Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Nominations be open!!

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    I can throw out my view if you like, with no "if... then" round the house viewing, though some of you won't like it.


  • Options
    #33
    bluedolphin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,421 ✭✭✭bluedolphin


    ULPaddy wrote: »
    Seeing as this is an issue on which the ERB has final ruling

    As it will ultimately boil down to a Constitutional issue, it will probably be the Commission of Arbitration and/or President that has the final ruling, as these are the bodies that have final interpretation of the Constitution.


  • Options
    #34
    kingkane
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭kingkane


    ULPaddy wrote: »
    I am also a Campaign Manager for one of the candidates - though not 4 Communications.

    According to the deadline of 5pm it was late and proven (by surveillance camera) as such. Seeing as this is an issue on which the ERB has final ruling I think the extensive discussion on varying interpretation of it being late or not serves only to fuel fueds.

    I agree with Ninety9er in saying "I don't think this is the correct thread for this and the posts should be moved to the nominations thread".

    But was the time as displayed on the surveillance camera available to those submitting and accepting the nominations? It would appear it wasn't and the only devices in the SU lobby that had time on them are two machines off to the side which had times as of Friday evening that didn't even agree with one another. And it's not clear whether they agreed with the time on the CCTV either. And it is too late to check that now.

    The accepting of nominations in any election is down to the returning officer. He accepted it and I've been in a few elections down the years and I've never come across a situation where the authority of the returning officer in accepting a nomination has been challenged. If the returning officer accepted the nomination in good faith in what he, at that point in time, deemed to be a timely manner then retrospective invalidation of that acceptance because an external source indicates that it was in fact a couple of minutes later than he the returning officer then believed it to be is very strange. Neither the returning officer nor anyone else in the lobby had access to the speaking clock and they simply went with what they knew at the time to be the time. In almost all situations of this sort a decision made in good faith with the information available to the person at the time would be upheld. What next if someone's name on the nomination form isn't precisely as on their student registration will that lead to invalidation of the acceptance? There is typically a degree of latitude allowed up to the person in the role of returning officer as to the precision in such things.

    In the normal run of things, most returning officers would have had the backing of the authorities for their decision to accept the nomination. That the ERB didn't appear to have the returning officer's back as to his decision to accept is also a bit more interventionist that would be the normal practice.

    Of course all of this is mute in terms of the acceptance of the nomination if the deadline of 5pm was incorrect. However, it would be of significance come the running of the campaigns if the impartiality and intervention of the ERB is seen to be called into question.

    And I would have to question the advice that the appellant was in receipt of that the nomination should be challenged on such grounds as no sabbatical officer who realistically want to be the George W. Bush of SU politics.


  • Options
    #35
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    sceptre wrote: »
    I can throw out my view if you like, with no "if... then" round the house viewing, though some of you won't like it.

    Seeing as you've probably seen more elections round here than most....go ahead.


  • Options
    #36
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    kingkane wrote: »
    But was the time as displayed on the surveillance camera available to those submitting and accepting the nominations? It would appear it wasn't and the only devices in the SU lobby that had time on them are two machines off to the side which had times as of Friday evening that didn't even agree with one another. And it's not clear whether they agreed with the time on the CCTV either. And it is too late to check that now.

    The accepting of nominations in any election is down to the returning officer. He accepted it and I've been in a few elections down the years and I've never come across a situation where the authority of the returning officer in accepting a nomination has been challenged. If the returning officer accepted the nomination in good faith in what he, at that point in time, deemed to be a timely manner then retrospective invalidation of that acceptance because an external source indicates that it was in fact a couple of minutes later than he the returning officer then believed it to be is very strange. Neither the returning officer nor anyone else in the lobby had access to the speaking clock and they simply went with what they knew at the time to be the time. In almost all situations of this sort a decision made in good faith with the information available to the person at the time would be upheld. What next if someone's name on the nomination form isn't precisely as on their student registration will that lead to invalidation of the acceptance? There is typically a degree of latitude allowed up to the person in the role of returning officer as to the precision in such things.

