What is a liar?

The Oxford English Dictionary is subscription only online, so I tend to use dictionary.co.uk (or dictionary.com if no entry found).

What is a liar?

Dictionary - liar - 1 entry.

1. Noun - A person who knowingly utters falsehood; one who lies.

What is a Falsehood?

Dictionary - falsehood - 4 entries.

1. Noun - Want of truth or accuracy; an untrue assertion or representation; error; misrepresentation; falsity.
2. Noun - A deliberate intentional assertion of what is known to be untrue; a departure from moral integrity; a lie.
3. Noun - Treachery; deceit; perfidy; unfaithfulness.
4. Noun - A counterfeit; a false appearance; an imposture.

What is a lie?

lie - 13 entries.

1. Noun - See Lye.
2. Noun - A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive.
3. Noun - A fiction; a fable; an untruth.
4. Noun - Anything which misleads or disappoints.
5. v. i. - To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.

(Ones pertaining to geography or sleeping snipped)

Now Wikipedia is somewhat more pragmatic about it, explaining various types of lies:

A lie (also called prevarication), is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else. A liar is a person who is lying, who has previously lied, or who tends by nature to lie repeatedly.
Lying is typically used to refer to deceptions in oral or written communication.[citation needed] Other forms of deception, such as disguises or forgeries, are generally not considered lies, though the underlying intent may be the same. However, even a true statement can be considered a lie if the person making that statement is doing so to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being untruthful rather than the truthfulness of the statement itself that is considered.

So, is calling someone a liar liable to result in court proceedings? It depends on which definition applies, and the intent. A white lie, for example, may just be for the purpose of simplification where the full detail makes no real difference. Now, let us talk about parking in Morley.

This letter was published in the Morley Obtiser on Wednesday:

I am writing in response to the letter published last week by regular correspondent Nigel Bywater.
The new parking arrangements have been warmly welcomed by the overwhelming majority of residents who have raised the issue with me. Some have offered some suggestions to improve the arrangements, such as better signage and an implementation of the scheme between 8am and 6pm only, and we are exploring these suggestions with officers to see if they can be introduced.
To clarify for all your readers I would re-confirm the following.
All parking in Morley is free- there is no charge to park at any of Morley's car parks. The car park at Morrisons has a three hour limit for those spaces closest to the Town centre and there is no time limit on the spaces at the top of the car park. If you are parking in the bottom section for a three hour period, you need a ticket. You do not need a ticket if you are parking in the unrestricted areas.
The ticket machines stopped working on Monday and Tuesday last week.
I reported them following my own observations and they were fixed by wednesday. If Nigel Bywater had made as much effort in ringing me to report the fault as he does writing letters to the papers then I could have had them fixed quicker. But as ever with Mr. Bywater, whether it's the new sports centre, events in Morley, Morley's Mayor or the new car parking arrangements, he rarely has anything positive to offer.
COUN ROBERT FINNIGAN
Morley Borough Independent

Now I can't comment on whether the new arrangements have been warmly welcomed or not, but every time I go in (which tends to be outside of core shopping hours) there are puzzled people standing at the machines, asking questions.

Why do the Councillors need to explore suggestions about signage & hours of operation? Surely they gave it all careful thought before it was implemnented? Or was it a case of Traffic basically deciding the scope of the scheme and the Councillors nodding? After all, the original concern was people parking all day (which a subsequent survey said was not the case) and it seems rather bizarre to make the scheme a 24 hour one when it isn't warranted.

"There is no time limit on the spaces at the top of the car park"- Yes there is, 23 hours maximum, as specified in the parking order and mentioned in the document produced for handout at Morrisons, additional document item 10c at The Outer South meeting on October 20th. Coun Finnigan was there. Was he not paying attention, had he simply forgotten about this or did he just decide to lie? It is certainly a falsehood definition #1 and a lie definition #4.

"The ticket machines stopped working on Monday and Tuesday last week". And the rest. Qweensway 2 machine was broken on October 25th, November 2nd and November 3rd whilst Qweensway 3 was broken on Nov 2nd/3rd. How do I know this? Because I commented about it on facebook at the time.

He then proceeds to slag off Nigel Bywater for not ringing him. Surely nobody should have to ring Councillors as anything other than a matter of last resort when things aren't getting done. After all, parking attendants patrol the Queensway area and apparently always check that the machines are working before issuing tickets. Perhaps they should also report the faulty machines to their base as well so that it doesn't need the intervention of a Councillor to get them resolved.

I can recall Morley Borough Independents telling me not to worry about being smeared by the Labour Party when I stood for the Town Council, as it wasn't the done thing for politicians to attack "concerned citizens". When did that go out of the window, and why?

I also notice that the paper didn't print Cllr Finnigan's address. I'm curious to know if he is still living in Queen Street.