It's interesting that you focus on Chris Huhne's wealth, and the style and comments about it in Michael Crick's piece.
Why are people so hostile to success? I would have thought that this is inter-linked with, say, the thought-pattern of socialism. Un-intelligent people and/or unsuccessful people become upset that others have achieved more than them, and this jealousy almost inevitably leads to hostility - almost a "if I can't have it, neither can they" attitude.
What is, however, far more worrying, is Chris Huhne knowingly abusing EU laws to fund his MP campaign literature. Since the vote in the area was so close, then his illegal actions could have easily had consequences on the election result.
What is, however, far more worrying, is Chris Huhne knowingly abusing EU laws to fund his MP campaign literature. Since the vote in the area was so close, then his illegal actions could have easily had consequences on the election result.
From what's been presented, I'm not at all sure that was knowing abuse of EU law. I think we are getting down to specifics here and interpretations of laws - which already apply in considerations of what terms like "campaign", "candidate" and such like actually mean.
From what I've read about the allegations, they've been doing the rounds for over a year, and no-one is taking them that seriously.
Chris? Looking at your site, you have written the story up as a series of unsourced allegations "knowingly and illegally misused" could be grounds for a defamation case; I'd be very carfeul to soure the allegations or re-word them.
Thank you Matt GB. I'm not too worried about the wording of my article - and I will not be re-wording or editing it.
Ken, let us suppose for a moment that Chris Huhne did not knowingly abuse EU law (I personally believe he did knowingly abuse the laws and funds.) Even if he didn't "knowingly" do so, he still broke EU laws and should be suitably punished.
Chris - has he? If you can show me the relevant statutes that conclusively prove it, I'll be happy to state that here.
But his defence was that "campaign" has a specific meaning in law, which only applies once the election is called. And thus he didn't spend any money from the EU during the election campaign. That might be sophistry, and taking advantage of loopholes, which isn't particularly desirable, but nevertheless it's different from breaking the law.
"But his defence was that "campaign" has a specific meaning in law, which only applies once the election is called."
Campaign under EU law is different to campaign under UK law. That was made clear on the program. However, since it was EU money, EU law and rules should be taken into account - not UK.
Actually, I'm not sure that 'campaign' was given a different definition on the programme.
Commenting by HaloScan