    In the normal run of things, most returning officers would have had the backing of the authorities for their decision to accept the nomination. That the ERB didn't appear to have the returning officer's back as to his decision to accept is also a bit more interventionist that would be the normal practice.

    Of course all of this is mute in terms of the acceptance of the nomination if the deadline of 5pm was incorrect. However, it would be of significance come the running of the campaigns if the impartiality and intervention of the ERB is seen to be called into question.

    And I would have to question the advice that the appellant was in receipt of that the nomination should be challenged on such grounds as no sabbatical officer who realistically want to be the George W. Bush of SU politics.

    This would also suggest that the full time executive has been elected by illegitimate elections since the constitution was enacted. Anywho, I spoke to the constitutions authors on Friday who reckon that 6pm was the constitutional deadline.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    ULPaddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46 ✭ULPaddy


    kingkane wrote: »
    And I would have to question the advice that the appellant was in receipt of that the nomination should be challenged on such grounds as no sabbatical officer who realistically want to be the George W. Bush of SU politics.

    What!!!! ????

    Sorry but either that fails to make complete sense or I simply no longer understand English. The punctuation is a nightmare, BlueDolphin's not going to be happy! :eek: ;)

    I'd be interesting in hearing your expansion on the reference to Bush, i.e. what is meant by it.


  • Options
    #38
    kingkane
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭kingkane


    ULPaddy wrote: »
    What!!!! ????

    Sorry but either that fails to make complete sense or I simply no longer understand English. The punctuation is a nightmare, BlueDolphin's not going to be happy! :eek: ;)

    I'd be interesting in hearing your expansion on the reference to Bush, i.e. what is meant by it.

    I will say it again with some better punctuation and replacing the incorrect word "who" with the intended word "would".

    I would have to question the advice that the appellant was in receipt of that the nomination should be challenged on such grounds as the time. No sabbatical officer would realistically want to be the George W. Bush of SU politics.

    The reference to Bush is in regard to assuming office on the basis of a ruling and not on the basis of an electoral contest. You might recall the small matter of the US supreme court stopping the re-count in Florida and as a consequence deciding the 2000 Presidential election.


  • Options
    #39
    Blizzardman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭Blizzardman


    Right, first of all, apologies, this is going to be a long one. (and i'm not involved in any of the campaigns). There's a few things I'm wondering about.
    The reference to Bush is in regard to assuming office on the basis of a ruling and not on the basis of an electoral contest. You might recall the small matter of the US supreme court stopping the re-count in Florida and as a consequence deciding the 2000 Presidential election.

    That doesn't really apply here though. This isn't a "He won, but we're not going to allow it." situation. This is a "He couldn't follow even the basic conditions outlined to him, and he's gone running to the constitution and been lucky enough to find something". I severely doubt that he knew the deadline was 6pm in the constitution, or didn't notice the 5pm deadline on his nomination material. This is just a case of screwing up that may get lucky.

    Also, just wondering, but wasn't the 5pm deadline approved by Class Reps (both years)? Surely by saying that the candidate must be exempted from the rules set out by Class Reps (the representative voice of the students), you're saying that the voice of the students must be ignored? It's all well and good to say that "it should be up to the students to decide", but if they did ratify this time and date, then they already did decide? And now the candidate wants to go against this?

    Also, just out of interest, if it is decided that the Class Reps mandate is to be ignored, does that mean all the current Sabbats must step down? Because, for all we know, there could have been other people who wanted to run against them and missed the deadline set by Class Reps Council.

    There's no point having a Class Reps Council if you're just going to ignore their decisions. And there's no point saying "we want the students to decide" if you're going to ignore them when they do.


  • Options
    #40
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Blizzardman wrote: »
    Also, just out of interest, if it is decided that the Class Reps mandate is to be ignored, does that mean all the current Sabbats must step down?
    That's a slippery slope argument I'm afraid. Oh, this isn't the boards.ie/Politics board. Well, it's still a slippery slope question.

