.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac I think his opponents have got it back to front: firstly, convict Rahman of offences under the 1983 Act. 1/2
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac I think his opponents have got it back to front: secondly, petitioned to remove him as mayor for electoral fraud. 2/2
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac The Divisional Court should have struck out the petitioners' application as abuse of process in July 2014.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac The "but for" test should have been applied to the petitioners' application to set aside the election.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac BUT FOR the illegal and corrupt practice alleged, would the Respondent have won the election?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac The margin was too wide: Lutfur Rahman received 43% of the vote while John Biggs received only 32% in 2014.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac In 2010, Lutfur Rahman received 51% of the vote while the Labour Party's candidate received only 25% of the vote.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac It is pretty damn clear that Lutfur Rahman enjoys wide support in Tower Hamlets so the establishment stitched him up.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac There was no proof that any of the allegations could have stood up in court so the police dropped it.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac I cited 2010 election results to demonstrate that Lutfur Rahman enjoys widespread support in Tower Hamlets.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Because Lutfur Rahman enjoyed widespread support, the establishment decided to stitch him up with their "rule of law".
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac You don't even have to be Muslim or live in Tower Hamlets to know how much all this stinks.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Most readers of the Telegraph and Standard would be delighted that a Muslim got his comeuppance just for being Muslim.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac That judgement is stuffed with self-justificatory comments with the judge getting his retaliation in first.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
Mr Mawrey's 200 page judgment against Lutfur Rahman
@Haquers @redflagac You hate him for being Muslim and you are glad a Muslim got his comeuppance for being Muslim. I certainly see that.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Anyone who is on the receiving end of an open and shut case of an establishment stitch-up is by definition a victim.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Would you like to confirm that you are happy a Muslim was convicted of a CRIME in a CIVIL court?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac What do you think my world view is? Tolerating procedural irregularity?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac You have decided you hate him and don't mind how he is punished as long as he suffers.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac You are indifferent to the courts getting their law wrong, so there is almost no point talking to you.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac If you want to convict someone of a crime, you charge him with a CRIME, don't you? Was Rahman tried in a criminal court?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac You have yourself said the judgment against him came from a CIVIL court. Are you still not getting it?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Correct procedure to set election aside: FIRST convict him of an offence under the 1983 Act THEN set election aside.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Do you know the difference between the criminal standard of proof and the civil standard of proof?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac You don't know what the burden of proof means, do you? LOOK IT UP.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Please read this link at http://t.co/bAtOtHy5Tx Has this been done? Electoral fraud is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac What has happened is that Lutfur Rahman has been found guilty of a CRIMINAL offence in a CIVIL court.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac How has Lutfur Rahman brought Tower Hamlets into disrepute? By being STITCHED UP by the establishment??
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac How has Lutfur Rahman brought Tower Hamlets into disrepute? By *becoming* Mayor in 2010? Or *remaining* Mayor in 2014?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac You may have the excuse of not being legally-trained since you do not grasp my points, but not the judiciary.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac I have provided links about the criminal and civil standard of proof. You may find it useful to grasp the difference.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac What Lutfur Rahman was accused of are CRIMINAL offences. Was he found guilty in a CRIMINAL court? http://t.co/bAtOtHy5Tx
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac OMG! I am trying to tell you WHY the PROCEDURE that ended in the judgement against him is wrong! Can you try harder?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac This is like all those stupid rape complaints by those SWP women a few years back. Can you concentrate, please?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac I accuse you of a CRIME but there is no CRIMINAL trial. Some other tribunal ASSUMES you are guilty. Fair?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac If someone accuses you of a CRIME, should there be a CRIMINAL TRIAL before you are treated as guilty? Yes or No?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Was there a CRIMINAL TRIAL of Lutfur Rahman who was accused of CRIMINAL offences under the 1983 Act? Yes or No?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Is electoral fraud a CRIMINAL offence? http://t.co/bAtOtHy5Tx says so and so does http://t.co/rtiHQWLZHs
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Is Lutfur Rahman now treated as guilty of a CRIMINAL offence? Yes. Was there a criminal trial? NO.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac The Divisional Court shd hv struck out the petitioners' application as n abuse of process applying the BUT FOR principle
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac BUT FOR the alleged fraud, would the responded have become mayor? MARGIN between winner n next candidate is the measure.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac If the winning candidate won only by a few votes, then fraud is more likely than if the winner wins by a large majority.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Because Lutfur Rahman won by such a wide margin there were no reasonable grounds for supposing there was fraud.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac If u r accused of a crime do u want Prosecution to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac If there is NO CRIMINAL TRIAL then how can Lutfur Rahman be guilty of a CRIME????????
