Jump to content
A Load of Squit

New Tory Leader

Recommended Posts

Angela Richardson decided to pick a fight with James O’Brien from LBC, unfortunately for her, it wasn’t him. Maybe she should have stuck to fluffing up Dominic Raab. 
This is not acceptable, @AJRichardsonMP. Please disclose the identity of the ‘James O’Brien’ you were referring to in order to confirm that it was not me or apologise properly in a tweet of similar prominence to your original libel. I will be consulting lawyers on Monday.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Herman said:

They lie about everything.

 

It is their default position. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-demand-sleaze-inquiry-over-funding-of-boris-johnson-s-by-election-jet-flight/ar-AANDupb?ocid=msedgntp

Labour is demanding a sleaze inquiry into claims that Boris Johnson used taxpayers’ money to fund a private jet to fly to Hartlepool to campaign for a Conservative by-election candidate.

The ministerial code states that ministers “must not use government resources for Party political purposes”.

But an official party spending return obtained by the Business Insider website recorded that the cost to the Conservatives of the prime minister’s travel was “nil”, suggesting that the cost of the flight was met from government funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Now then, this looks ..........................................................

 

This really is a Government that is more like a Crime Syndicate than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Now then, this looks ..........................................................

 

This is really stupid of the pair of them.

I have looked at the background.  Local planning officers recommended approval for the scheme, Councillors originally refused the application (hence the appeal)  but then withdrew all objections.  The inspector recommended that the SoS approve.

Jenrick really had no option but to give the green light, so why (if it is true) accept a donation so soon after? It just invites suspicion , criticism and comment.  

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Herman said:

Because he's a corrupt son of a ****. 

Perhaps,  but this case is not evidence of that. This consent was getting granted regardless of the SoS getting involved.

Now if they had said that the SoS had deliberately drawn attention to this case in order to make it appear that large donations from developers  were entirely normal  (and really they shouldn't be!) and to make his opponents look a bit silly then I might agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for Jenrick is that he has serious form for corruption when it comes to giving planning permission to Tory donors and chums. The Most famous case being his illegal intervention to give planning consent for a project to save Richard Desmond an estimated £45m in tax (Desmond contributed £12k to Tory funds days later) (https://inews.co.uk/opinion/robert-jenrick-richard-desmond-planning-application-scandal-corruption-458029). 

Even Jenrick had to admit he had acted illegally, yet still he remained in office like so many other cabinet ministers who have broken the law and/or ministerial code. So no surprise that he continues to perform favours for his paymasters since it carries no punishment from this government that is corrupt from the top down.

A brief look at today's headlines show that sleaze is endemic within this government:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/government-orders-nhs-trusts-to-call-hospital-refurbs-new-hospitals-as-it-scrambles-to-hit-2030-build-target/ar-AANMp9V?ocid=msedgntp

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tory-mps-take-five-times-more-vip-freebies-than-any-other-party-in-200k-bonanza/ar-AANLGPd?ocid=msedgntp

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-e2-80-98allergic-to-truth-e2-80-99-says-labour-e2-80-93-as-tory-hq-finally-reveals-how-donor-paid-toward-flat-refurb/ar-AANM4ir?ocid=uxbndlbing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After Raab's very poor efforts you think they couldn't get any lower. Here's another idiot to prove they can.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/08/2021 at 13:51, Barbe bleu said:

Perhaps,  but this case is not evidence of that. This consent was getting granted regardless of the SoS getting involved.

Now if they had said that the SoS had deliberately drawn attention to this case in order to make it appear that large donations from developers  were entirely normal  (and really they shouldn't be!) and to make his opponents look a bit silly then I might agree!

Perhaps,  but this case is not evidence of that.  I would suggest that the complete opposite is true.

This consent was getting granted regardless of the SoS getting involved. You seem to be making a huge assumption here, i.e. that the SoS was the only recipient of a 'donation' which would be a very naive assumption indeed and suggest you have no experience whatsoever of how planning committees frequently operate in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Perhaps,  but this case is not evidence of that.  I would suggest that the complete opposite is true.

This consent was getting granted regardless of the SoS getting involved. You seem to be making a huge assumption here, i.e. that the SoS was the only recipient of a 'donation' which would be a very naive assumption indeed and suggest you have no experience whatsoever of how planning committees frequently operate in this country.

Thing is I took the time to read the relevant documents, rather than what is on twitter, you can do so too if you want.   Page 23 has a good potted history

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3244410&CoID=0

The council officers recommended approval,  the councillors , belatedly, accepted approval should be granted and the civil servant inspector recommended approval.  It would be odd if the SoS did not grant permission.

If you want to believe that all these people (local officers, elected councillors, planning inspector and SoS) were bribed then fair enough but I imagine that they would find this suggestion grossly offensive and libellous.