    The answer (which is no btw) is in here in a post I made on the ULSU boards today:
    sceptre wrote:
    Last year a decision was reached that blank nomination forms could only be picked up by candidates while SU reception was manned by day staff. Or between 9 to 5. On alternate days, only one of two full-time SU officers (education and PPO as de facto overseers of the nomination process (I as chair of the ERB, Alan as someone I rightly judged to have enough independence, ability and ethics to implement a fair process with me)) were aware of the precise number of forms that had gone out. That was done to ensure secrecy on the number and identities of potential candidates. Throughout the wek, candidates (and pretty much everyone else) were not only unaware of how many forms had been returned, but also how many forms had been collected.

    At 5pm on the Friday last year, all forms had been accounted for, all returned. So, because on a procedural basis, forms couldn't be picked up after 5pm on that Friday and we had all possible forms returned completed, although at least the two of us (see above) were aware of the defined length of a university day and the requirements that we would have to fulfil as a result of the defined length of a university day (given that the constitution overrides all), with all forms returned, the declaration of candidates (and hence running candidates and unopposed candidates) on a practical basis could, and was, made by the Returning Officer after 5pm, think it was about 5:35 IIRC.

    I'm correctable here as I wasn't there this year but I doubt class reps were asked to set the time for the close of nominations. They were certainly asked to approve/set the day of the election as they have to be. Given that the day of nominations close flows back from that decision on a fixed basis (that's the part where I'm not correctable)there wouldn't be any point in asking them to approve or disagree with that (that's opinion). There's no ignored mandate - class reps get to set/approve the date of elections and they did that.


  • Options
    #41
    kingkane
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭kingkane


    Blizzardman wrote: »
    Right, first of all, apologies, this is going to be a long one. (and i'm not involved in any of the campaigns). There's a few things I'm wondering about.

    That doesn't really apply here though. This isn't a "He won, but we're not going to allow it." situation. This is a "He couldn't follow even the basic conditions outlined to him, and he's gone running to the constitution and been lucky enough to find something". I severely doubt that he knew the deadline was 6pm in the constitution, or didn't notice the 5pm deadline on his nomination material. This is just a case of screwing up that may get lucky.

    Also, just wondering, but wasn't the 5pm deadline approved by Class Reps (both years)? Surely by saying that the candidate must be exempted from the rules set out by Class Reps (the representative voice of the students), you're saying that the voice of the students must be ignored? It's all well and good to say that "it should be up to the students to decide", but if they did ratify this time and date, then they already did decide? And now the candidate wants to go against this?

    Also, just out of interest, if it is decided that the Class Reps mandate is to be ignored, does that mean all the current Sabbats must step down? Because, for all we know, there could have been other people who wanted to run against them and missed the deadline set by Class Reps Council.

    There's no point having a Class Reps Council if you're just going to ignore their decisions. And there's no point saying "we want the students to decide" if you're going to ignore them when they do.

    Ah the voice of the students! In actuality the real sovereign voice of the students is heard via referendum or UGM (as is the case with the rest of the country) and the constitution being approved by one of those two methods trumps anything Class Reps might have voted for or not. Class reps can't decide to do something that conflicts with the constitution.

    As for "This is a "He couldn't follow even the basic conditions outlined to him, and he's gone running to the constitution and been lucky enough to find something". I severely doubt that he knew the deadline was 6pm in the constitution, or didn't notice the 5pm deadline on his nomination material. This is just a case of screwing up that may get lucky."

    It is a matter of dispute as to whether or not the basic conditions on the ground were or were not complied with. And your language is very pejorative, one might equally say that the objector couldn't face an election campaign and went running to the speaking clock to save themselves the hassle. If the returning officer thought it was still before the 5pm deadline when he accepted the nomination form than that should have been that. Making reference to the speaking clock and time that was not on display in the area is dubious, what next people standing at polling stations with their mobiles tuned into the speaking clock to close the polls?

    My comparison with Bush is not meant to be an absolute comparison simply that it is better to win an election than all the other options.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    thattequilagirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,158 ✭✭✭thattequilagirl


    sceptre wrote: »
    I can throw out my view if you like, with no "if... then" round the house viewing, though some of you won't like it.

