Count Steer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 12:19 pm
Just a point of order. Johnson got his personal living quarters/flat decorated, not his office.
Irrelevant. This was not his personal property, they are accommodations based around his term in office as Prime MInister. He was forced out of office and two numbskulls installed in his place. They would then as part of their office, have been resident at number 11 Downing street where the "offence" of redecorating the fabric our British political offices was committed.
I assume the British public do not benefit from Sir Kiers mortgages being paid off, holidays, his mistress being paid off nor do we get to wear his wife's clothes. Your mileage may vary.
“No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”
Plato
demographic wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 6:45 am
He didn't report it (which suggests there's a lot more donations/freebies he didn't report) and was fined for it.
So, bearing that in mind, do you still think it was OK?
Then there was that "loan" of 800k that Richard Sharp (of the BBC) areanged and acted as guarantor for. You know, the one that Richard Sharp resigned over.
All above board, nothing to see here, please move on eh?
When you say "He didn't report it" you are being disingenuous. I didn't report it either (neither did you) This is a cheap trick the MSM use to smear their chosen target. You then look at who actually is responsible for reporting the donation and it is a process which at the time was outside of Boris' control. When Boris was informed of the "poor optics" of such "extravagance" he paid it back himself!
Beyond that nominal transgression of accounting procedure, I happen to like the idea of a beautifully and extravagantly decorated office for the Prime Minister of the UK. It's where we entertain our potential political allies to proclaim the status of our great country in the world. We don't want to take them into a disheveled hovel. They could come here for that.
So Boris sought a powerful and established (nee wealthy) individual to act as guarantor for a loan. That is of course a potential conflict of interest due to the position of the guarantor. It's not taking money though.
Unlike Sir Kier Stalin who has been in the pocket of the mysterious Lord Alli who paid off a mortgage for some tart Starmer banged up. Rumour has it he also arranged a quiet payoff. Then there are the HUGE personal contributions directly into the pocket this Champaign socialist. The loan of a multimillion pond apartment, holidays, buying clothes for his wife.
Now while you might try and infer that Boris "must have" been bent because he spent so much on decorating Number 10, we can see that Sir Kier demonstrably is lining his own pocket. The only question being, what does Lord Alli get out of these intensely personal donations? A politician in his pocket?
Starmer has allegedly taken out a superinjunction over this. Only time will tell if that's true or not, but I suspect the story will break eventually even if has.
Personally I welcome the scrutiny that Starmer is getting, they should all get it.
But I also seem to recall, as my memory lasts more then three seconds, that supporters of Boris and Trump for example seem to think it doesn't matter. Or they will use absolutely any half-arsed justification as mitigation (Normally that the guy/gal on the other side "is stupid"). So there's that.
Last edited by DefTrap on Wed Oct 02, 2024 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yorick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 2:09 pm
I buy specs online. £12 a pair and perfectly adequate.
I buy 4 pairs at a time usually coz constantly lose or break them.
I similarly buy cheapos. But it seems awfully wasteful of resources that their cheapness seems to be directly related to how quickly I tend to lose them. I don't tend to lose my (rather more expensive) sunglasses at the same rate.
I kind of think my eyesight should be fully in the hands of highly trained ophthalmologists through to artisanal handcrafted eyeglasses, rather than curtailing the process to chinese sweatshop specs. Plus they've almost certainly put a microchip in my cheap specs in order to steal my personality and give me the China monkey-aids.
The Lucy Letby case looks more and more like a cause for concern and doubt!
Telegraph wrote:Lucy Letby was not present when a baby she was convicted of killing was harmed, a BBC investigation has found. The Telegraph reports.
Letby was found guilty of killing a boy known as Baby C by injecting air into his system at the Countess of Chester Hospital in June 2016.
During the trial, prosecution experts said an X-ray of the baby showed a “marked gaseous distention of the stomach”, which they suggested was due to a deliberate pumping of gas into his feeding tube.
However, the X-ray was taken on June 12th, when Letby was not working and had not been on shift since the morning of June 10th, BBC’s File on 4 programme reported.
Commenting on the BBC report, James Phillips, a former Government science advisor for Boris Johnson, said: “Serious doubts have emerged about whether there was ever a crime at all.
“Pivotal evidence for one of the Lucy Letby murder convictions is deeply flawed, as she appears to have never met the baby at the time it was obtained.
“She had never been on shift. This, quite obviously, calls into question whether the conviction it underpins is safe.”
Baby C later collapsed and died when Letby was on the night shift on June 13-14th, with the prosecution implying that the baby had finally been killed by another injection of air causing his stomach to balloon, crushing his lungs so he could not breathe.
In his opening argument, prosecution barrister Nicholas Johnson KC said: “Baby C was killed by air inserted into his stomach via the nasogastric tube, not into his bloodstream. It was a variation or refinement of a theme Lucy Letby had started [with earlier babies].”