I happen to think that developer donations to development decision makers is problematic but to use this case as evidence of corruption does no service whatsoever to your argument.

Move on from this one.  The battle is lost but the war can continue

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Thing is I took the time to read the relevant documents, rather than what is on twitter, you can do so too if you want.   Page 23 has a good potted history

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3244410&CoID=0

The council officers recommended approval,  the councillors , belatedly, accepted approval should be granted and the civil servant inspector recommended approval.  It would be odd if the SoS did not grant permission.

If you want to believe that all these people (local officers, elected councillors, planning inspector and SoS) were bribed then fair enough but I imagine that they would find this suggestion grossly offensive and libellous.

I happen to think that developer donations to development decision makers is problematic but to use this case as evidence of corruption does no service whatsoever to your argument.

Move on from this one.  The battle is lost but the war can continue

 

How does the saying go....

 

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....it probably is a duck.

Stop the donations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

How does the saying go....

 

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....it probably is a duck.

Stop the donations.

There is a real argument for a ban, but it gets lost amongst the conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

How does the saying go....

 

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....it probably is Bill

 

Had to correct that one for you👍

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

There is a real argument for a ban, but it gets lost amongst the conspiracy theories.

Is the Anal Fiend perk necessary to tame Deathclaws?: fo76

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

There is a real argument for a ban, but it gets lost amongst the conspiracy theories.

Then this government should do it else they are culpable. No corporate or trade body (inc Trade Unions) donations to political parties.

Individual donations (UK citizens & tax payers only) capped at £1000/year. 

Fine for deliberate evasion 100 x donation on both giver and receiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Thing is I took the time to read the relevant documents, rather than what is on twitter, you can do so too if you want.   Page 23 has a good potted history

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3244410&CoID=0

The council officers recommended approval,  the councillors , belatedly, accepted approval should be granted and the civil servant inspector recommended approval.  It would be odd if the SoS did not grant permission.

If you want to believe that all these people (local officers, elected councillors, planning inspector and SoS) were bribed then fair enough but I imagine that they would find this suggestion grossly offensive and libellous.

I happen to think that developer donations to development decision makers is problematic but to use this case as evidence of corruption does no service whatsoever to your argument.

Move on from this one.  The battle is lost but the war can continue

 

😊 I don't think so, there is no war (on corruption) and never has been - that is exactly the point.

This kind of corruption has been endemic within the UK for decades, the only thing that has changed in recent years and which has obviously therefore attracted a lot of attention is that it has come much more out into the open especially at ministerial level.

Since we already know that whilst Johnson is PM neither breaking the Ministerial Code or the law will result in any penalty for the offending minister, I suppose there is no real need for them to be discreet about it any more - especially as in another recent change, most of the supporters of the 'law and order' party seem equally unconcerned, not just about a few planning decisions here & there, but a range of far more serious abuses some of which have cost vast amounts of public money (another topic which used to be close to the heart of most Tory supporters but now quietly forgotten).

So there is no battle or war just the observation that this country's gentle descent towards third world standards has now really started to pick up pace.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again Johnson's Tory party mimicks Trump's GOP in trying to disenfranchise non-Tory voters, and the public will have to cough up £120m to pay for this poll fixing:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tories-blow-120million-on-forcing-all-voters-to-show-id-despite-tiny-number-of-frauds/ar-AAO5vRC?ocid=msedgntp

Tories blow £120million on forcing all voters to show ID - despite tiny number of frauds

Tory plans to force all voters to show ID will cost £120million over a decade, a devastating government document shows.

It reveals for the first time the price of the crackdown on voter fraud at polling stations - for which just three people have been convicted in seven years.

The Cabinet Office impact assessment estimates the policy, which campaigners say will marginalise poorer and older voters, will cost between £65m and £180m over the next 10 years, with a “central estimate” of £120m.

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, horsefly said:

Yet again Johnson's Tory party mimicks Trump's GOP in trying to disenfranchise non-Tory voters, and the public will have to cough up £120m to pay for this poll fixing:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tories-blow-120million-on-forcing-all-voters-to-show-id-despite-tiny-number-of-frauds/ar-AAO5vRC?ocid=msedgntp

Tories blow £120million on forcing all voters to show ID - despite tiny number of frauds

Tory plans to force all voters to show ID will cost £120million over a decade, a devastating government document shows.

It reveals for the first time the price of the crackdown on voter fraud at polling stations - for which just three people have been convicted in seven years.

The Cabinet Office impact assessment estimates the policy, which campaigners say will marginalise poorer and older voters, will cost between £65m and £180m over the next 10 years, with a “central estimate” of £120m.

image.png

Surely most Tory voters just have to show their pension books💀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, keelansgrandad said:

Surely most Tory voters just have to show their pension books💀

I think a Tory party donation receipt will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...