    We're always interested in that sceptre!

    bluedolphin wrote: »
    As it will ultimately boil down to a Constitutional issue, it will probably be the Commission of Arbitration and/or President that has the final ruling, as these are the bodies that have final interpretation of the Constitution.

    If Pa O'Brien can interpret 6 o'clock as 5 o'clock that'll be a turn up for the books!

    In terms of Dave not handing the form in on time, I know he was in the building and as far as I know the issue was with the fact that the returning officer and other officials were running around trying to get stuff ready, I don't think it says anything negative about his character.

    In terms of interests, I'll be campaigning in the education election but that doesn't impact on this.


  • Options
    #43
    rmacm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭rmacm


    kingkane wrote: »
    went running to the speaking clock to save themselves the hassle.

    I hope you're using this as a metaphor of some manner....speaking clocks being a bit naff and all.
    kingkane wrote: »
    what next people standing at polling stations with their mobiles tuned into the speaking clock to close the polls?

    Screw that, Chronos wouldn't stand for such inaccuracy. They need something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST-F1 sitting beside them....only then will they be certain of the time.


  • Options
    #44
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    kingkane wrote: »
    what next people standing at polling stations with their mobiles tuned into the speaking clock to close the polls?
    I imagine the register of electors server will be shut down at 6pm to allow for accuracy across all stations.


  • Options
    #45
    kingkane
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭kingkane


    ninty9er wrote: »
    I imagine the register of electors server will be shut down at 6pm to allow for accuracy across all stations.

    Really? Because in a lot of places the local presiding officer has some discretion about keeping the polls open if there is a queue of people waiting to vote.


  • Options
    #46
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    kingkane wrote: »
    Really? Because in a lot of places the local presiding officer has some discretion about keeping the polls open if there is a queue of people waiting to vote.

    I'm sure Paddy will be about on the day for the technicalities anyway. Though I see where you're coming from, it's a much similar argument to the one the nomination issue, except this time it's much more clear cut.


  • Options
    #47
    bluedolphin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,421 ✭✭✭bluedolphin


    Polls have to stay open for a minimum of ten hours; hence SU opening is 8am until at least 6pm. If there is a queue of voters, then I'm sure the ERB/Returning Officer will ask all candidates for their agreement on keeping the final polling station open or allowing it to close at 6. It's the same with the other stations - if they're very quiet, with agreement of all candidates, they will be closed earlier than 6. But the one in the SU will stay open until at least 6 to fulfill polling hours.


  • Options
    #48
    pinnyoshea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭pinnyoshea


    Do ye not spend enough time sitting around the SU discussing this sort of stuff. Whoever put in the objection needs to get a life. Discussing each others grammer and whether this should be split to one thread or another..... i mean come on guys. No wonder sweet FA gets done. Its like a microcosm of the Dail. I have no alliances in the elections. I read a lot of these threads but this is the first one Ive felt compelled to comment on.


  • Options
    #49
    bluedolphin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,421 ✭✭✭bluedolphin


    pinnyoshea wrote: »
    ...grammer...
    And spelling too, because it's grammar.


    I'm sorry; I really, really couldn't help myself.
    :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac:


  • Options
    #50
    Polar Ice
    Registered Users Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Polar Ice


    bluedolphin wrote: »
    And spelling too, because it's grammar.


    I'm sorry; I really, really couldn't help myself.
    :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac:

    Bold bluedolphin
    (I had to make sure I didn't leave out the blue part otherwise I might have been talking about someone else)


  • Options
    #51
    Mossin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,219 ✭✭✭Mossin


    pinnyoshea wrote: »
    Do ye not spend enough time sitting around the SU discussing this sort of stuff. Whoever put in the objection needs to get a life. Discussing each others grammer and whether this should be split to one thread or another..... i mean come on guys. No wonder sweet FA gets done. Its like a microcosm of the Dail. I have no alliances in the elections. I read a lot of these threads but this is the first one Ive felt compelled to comment on.

