Printable View
Evgeniy Lebedev, made a peer by Boris Johnson against the advice of the security service, repeatedly tried to meet the chief of MI6 at the MI6 HQ, which said head turned down, saying that he'd have no part in Lebedev's attempts to infiltrate the establishment. Johnson knew of this, and made him a peer anyway.
From October 2019
Brexit party MEPs vote against plans to tackle Russian propaganda
I don't know. And as yet I've seen nothing apart from innuendo. Blair's close link to the USA cost a vast amount of money, lives and international reputation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
is this more of the tin-foil hat'ery that russians "bought brexit and own boris"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
heavy on insinuation, light on evidence.
for the fifth time:
"what policy influence have the russian's bought?"
1. Not training 20k ukranians over years in light anti-tank and sniper warfare?
2. Not supplying thousands of modern (non-mouldy!) light anti-tank weapons before (!), the war started?
3. Not building political coalitions across n. europe to support ukraine before (!) Russia had done 'bad things' that justified action?
4. Not outfitting their navy to protect odessa?
5. Not doing all the other things that have made UK an invaluable ally in the eyes of Ukraine (you know, the people who actually matter in this scenario!)?
The Commons committee noted that no evidence was found because the government was actively looking away from the issue so as not to see anything. And the defence is still mounted that there is no direct evidence. Back in Cold War days, merely taking the Russian money and associating with high level Russian individuals would have been enough to make sure a politician were never allowed near high office. And the security services did indeed advise just this. Never mind the security services or their advice though. Democracy overrides any scruples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
As much as I'm sceptical about various US governments, I do not believe any of them, not even that of Trump (another politician bought by Russia), actively sets out to harm the UK as a matter of policy. The Russian government under Putin does.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
At least your lot insisted on getting paid. Our previous administration's flunkies were shined on with fabricated promises and silly rumors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
At least you kicked out your lot. Our lot will be re-elected for the foreseeable on "Get Brexit Done". Which was a Russian funded campaign that our intelligence services were instructed to turn their eyes away from. If you keep your eyes shut, you can't see the evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
For the nonce. Sadly 11/2022 is likely to bring out a lot of chest-thumping Trumpers claiming that the expected GOP gains are the beginnings of a great return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Just for clarity, are you claiming:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
a) that Russia sought to influence the EU ref campaign in the direction of Leave
b) that the Leave outcome of the vote was substantially the result of Russia's work
One of those possibilities is reasonable, but who cares. Everyone chucked their twopenn'orth in: "back of the queue".
The other of those possibilities is tinfoil hat'ery from a quack.
DP World-backed Thames Freeport becomes first UK economic trade zone to open
And more recent news from DP World.Quote:
Sep 15, 2021
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak opened Britain’s first post-Brexit freeport – the UAE-backed Thames Freeport – on Wednesday as the nation looks to boost its trade ambitions after its exit from the European Union.
‘Scandalous betrayal’: MPs condemn P&O Ferries for mass sacking of 800 staff
Quote:
Ministers and trade unions have condemned P&O Ferries’ mass sacking of 800 British seafarers to replace them with agency crew as shameful and “completely unacceptable”, amid furious calls for action against the company’s Dubai owners.
...
Staff were told by P&O to discharge passengers and freight before being sent a video message telling them P&O “vessels will be primarily crewed by a third-party crew provider … Your final day of employment is today.”
I've said that the Tories will be elected ad infinitum on Get Brexit Done. The next general election is due in 2 years time, and Johnson has started his campaign. What is he campaigning on? Ukraine and Brexit, explicitly drawing a parallel between Ukraine wanting freedom from Russia and Britain wanting freedom from the EU. Despite one of Russia's issues with Ukraine being Ukraine wanting to join the EU (whom they've now formally applied to join).
Get Brexit Done. Forever.
Tory MP suspended while he's being investigated for sexual assault and coking up. Oh, and this is completely legal and unactionable against, he's been taking money from a Russian businessman whose business (services for oligarchs) has since been banned, even before this recent Ukraine stuff.
Ah, but he has democratic backing, so everything is excused.
How committed does a politician have to be to their country to hold high office? Our finance minister, effectively no.2 in the government after the PM, was declared a permanent US resident while he was holding the office of chancellor. Are US veeps allowed to be permanent residents of other countries whilst being vice president? Oh, and the chancellor's wife was apparently indulging in tax fraud to the tune of millions.
But hey, at least the Tories got Brexit done.
'fraud'?
as in wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
do you actually believe this, to the extent you would willingly have it recorded on a public platform like social media?
US journalists now asking the White House about this (Sunak's green card). White House secretary points them to State Department and Homeland Security.
BTW, Furunculus, the Sunaks agreed to pay several million in back taxes that they should have been paying previously. If I used words incorrectly, can you explain to me, in terms that I can understand, what's been going on? I'm happy to withdraw what I said earlier if you can explain what's going on with those taxes.
It isn't fraud as she is using the utterly nonsensical non-dom status method that governments have studiously chosen not to close for decades. So she's effectively choosing to give a donation. She no more owes money than a company that was paying corporate tax at 19% 3 years ago and now is paying 25% - the law was bieng followed.
Our system requires the PM to do something as our head of state has refused to anything controversial unless it either serves herself or of course Prince Andrew. So yeah, nothing will be done since Boris doesn't see why his mates need to follow the law. And equally the Commons doesn't hold the PM to account.
