|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 27, 2023 15:21:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jan 27, 2023 22:48:42 GMT
Considering he was the great Tory hope 2.5 years ago, he is proof that they are devoid of talent and ideas. At PMQ's he refers to Corbyn so often I'm beginning to think he is actually FYD . It will take a generation to put the UK back on track for the damage this bunch of utter wasters have done.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 28, 2023 10:34:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jan 28, 2023 11:07:17 GMT
Absolutely nothing to see here ... apart from Fiona Bruce, the wife of a Tory donor (Nigel Sharrocks) defending Tories on the BBC, a channel currently chaired by another Tory donor, Richard Sharp. It's quite staggering how brazen she is in doing it and it surely calls her journalistic impartiality into question. And when she finally gets called out for it, she claims that her 'opinion' doesn't count. I so wish he'd replied with "well we're not talking about OPINIONS here are we Fiona? We're talking about, erm ... FACTS!" Journalism really isn’t the same anymore. It’s become more like a talk show. They’ve somehow come to the conclusion that people don’t desire dry facts and journalistic integrity, they want opinion and glamour. They are “news personalities” now. In my opinion, that started with Fox News, or at the very least, it accelerated it. Fox get huge ratings and pay their personalities very well, so everyone wants to be one.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Jan 28, 2023 11:30:23 GMT
Absolutely nothing to see here ... apart from Fiona Bruce, the wife of a Tory donor (Nigel Sharrocks) defending Tories on the BBC, a channel currently chaired by another Tory donor, Richard Sharp. It's quite staggering how brazen she is in doing it and it surely calls her journalistic impartiality into question. And when she finally gets called out for it, she claims that her 'opinion' doesn't count. I so wish he'd replied with "well we're not talking about OPINIONS here are we Fiona? We're talking about, erm ... FACTS!" Saw a great retort from the SNP bloke at PMQs this week. "I'm not sure which question the Prime Minister thinks I asked him, but it certainly wasn't the one he answered"
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jan 28, 2023 11:54:27 GMT
Absolutely nothing to see here ... apart from Fiona Bruce, the wife of a Tory donor (Nigel Sharrocks) defending Tories on the BBC, a channel currently chaired by another Tory donor, Richard Sharp. It's quite staggering how brazen she is in doing it and it surely calls her journalistic impartiality into question. And when she finally gets called out for it, she claims that her 'opinion' doesn't count. I so wish he'd replied with "well we're not talking about OPINIONS here are we Fiona? We're talking about, erm ... FACTS!" Saw a great retort from the SNP bloke at PMQs this week. "I'm not sure which question the Prime Minister thinks I asked him, but it certainly wasn't the one he answered" Saw that. The SNP bloke made Sunak look like a complete fool in that exchange. OS.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Jan 28, 2023 13:05:54 GMT
carol vorderman has come out fighting recently ...
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Jan 28, 2023 13:09:54 GMT
carol vorderman has come out fighting recently ... Pretty sure this isn't the reason Sunak wants everyone to be good at maths..
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 28, 2023 17:04:25 GMT
carol vorderman has come out fighting recently ... 10x the woman that riley is. Carol voderman would have her for breakfast on the numbers round.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Jan 28, 2023 20:16:27 GMT
Boris fans still not believing what a duplicitous twat he really is.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 28, 2023 20:57:44 GMT
Boris fans still not believing what a duplicitous twat he really is. So Boris categorically denies Richard Sharp knows anything about his Financial Affairs. A week before the loan is made The Cabinet Office writes to Johnson to tell him to stop getting Financial Advice from Richard Sharp. They also say in the letter that Johnson doesn't need to declare in his MPs Interests that Sam Blyth acted as Guarantor for Johnson's loan as he is Canadian. Sam Blyth became a Multi Millionaire by establishing Private Colleges in Canada. Blyth at the time of giving a Guantee for Johnson's was expected to be appointed as Cheif Executive of British Council. The British Council is a Cultural Organisation established to promote Britain Internationally through Education. Boris says he didn't know that Blyth was in line for a position in the British Council. All seems very straightforward to me ... nothing to see here
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 28, 2023 21:32:29 GMT
Boris fans still not believing what a duplicitous twat he really is. So Boris categorically denies Richard Sharp knows anything about his Financial Affairs. A week before the loan is made The Cabinet Office writes to Johnson to tell him to stop getting Financial Advice from Richard Sharp. They also say in the letter that Johnson doesn't need to declare in his MPs Interests that Sam Blyth acted as Guarantor for Johnson's loan as he is Canadian. Sam Blyth became a Multi Millionaire by establishing Private Colleges in Canada. Blyth at the time of giving a Guantee for Johnson's was expected to be appointed as Cheif Executive of British Council. The British Council is a Cultural Organisation established to promote Britain Internationally through Education. Boris says he didn't know that Blyth was in line for a position in the British Council. All seems very straightforward to me ... nothing to see here Has it been established ... 1. Who actually lent Johnson the money? 2. Why did Johnson even need a guarantor for the loan in the first place? I haven't seen either of these questions being posed anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jan 28, 2023 21:46:04 GMT