    This is not the Students Union, or the ULSU web forums. This is a public forum for UL students, therefore if the Mods feel the need to separate this into 2 threads, then so be it. I dont like to mess with the powers that be!

    I have no affiliation with the SU, although I am supporting both Ruan and DJCR in their campaigns.

    Discussing each others grammar is something that is done here a lot, just ask people! And in a couple of instances in this thread, the grammar has led to misinterpretations, so therefore it appears to be valid for once, and not just being the usual nonsense :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ergonomics
    Registered Users Posts: 1,810 ✭✭✭ergonomics


    In the spirit of democracy and fairness, I, Aoife Ní Raghallaigh have decided to withdraw my objection regarding another nomination form being handed in late. The objection was made as I feel that if the rules were bent at the very beginning, then they would be bent throughout the election and this would affect candidates running for every position. I also feel that being deemed elected on a technicality would result in my time in office being tainted, and I would rather win or lose by upstanding methods.

    While I believe my objection continues to be valid, I do not want the student body to feel that I am not willing to work as hard as possible for them. It was never my intention to take the easy way out, and I will be unwavering and determined in my campaign from here on in.


  • Options
    #53
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    ninty9er wrote: »
    Seeing as you've probably seen more elections round here than most....go ahead.
    Short answer:
    Constitutional deadline is 6. Form was submitted before 6. End of.

    Long answer:
    When examining this issue there are two ways to look at it. One is where fairness (or perceived fairness) takes precedence, the other is where procedure takes precedent. Either view can come up with a single thing that totally overrides anything the other view can come up with.

    So we can examine whether it's fair to let a candidate in the race if their form was in after a deadline. And whether it's fair on another candidate if their form was in before a deadline to let another candidate in. And whether or not it's fairest to the students to let them make the decision in an election, with the knowledge that one form was in on time and the other wasn't, assuming that to be the case.

    That's where we'd look at the situation where a candidate has not done with is required of them purely with regard to natural justice. That's where we'd also ask questions like whether the returning officer has specifically declared nominations to be closed, all that kind of thing. The natural justice consideration would be extremely important in the event that a candidate had, for example, an ID number that couldn't be read among their nominees, which could quite easily happen and arguably would place the legitimacy of their candidacy at risk if it happened (as the nominee couldn't be verified from the form).

    The second view is one of pure procedure: did any given candidate fulfil what was required of them in the nomination process? More to the point, did any candidate fail to fulfil that process? Because in a purely procedural view, those that fulfil the process are in, those that don't are out.

    The trouble with a purely procedural view is that you have to be extremely anal about procedure from the administration side. There's no room for a judgement call whatever. Nonetheless, from a legal perspective it's cleaner and easier to define.

    Looking at the first issue quickly: from a "fairness" point of view, it'd be a question of whether it would be most just to let a candidate with a form that was handed in late into the election or not (and I've heard a lot of contradicting stories about the circumstances of that specific case over the past few days).

    But I don't have to consider the fairness issue and here's why: from a purely procedural point of view, the SU constitution deals with this specific issue in two ways: It defines the period of nominations as five university days (it specifically says "the nomination period for all Union elections, save Class Representative Elections shall be five university days"). It defines a university day as 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday, excluding holidays. Everyone got a copy of it in their election pack. It overrules all. Of all days, on the last day, forms have to be accepted till 6. No-one's disputing that the form was in before 6.

    Hence I don't have to consider whether or not the returning officer officially closed nominations and made such a declaration, whether or not precise procedure was followed on the receipt of nominations, whether or not would be fair to candidate 1, candidate 2, students or the world at large to let candidate 2 in or out, the consultation process between the returning officer and the campaign managers on the implementation of regulations, the discussion re what I'm informed was the acceptance of the form by the returning officer, what I'm informed was the overruling by the chair of the electoral & referenda board. None of that stuff. Constitution says 6, that was approved by a quorate general meeting and stays in place until overruled by another quorate general meeting or a quorate referendum. End of story.