During the trial, defence barrister Ben Myers KC highlighted that Letby had not been on shift when the X-ray was taken, but in summing up the judge did not remind the jury that she was not present and pointed to the radiologist’s evidence that there was a “massive gaseous dilation in the stomach”.
DefTrap wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 2:57 pm
I similarly buy cheapos. But it seems awfully wasteful of resources that their cheapness seems to be directly related to how quickly I tend to lose them. I don't tend to lose my (rather more expensive) sunglasses at the same rate.
A discussion I've had with the wife more than once, she only needs readers and at a tenner a pop treats them as disposable, but she'll give me the evil bear stare when I pick a pair of 200 quid Oakley frames, regardless of them lasting me 12 years.
Whether cheapo specs (£12?) work for you or not will depend entirely on how complex your prescription is. For many people, a pair of readers off the rack at Boots will be fine if all you need is magnification. Not for me with funny eyes.
DefTrap wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 2:48 pm
Personally I welcome the scrutiny that Starmer is getting, they should all get it.
But I also seem to recall, as my memory lasts more then three seconds, that supporters of Boris and Trump for example seem to think it doesn't matter. Or they will use absolutely any half-arsed justification as mitigation (Normally that the guy/gal on the other side "is stupid"). So there's that.
That^ absolutely.
My point was that Taipan was wrong with his numbers when he claimed that Starmah was worse that Boris in the grasping for cash scale. It was clearly, bollocks.
As for politicians accepting gifts, I'm pretty much in agreement with Ian Hislop on here.
Why do they think theyre being given loads of things?
That goes for Starmah, Boris or anyone else. It's not rocket science but I'm sure some obtuse spanner will deliberately misinterpreted it and not even manage to make it funny either.
Looks like Starmer is going to pay back a whole £6ks worth. This from the man who vowed to clean up politics ffs! Read this, https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-sta ... s-13226677, one of many articles about donations, really shows what a gravy train politics is. Shame politicians don't have to adhere to guidelines like Gremlin mentioned as then we might then get people in the job who actually want to do something good rather than amass freebies!
Wonder if there is any substance to the extra marital affair and love child rumors and his alleged superinjunction? Wonder if Mr Hypocrisy will survive it if so. I hope not!
Lord Alli is now under investigation by the Lord's commissioner over "alleged non registration on interests leading to a possible breach of the members code". Sleeze central or what!
Lord Alli is now under investigation by the Lord's commissioner over "alleged non registration on interests leading to a possible breach of the members code". Sleeze central or what!
The important word there is "alleged". Innocent until proven guilty applies to everybody, even the scumbags we don't like.
Wonder if there is any substance to the extra marital affair and love child rumors and his alleged superinjunction? Wonder if Mr Hypocrisy will survive it if so. I hope not!
Well, on the basis that heard the superinjunction was there to cover up a gay affair with Lord Alli himself, I think we can assume that it is a baseless, social media-fed pile of horseshit.
Wonder if there is any substance to the extra marital affair and love child rumors and his alleged superinjunction? Wonder if Mr Hypocrisy will survive it if so. I hope not!
Well, on the basis that heard the superinjunction was there to cover up a gay affair with Lord Alli himself, I think we can assume that it is a baseless, social media-fed pile of horseshit.
Obviously a baseless, social media fed pile of horse shit. The Right Honourable knight will easily quash all the rumours by declaring that there is no superinjunction in place and we can all get back to criticising the hypocrites for all the freebies they've helped themselves to.
Wonder if there is any substance to the extra marital affair and love child rumors and his alleged superinjunction? Wonder if Mr Hypocrisy will survive it if so. I hope not!
Well, on the basis that heard the superinjunction was there to cover up a gay affair with Lord Alli himself, I think we can assume that it is a baseless, social media-fed pile of horseshit.
Ooh! Not heard that one. I heard he had an affair resulting in a love child, but I'll diligently spread the gay one too! Hang on, perhaps it was a woman who identified as a Lord Alli. I best keep schtum as I don't want the wokeys after me!
The one politician who was entirely free of sleaze allegations, and who regularly claimed the least amount of Parliamentary expenses of any of the MPs, was the Honourable Member for Islington North. But the Press took one look at someone who was completely outside the cesspit of 'conventional' politics and realised he had to be brought down. Enter stage left the antisemitism confection.
mangocrazy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 3:14 pm
The one politician who was entirely free of sleaze allegations, and who regularly claimed the least amount of Parliamentary expenses of any of the MPs, was the Honourable Member for Islington North. But the Press took one look at someone who was completely outside the cesspit of 'conventional' politics and realised he had to be brought down. Enter stage left the antisemitism confection.
Known terrorist sympathiser might not have helped either...
Read this, 
I best keep schtum as I don't want the wokeys after me! 