Boris fans still not believing what a duplicitous twat he really is. Let's not forget that the Tory membership would have this piece of shit back as PM in a flash.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 28, 2023 21:50:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jan 28, 2023 22:10:16 GMT
Boris fans still not believing what a duplicitous twat he really is. Why is this idiot still around?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 28, 2023 22:51:34 GMT
So Boris categorically denies Richard Sharp knows anything about his Financial Affairs. A week before the loan is made The Cabinet Office writes to Johnson to tell him to stop getting Financial Advice from Richard Sharp. They also say in the letter that Johnson doesn't need to declare in his MPs Interests that Sam Blyth acted as Guarantor for Johnson's loan as he is Canadian. Sam Blyth became a Multi Millionaire by establishing Private Colleges in Canada. Blyth at the time of giving a Guantee for Johnson's was expected to be appointed as Cheif Executive of British Council. The British Council is a Cultural Organisation established to promote Britain Internationally through Education. Boris says he didn't know that Blyth was in line for a position in the British Council. All seems very straightforward to me ... nothing to see here Has it been established ... 1. Who actually lent Johnson the money? It wasn't a Loan in the conventional sense rather a "Line of Credit" very similar to an Overdraft up to £800,000 It would have been arranged via whoever Johnson Banks with Most likely Coutts & Co2. Why did Johnson even need a guarantor for the loan in the first place? The essential reason Boris needed the Guarantee was that his lifestyle and financial commitments to various ex-Wife's, Mistresses and offspring, official and unofficial was not sufficiently covered by his salary when he entered Government As a back bench MP he was able to supplement his income with writings, books and speeches. I guess his ego and calculation was short term pain would pay off after he left office. The comparisons to Lloyd George are uncanny Banks may be benign but have a duty to shareholders hence why a Guarantor was neededI haven't seen either of these questions being posed anywhere. Another important question is we know there is Prima Facie case that Johnson traded favours to help his Financial situation
Another Question is what Security risk did Johnson pose because of his Financial situation particularly from his Russian Chums. Its on record that he received £160K to play tennis with the wife of Putins ex Finance Minister Chernukhin Then we have Johnson's infamous attendance at a party in Italy where he met with ex High Ranking KGB Officer Alexander Lebedev without his Security Detail. This Party took place 2 days after Johnson attended a specially convened NATO Meeting to discuss Russia after the Salisbury Poisonings. He later went on to make Alexander's son Evgeny a Lord against the wishes of the Security Forces
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jan 28, 2023 22:58:18 GMT
Lovely video They’re getting away scot free aren’t they…
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Jan 28, 2023 23:52:40 GMT
The biggest stain on the city in my lifetime.
Reprehensible comments, followed by this utterly pathetic response 3 days later.
We will have some on this board who would have privately cheered his comments, but I think the overwhelming majority can agree that this person cannot represent the city following the next election.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 29, 2023 9:21:37 GMT
Zahawi sacked
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 29, 2023 9:38:10 GMT
Zahawi sacked Sunak obviously thinks it is fine to not pay tax. But at least he drew the line at a breach of the ministerial code on this occasion. Obviously Braverman was let off. I wonder how long Raab has got.
|
|
|
Post by thewonderstuff on Jan 29, 2023 9:46:42 GMT
Zahawi sacked A brief timeline in the life of a corrupt, dying Government
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 29, 2023 10:46:57 GMT
His response....blames the media.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 29, 2023 11:09:29 GMT
Chris Mason of the BBC:
This is Sir Laurie Magnus’s debut as the prime minister’s ethics adviser.
And he is blunt, pithy, direct.
And so is the prime minister on reading Sir Laurie’s conclusions.
And so Nadhim Zahawi is a goner.
Zahawi’s public response makes no reference to his breach of the ministerial code, but instead has a pop at journalists.
Privately he’s been deeply angry at the tone of some of the media coverage, with some of his allies feeling it had undertones of racism.
His critics say his decision to threaten some journalists with libel writs, when they were exposing information about him, was outrageous
Apparently its racist lol. Is that because his white tax dodging colleagues haven't been found out yet?
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 29, 2023 11:10:14 GMT
His response....blames the media. Not a hint of remorse or regret.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 29, 2023 11:22:44 GMT
Random question. I know he's lost his role as the chair and is now a back bencher. But has he not lost the whip too and should be an Independant? Can't see if this is clarified anywhere.