    Like it or not, and some of you do and some of you don't, the overriding deadline is 6. That makes it a valid candidacy without having to bother considering anything else. I don't like having to draw a sharp conclusion like this - looking at the list above, there are a total of 12 names on it and I know 10 of them pretty well to the level where I'd consider them friends. Nevertheless, it was still in before 6. The best thing the ERB could do at this point is recognise that the 6pm deadline was fulfilled, it overrides any restriction they may have wanted to impose on the Friday evening when everyone wanted to go home, and everyone can get on with things for the election, which is more important than this kerfuffle.


    edit: hadn't seen Aoife's post before posting the above. It took me longer to type than I'd have liked.


  • Options
    #54
    kingkane
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭kingkane


    What he said.

    PS. for the record I believe I've seen more elections than sceptre.

    Also, I think that common sense has prevailed with the statement from Aoife above

    Minor grammatical moment on my part but I think there should be a 'however' in the middle of the first paragraph as the two sentence lead in different logical directions "...The objection was made as I feel that if the rules were bent at the very beginning, then they would be bent throughout the election and this would affect candidates running for every position. However, I also feel that being deemed elected on a technicality would result in my time in office being tainted, and I would rather win or lose by upstanding methods."

    I would, were I Aoife, seek to fire from my staff whoever advised me to object and had I decided to do it off my own back then I would simply pick out some underling and fire them as a scapegoat, (with the buyoff of a senior role in my new administration). And I would expect that for the first 2 days that much of the talk will be about the objection. Simply come up with some way of dealing with it and stick to it, and hope to ride it out. By Wednesday it should have blown itself out unless it catches hold in the mindset of the student body.


  • Options
    #55
    rmacm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭rmacm


    kingkane wrote: »
    had I decided to do it off my own back then I would simply pick out some underling and fire them as a scapegoat, (with the buyoff of a senior role in my new administration).

    That for me sums up about everything that's wrong with politics (perhaps this is going to sound naieve but so be it) anyone who'd do something like that is probably not worth voting for, I know I certainly wouldn't vote for them.

    The above isn't supposed to reflect on anyone running in the election btw.


  • Options
    #56
    Peteee
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 2,432 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peteee


    rmacm wrote: »
    That for me sums up about everything that's wrong with politics (perhaps this is going to sound naieve but so be it) anyone who'd do something like that is probably not worth voting for, I know I certainly wouldn't vote for them.

    The above isn't supposed to reflect on anyone running in the election btw.

    I think he was being sarcastic.

    If he wasn't then, yes I'd agree with you.

    "The problem is that whoever you vote for the government always gets in"


  • Options
    #57
    kingkane
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭kingkane


    rmacm wrote: »
    That for me sums up about everything that's wrong with politics (perhaps this is going to sound naieve but so be it) anyone who'd do something like that is probably not worth voting for, I know I certainly wouldn't vote for them.

    The above isn't supposed to reflect on anyone running in the election btw.

    I'm pretty sure that the PPO isn't going to have 'an administration' as such. And exactly what kind of senior position do you think would be on offer? Someone uninvolved could come forward and offer to pretend it was them in exchange for a packet of fruits loops and a promise of a go on the PPO twirly chair.


  • Options
    #58
    rmacm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭rmacm


    kingkane wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that the PPO isn't going to have 'an administration' as such.

    Well obviously not but I think my point still stands.
    And exactly what kind of senior position do you think would be on offer? Someone uninvolved could come forward and offer to pretend it was them in exchange for a packet of fruits loops and a promise of a go on the PPO twirly chair.

    Yeah sure they could but to be honest it still smacks of dishonesty (no matter what the position/reward or lack thereof on offer). I'd have more admiration and respect for a candidate who was willing to put their hands up and present the reasoning behind a decision they made and let people judge them based on that rather than trying to find a scape goat no matter how uninvolved the scape goat was and hiding behind them.

    Perhaps you were being sarcastic in your original post, if you were I've taken you up the wrong way and I apologise but I just think this cloak and dagger bs of finding a scape goat to deflect an issue is more worthy of an episode of the X-Files or 24 than real life.


Advertisement