Don't blame the player, blame the game.
Sadly, if in a democracy the populace is prepared to overlook events or even base their voting on historic events then that is allowed. My grandmother refused to vote Tory due to what Churchill - not Thatcher, Churchill - did to the miners. That he'd been dead for decades didn't matter.
~:smoking:
Any observations on Sunak's green card? Should our no.2 politician be holding high office while simultaneously holding a status that disqualifies him for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Almost amusing - surely he was vetted by both the Tories and the Civil Service. But of course no one to blame.
Did he have to declare these thing and fail to do so? A breach of Ministerial Code? A sacking offence
Finally something the Monarch chooses to action?
The headline changes but everything else is the same. I look forward to my every 5 years opportunity to cast my vote in a safe seat which at most would change a handful of people at the top of the pyramid.
~:smoking:
It's significant enough that a US journalist raised it to the White House rep, stating that he should not have been eligible for his green card from when he was elected MP in 2015 through to recently when he finally relinquished it (AFAIK you have to declare that you plan to make the US your permanent home in order to qualify for one). The US has complaints on that side, while on the UK side one would wonder whether there is a conflict of loyalty in a government minister second in power only to the PM, who has declared that they do not regard the UK as their home. If Sunak regards the US as his home, shouldn't he bugger off there instead of imposing himself on us as the arbiter of this country's finances?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I'm pointing out that I haven't seen any sign of illegality, and i'd be careful making that assertion given the UK's libel laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Same as Rory's point about the non-dom laws, they aren't necessarily good but they are what they are, and we're were imfamous as being the home for defamation cases.
On the point about the morality of paying 'enough' tax... this is a fundamental principle upon which the UK tax law is built on:
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."
Lord Clyde in the case of Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754, at 763,764:
How should I word it then, given that I'm a simple person not au fait with the difference between tax fraud and tax dodger/evader/whatever? I've been paying via PAYE and whatever bills I receive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
it is very simple:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
1. Tax evasion (and fraud statute generally) is illegal - and you want to think very carefully about stating that someone is acting illegally lest you make defamatory statements which injures the reputation of another person:
https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enfor...defamation.htm
2. Tax avoidence (and optimisation generally) is totally fine - and its absolute fineness and moral legitimacy is enshrined in Common Law since Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929]:
https://www.taxationweb.co.uk/tax-ar...principle.html
Don't know how you would word it, but Sunak changed policy to benefit non-domiciles that would have affected his household income, and his wife's company was involved in numerous discussions with the government that resulted in government contracts worth millions. Is it libellous to say this?
Hence legal but immoral. He's asked to be referred to the oversight committee. Call my cynical but is this out of a sudden desire to get things review irrespective of outcome or is it so unlikely to do anything that he's happy to do it for the "optics".
Most of what Politicians do falls into this category as they set the laws and effectively have no oversight that has any teeth.
~:smoking:
either "legal", or "illegal".Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
no more and no less than that.
It's now official. Johnson broke the law, and he lied to Parliament about it.
Amusing [VIDEO]
There's oversight, it's just difficult to get it applied to prominent individuals (ask Trump) in any system that doesn't formally prioritize such.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Summary: The South Dakota attorney general ran over a pedestrian lethally in the middle of the night, hit and ran (the victim's glasses were blown into his car), tried to brush it off as a misunderstanding or the result of the victim's intoxication or suicidality.
The AG was not indicted as a normal person would have been, but there was an expectation that he would resign. He did not resign and now is running for reelection, creating the scintilla of a possibility that his own party (one guess which) will impeach him in the near future.
What more "oversight" is needed in a clear-cut case of negligent homicide that state police thoroughly documented? Governmental actors need to have a willingness to 'pull the trigger' is all. It seems to me primarily a matter of creating incentive structures for the scalps of politicians and magnates...
Last year Mexico held a symbolic referendum on whether former presidents can be prosecuted for corruption. It won with 98% of the vote with 7% turnout. That seems perfectly representative of the underlying issue.
So many firsts!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
First PM to be convicted of a crime.
The most fines to be given out at one address - is it just the Members from numbers 10 and 11? Not to worry, several MPs have already backed the PM.
Boris always wanted to get into the history books and finally he's managed it - no one can be an earlier first.
In theory we do have such a system. But it so decrepit with no use (75 years and counting) that even though this is possibly the clearest time do do Something in decades, nothing will happen. Of course not exercising the power to remove the PM for any number of reasons - I realise that is fantasy. But even an anaemic statement that the Monarch is "disappointed" in what has happened and hopes that those involved will do the right thing for the country would be better than just arranging the next outing with Prince Andrew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I do feel sorry for Sir Kier. He goes to PMQs each week and he must wonder what the point is. Nothing matters. What on earth can he say or do that will have any impact? And by the election it will all be a distant memory in any case.
~:smoking:
Entirely separate from the moral/professional/political pressure for him to resign - which he deserves however the chips fall - a FPN is not considered a conviction.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It is deemed a conviction up until it is paid, not once that event is achieved.
https://www.noblesolicitors.co.uk/ab...y-notices.html
Quote:
As is the case with the FPNs discussed above, the incentive is for the offender to “pay up”, therefore, no criminal conviction or admission of guilt is associated with payment of the penalty.