Surely a tax dodger by the millions doesn't keep the tory whip?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 29, 2023 11:44:22 GMT
As Oggy says they are going down the Ministerial Code route rather than Tax Avoidance, I doubt many will draw the distinction
By definition in Rishi Letter, Nadhim The Conservative Party Chairman must have either acted without Integrity or was not Accountable or he lacked Professionalism maybe all three.
While this outcome serves as a Schadenfreude towards the slimy Zahawi it is an unsatisfactory outcome. It is in the gift of Rishi to Publish the findings of the enquiry or not. Whether they are published or not the only logical conclusion for the findings is that Zahawi acted improperly when he negotiated with HMRC while Chancellor What is not clear is if Zahawi's position influenced him in getting a more favourable outcome with HMRC than an ordinary member of Joe Public. There is a Prima Facie case which should be investigated further.
If this did happen it is a Criminal Offence under Common Law which should be investigated by the CPS and the Ministerial Advisors initial findings handed over. Do I have any confidence this will happen?
The Legal Definition of Misconduct in a Public Office is:
The criminal offence of misconduct in a Public Office may be committed by a Public Office Holder who, while acting as a Public Office Holder wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty or wilfully misconduct his or her self, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the Public's Trust in that Office
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 29, 2023 11:54:03 GMT
Random question. I know he's lost his role as the chair and is now a back bencher. But has he not lost the whip too and should be an Independant? Can't see if this is clarified anywhere. Surely a tax dodger by the millions doesn't keep the tory whip? There wouldn’t be many tories left if they withdrew the whip just for a bit of tax dodging!
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jan 29, 2023 12:02:00 GMT
Random question. I know he's lost his role as the chair and is now a back bencher. But has he not lost the whip too and should be an Independant? Can't see if this is clarified anywhere. Surely a tax dodger by the millions doesn't keep the tory whip? No, I'm pretty sure he has not lost the Whip. As he says in his reply letter, he will continue to support the party from the back benches. Sunak would have said in his letter to Zahawi if he'd been booted out of the party. He most certainly didn't do that. In fact Sunak praised him for what he had done and asked that he continue his support. But there's still time for him to lose the Whip if his actions are, in the future, found to be worse than what he has already been found to have committed. OS.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 29, 2023 12:05:30 GMT
Random question. I know he's lost his role as the chair and is now a back bencher. But has he not lost the whip too and should be an Independant? Can't see if this is clarified anywhere. Surely a tax dodger by the millions doesn't keep the tory whip? No, I'm pretty sure he has not lost the Whip. As he says in his reply letter, he will continue to support the party from the back benches. Sunak would have said in his letter to Zahawi if he'd been booted out of the party. He most certainly didn't do that. In fact Sunak praised him for what he had done and asked that he continue his support. But there's still time for him to lose the Whip if his actions are, in the future, found to be worse than what he has already been found to have committed. OS. "found" being the operative word. It's only an issue when the public find out in the tories eyes.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 29, 2023 12:15:18 GMT
As Oggy says they are going down the Ministerial Code route rather than Tax Avoidance, I doubt many will draw the distinction By definition in Rishi Letter, Nadhim The Conservative Party Chairman must have either acted without Integrity or was not Accountable or he lacked Professionalism maybe all three. While this outcome serves as a Schadenfreude towards the slimy Zahawi it is an unsatisfactory outcome. It is in the gift of Rishi to Publish the findings of the enquiry or not. Whether they are published or not the only logical conclusion for the findings is that Zahawi acted improperly when he negotiated with HMRC while Chancellor What is not clear is if Zahawi's position influenced him in getting a more favourable outcome with HMRC than an ordinary member of Joe Public. There is a Prima Facie case which should be investigated further. If this did happen it is a Criminal Offence under Common Law which should be investigated by the CPS and the Ministerial Advisors initial findings handed over. Do I have any confidence this will happen? The Legal Definition of Misconduct in a Public Office is: The criminal offence of misconduct in a Public Office may be committed by a Public Office Holder who, while acting as a Public Office Holder wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty or wilfully misconduct his or her self, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the Public's Trust in that Office Give him a break. I mean who hasn’t accidentally established a complex trust structure in Gibraltar and then erroneously claimed it was set up by your father, and then mistakenly denied that you were a beneficiary!? My LinkedIn is full of tax lawyers who are absolutely damning of Zahawi and his aggressive attempts to silence the truth coming out. White collar crime. He should be prohibited from ever holding public office again, and the trust structure he used to dodge tax and hide assets should be made unlawful. At least he had to pay lots in penalties so he has had to pay more than had he been honest from day one.
|
|