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Why should Lutfur Rahman be treated as being guilty of a CRIME when there has been no CRIMINAL TRIAL?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Isn't it ILLOGICAL to be declared guilty of a CRIME when there has been no CRIMINAL TRIAL? OMG! HOW MANY TIMES????
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac The court can declare any nonsense it wants to declare, but when it is obviously illogical and wrong, you can appeal.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Pabloite Is it ILLEGAL to say to voters "You are Muslim, I am Muslim, Muslims should vote for Muslims"??
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac How can voter fraud - A CRIME - be proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - when there was NO CRIMINAL TRIAL???
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac All I know is that Lutfur Rahman has been treated as GUILTY OF A CRIME when there was NO CRIMINAL TRIAL.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Pabloite What should left-wingers, socialists do when they don't win an election? accuse the winning candidate of electoral fraud?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@ntfem Having lived in France I'd say that it happens, not often but it does. Dassault.
— Andrew Coates (@Pabloite) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac I am saying Mr Mowrey should have sent the case back to the Divisional Court and said they should have struck it out.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac Halleluia! We are there at last! NO. Criminal offences should only be tried in criminal courts. Ask any lawyer!
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac https://t.co/i86oTFsCHv You can't always get what you want.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@ntfem apparently elec fraud is not necessarily a criminal offence, but can consist of criminal offences, semantics? http://t.co/XVEK8OsEs3
— Simon Haque (@Haquers) April 24, 2015
@Haquers So, the right to be treated as innocent till you are found guilty after a FAIR TRIAL means nothing to you? Okay ....
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers http://t.co/bAtOtHy5Tx "The police are responsible for investigating any allegations of electoral fraud." Sounds like a crime to me
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers If the police do not investigate after saying there is no evidence, just get him anyway? Do you know what the rule of law means?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
I should have said "If the police do not CHARGE him after finding no evidence".
@redflagac @Haquers If there is no credible evidence, there is no credible evidence. Do you expect @metpoliceuk to manufacture something?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 25, 2015
@Haquers The rule of law does not mean "Do whatever to punish your enemy and find him guilty in the wrong court without evidence."
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers @redflagac If the police and the CPS are involved, what are we to think?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers Make your judgment THEN gather the evidence? Cool! Sounds like justice to me!
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@Haquers Lesson one into coming to a RATIONAL judgment: FIRSTLY, gather evidence THEN make your conclusions. Not other way round.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 24, 2015
@redflagac If the police fail to produce evidence and do not charge Lutfur Rahman AND THERE IS NO TRIAL, how can he guilty of a crime??
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 25, 2015
@redflagac Which one vote established Lutfur Rahman's guilt of a criminal offence beyond all reasonable doubt?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 25, 2015
@redflagac Was it PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that Lutfur Rahman was guilty of "industrial-scale [electoral] fraud"?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 25, 2015
@redflagac So, now, even if the winning candidate has a commanding majority, he can still be challenged by vexatious litigants?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 25, 2015
@redflagac Judge didn't apply the BUT FOR test, so *any* elected MP however sizeable his majority can be challenged by vexatious litigants.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 25, 2015
@redflagac Lutfur Rahman now has a DUTY to appeal the judgment against him on PUBLIC INTEREST GROUNDS.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 25, 2015
@redflagac Imagine the chaos disgruntled voters and vexatious litigants could wreak by challenging EVERY winning candidate including the PM.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 25, 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/24/judge-disqualified-tower-hamlets-mayor-reform-election-law-richard-mawrey-electoral-fraud
In his 200-page judgment on Rahman, Mawrey pointed out that although the election court is a civil hearing, “the criminal standard of proof, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt” is applied. Candidates, unless “a mitigating factor is established”, are deemed responsible for the acts and omissions of their agents.
Er, was there actually a jury to decide whether Lutfur Rahman was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or just Mr Mawrey alone deciding that the accused was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?
Saying something doesn't make it so!
The whole affair is a nettle of nonsense on stilts.
But turning towards an even more serious matter, what sort of a curry dinner should Lutfur Rahman buy me for giving him all this free legal advice, and in which restaurant in Tower Hamlets should this curry dinner take place? In one of Mr Azmal Hussain's four esteemed restaurants in Brick Lane? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/restaurant-owners-midnight-curry-curfew-will-destroy-our-businesses-in-brick-lane-9108264.html It should be a late curry dinner and we should arrive at the restaurant no earlier than 22:55 hours and see what time Mr Hussain stops taking our orders and throws us out on the streets ...
@tombooker83 I already know Brick Lane restaurateurs don't support Lutfur Rahman for enforcing the letter of the law. http://t.co/b0PMFZsU3U
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 25, 2015
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/an-alternative-lutfur-rahman-election-petition-1
No comments:
Post a Comment