boris and rishi partygate fines

[alexmr2]

Rishi has £730,000,000

That £50 fine sure will teach him a lesson

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-05-20/ris ... s-the-list

[firlandsfarm]

He did break the law and he lied repeatedly about it. That's crystal clear, as clear as daylight, as clear as a panel of glass that's so clean you walk through it!

You just don't get it do you Derek ... if you did not think you broke the law and/or (especially 'and') you have been advised you didn't break the law then even if it is later found that you did break the law you did not lie by believing you did not. It's simple understanding of the English language, it's not rocket or any other science. But you don't have to take my word for it, just google "lie" and look at the verb definitions, they clearly include "intent" in the definitions. To say he was lying you have to show intent.

And as for gardengate, which is what I was referring to, you seem to see yourself as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. Why bother with a national police force at all? Look at the money we could save with you playing all four roles that could be applied to other needs! I wish you would come down to my police force and take over all their cases then the CC could apply the money they save to our needy causes. As for clarity, crystal or any other kind, the police didn't think so but what do they know they only carried out an investigating before making a decision so can't as well informed as someone who gleaned their information from the claim and counterclaim mill which as we all know is 100% reliable.

That's what I love about the LL brigade, they think everything is right and wonderful when it agrees with them but wrong and corrupt when it doesn't.

[firlandsfarm]

Perhaps I should have used the term "duty". It's rather like a teacher meeting one of his students on the weekend. He may have a perfectly good reason for the meeting. But if he doesn't get clearance from the headmaster and the child's parents it's understandable that people may suspect hanky-panky's going on.

Justice has to be transparent so we have a right to know about anything that could potentially be interference with the investigation. At present, nobody is owning up to requesting the meeting so somebody's hiding the truth, and they must have something to hide. Either way, it diminishes the credibility of Sue Gray's report.

BJ may have felt a bit better now that he knows he's not getting any more fines and Starmer's under investigation but a month ago he was in a deep hole. You'd think he'd have stopped digging.

I agree with what you say in principle Derek my point is who will judge when it is to be applied and when not. You are using grey areas to support your beliefs, but as we know there are 50 shades of grey so others may see a different shade than you.

[firlandsfarm]

It's typical of some people to think a defendant will either be found guilty or get away with the crime. Convicting one man and clearing another doesn't mean they're being treated differently, their behaviour was different.

Yes, I agree. One attended an arranged gathering that was known to him for about 45 mins. and and the other entered a room to find himself at what was to him a surprise gathering to commemorate him and attended for about 15 mins. I can see they were totally different.

[Derek27]

He did break the law and he lied repeatedly about it. That's crystal clear, as clear as daylight, as clear as a panel of glass that's so clean you walk through it!

... if you did not think you broke the law and/or (especially 'and') you have been advised you didn't break the law then even if it is later found that you did break the law you did not lie by believing you did not.

That statement is absolutely correct. In fact, it's not even possible to lie as a result of what you "believe" you did or did not do. You can only lie by what you actually say!

BJ said that no rules were broken. He didn't say "I don't think", "I was advised", "as far as I'm aware" or "to the best of my knowledge", he stated categorically that no rules were broken.

The police, following a lengthy investigation costing £460,000 (money well spent in my opinion), concluded that the rules were broken on no less than 126 occasions.

If somebody claiming means-tested benefits receives a substantial sum of money in a will and fails to inform the DWP, continues to claim benefit for several years and subsequentially faces criminal charges of fraud, the court will apply the law. The law doesn't simply care about whether he lied (he will have signed a declaration to inform about a change in circumstances) or knowingly mislead. The legal test is whether he can be reasonably expected to know that he was obliged to inform the DWP of his windfall. I'm sure you'll agree that that's a much fairer test than trying to prove what somebody did or didn't know, as mind-reading is still to this day science fiction.

No. 10, the place that houses the idiot who's actually running this country and set covid laws has accumulated more covid fines than any other organisation in the country. You're the one that doesn't get it!

[Derek27]

Perhaps I should have used the term "duty". It's rather like a teacher meeting one of his students on the weekend. He may have a perfectly good reason for the meeting. But if he doesn't get clearance from the headmaster and the child's parents it's understandable that people may suspect hanky-panky's going on.

Justice has to be transparent so we have a right to know about anything that could potentially be interference with the investigation. At present, nobody is owning up to requesting the meeting so somebody's hiding the truth, and they must have something to hide. Either way, it diminishes the credibility of Sue Gray's report.

BJ may have felt a bit better now that he knows he's not getting any more fines and Starmer's under investigation but a month ago he was in a deep hole. You'd think he'd have stopped digging.

