A spokesman for Tory Bromley candidate Bob Neill has contacted Recess Monkey to defend Bob Neill’s position.
He said, “Bob is a member of the North East London Strategic Health Authority but it will meet only once more, next week, when it will disband itself”.
But why then was there any need not to resign before nomination? Why indeed was there a need to sign a false declaration when he could have just scribbled in the margin of the form the actuality?
Is it the case that Bob pays no attention to detail or did he consider it wasn’t one of the “important” laws - like those people who think that speeding’s not really a crime if you’re a “safe” driver?
I would be grateful if readers could nominate some “Bob” laws for me - Laws that really aren’t worth obeying because of the effort required to do so.
editor[at]recessmonkey.com
Loading ...
How about offering Lordships in return for cash, or locking people up without trial, or perhaps being complicit in torture?
Steve said this on June 23rd, 2006 at 7:36 pm
I’m not sure we could get Bob on those allegations - but if you have any evidence, let me know…
Recess Monkey said this on June 23rd, 2006 at 9:35 pm
You can see what the Electoral Commission think Bob had to sign in their guide to parliamentary candidates here: (on the page marked ‘45′)
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/files/dms/GEcandidatesguide_16585-11536__E__N__S__W__.pdf
The words shown are:
2 Candidate’s declaration
I declare that my date of birth is:
DD/ MM / 19__
I declare that I am aware of the
provisions of the House of
Commons Disqualifications Act
1975 and to the best of my
knowledge and belief I am not
disqualified from membership of
the House of Commons.
Signature
Date
So he signed to say that as far as he knew and believed he was not disqualified from membership of the House of Commons when he nominated - despite the fact that at that time he clearly was, and for that matter still is.
Unchased Man said this on June 23rd, 2006 at 9:37 pm
I say throw away the key!
Recess Monkey said this on June 23rd, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Seems he has a get-out clause, like Tony Bliar’s standard one: He only declared “to the best of his knowledge and belief”. So like Tony really really believed that he was doing the right thing, this tosser can say the same thing.
Dave said this on June 23rd, 2006 at 11:35 pm
I doubt that would look credible in front of any panel.
‘Bob’ laws…
how about the human rights act? don’t really need to obey… and when they say we aren’t… we’ll change it!
el tom said this on June 26th, 2006 at 12:08 am
various laws on electoral fraud - Reading and District Labour party stated publicly in 2005 (its chair, Stuart Singleton-White, quoted in the Reading Evening Post) that although Thames Valley POlice determined that fraud had been committed in the 2004 local elections in Reading it was OK because it was “only a small amount”. (1) how did they know? (2) how big does a breach of the law have to be before it becomes punishable or wrong?
janestheone said this on June 26th, 2006 at 7:58 am