I agree with what you say in principle Derek my point is who will judge when it is to be applied and when not. You are using grey areas to support your beliefs, but as we know there are 50 shades of grey so others may see a different shade than you.

If somebody on the street smacked me in the face, kicked me in the bollocks and then pissed on me before walking home, who will judge whether or not he's behaving reasonably - it's a bit of a grey area, isn't it?

It's a very basic principle of natural justice that all parties to the proceedings are privy to the same evidence and documentation and have no valid perception or reason to believe that they've been denied that. Anything short of that would automatically end a trial or hearing.

I don't know what legal jurisdiction Sue Gray's inquiry has, but if it doesn't have the same level of integrity it's useless, and I think everybody will see that.

[Archery1969]

Rumour has it that if any civil servant is named and/or fired because of Sue Gray's report then the unions are threatening 20 days of public sector strike action.

So, if you need a passport, JSA or something else relying on the public sector then you better get in quick. Good Job we don't need them for beer, smokes, porn and takeaways.

[Derek27]

It's typical of some people to think a defendant will either be found guilty or get away with the crime. Convicting one man and clearing another doesn't mean they're being treated differently, their behaviour was different.

Yes, I agree. One attended an arranged gathering that was known to him for about 45 mins. and and the other entered a room to find himself at what was to him a surprise gathering to commemorate him and attended for about 15 mins. I can see they were totally different.

When will you realise it's entirely irrelevant how much notice you've had for a gathering? It's simply a question of whether you've broken the rules!

Just remember when you were a little kid playing a board game. You probably didn't understand the rules on a few occasions and needed to be corrected, but have you ever invented your own board game and broken the rules? No. You would obey the rules and tell your friends when they're breaking the rules!

The rules of the game were quite simple. You must stay at home, no mixing of households, no meeting of more than six unless it's necessary.

Downing Street was inviting people to bring their own booze to parties while bereaved people were not allowed to attend the funeral of their lost loved ones. If you struggle to understand the anger, just try to remember the last time you lost a very close relative. How upset would you be if you couldn't attend the funeral? How upset would you be if you found out about a No. 10 gathering where people were invited to bring their own booze? You weren't even allowed to bring your own flipping carcass to a funeral but they can bring booze to an unnecessary gathering!!

[Derek27]

Rumour has it that if any civil servant is named and/or fired because of Sue Gray's report then the unions are threatening 20 days of public sector strike action.

So, if you need a passport, JSA or something else relying on the public sector then you better get in quick. Good Job we don't need them for beer, smokes, porn and takeaways.

I heard on Sky, Gray informed the people whose emails/texts and other communications may be exposed. There's the possibility of legal action which could delay the publication of the report, and concern about civil servants lower down the ladder who won't have the resources to take any action.

[alexmr2]

https://davidicke.com/2022/05/22/rishi- ... his-image/

[Archery1969]

I am slighly confused by something, during the pandemic, we borrowed £460 billion from international markets and now paying an obscene amount of interest.

Why didn't we borrow it from the Bank of England interest free plus issue government bonds ?

[Derek27]

https://davidicke.com/2022/05/22/rishi- ... his-image/

Do you really think anyone's gonna bother clicking on that link?

[Derek27]

I am slighly confused by something, during the pandemic, we borrowed £460 billion from international markets and now paying an obscene amount of interest.

Why didn't we borrow it from the Bank of England interest free plus issue government bonds ?

I'm no economist, but borrowing from the Bank of England isn't interest-free. The BoE borrows money from the high street banks, who borrow money from us, and we expect interest on our savings. That interest gets passed upwards.

[Archery1969]

I am slighly confused by something, during the pandemic, we borrowed £460 billion from international markets and now paying an obscene amount of interest.

Why didn't we borrow it from the Bank of England interest free plus issue government bonds ?

I'm no economist, but borrowing from the Bank of England isn't interest-free. The BoE borrows money from the high street banks, who borrow money from us, and we expect interest on our savings. That interest gets passed upwards.

But isn’t the Bank of England sitting on the worlds second largest gold reserves, just print money against its value ?

[alexmr2]

I am slighly confused by something, during the pandemic, we borrowed £460 billion from international markets and now paying an obscene amount of interest.

Why didn't we borrow it from the Bank of England interest free plus issue government bonds ?

They needed an excuse to collapse the global economy so we can reset the financial system.

It needed changed from an unsustainable system which glorifies debt, greed and consuming resources to one which focuses on conserving resources before it's too late. It will change our behaviours such as phasing out international travel, gas heating systems and fossil fuel vehicle ownership