Lib Dems and dodgy donations. Who would have thunk it?
You and your arch smearer mate Staines attempting to smear the Lib Dems - shock horror .
If it is true how can it be a smear. It needs investigating
Both Staines and TC live to smear Lib Dems at every opportunity
But are you suggesting this allegation should not be investigated as if above board there is no problem
Remember the Tories and UKIp both gave Zac an assisted place. There was no screaming over that.
The LDs won - get over it.
I accept that but I find it a little disconcerting that you just want to dismiss it as a smear when there does seem to be some truth in the allegation and it needs laying to rest.
If this had happened in a conservative seat you would want it investigating
Lib Dems and dodgy donations. Who would have thunk it?
You and your arch smearer mate Staines attempting to smear the Lib Dems - shock horror .
If it is true how can it be a smear. It needs investigating
Both Staines and TC live to smear Lib Dems at every opportunity
If it's a complete and baseless smear, then the Electoral Commission and the police won't have much work to do before dismissing the complaint.
Full leaked document has been published by OrderOrder.
Oh dear, so it has.
Sounds like the local Richmond. Greens are mightily pissed off that 'head office' told them not to stand. There's a reasonable chance the leak came from close to the author himself, given that he's produced a 30-page internal report on the issue. This needs investigating, even if it turns out there's no case to answer, it stinks.
Yeah...I mean it's not as if the Greens would have been able to gain much traction with campaigning on air and noise pollution wrt to Heathrow is it?
F1 journo Joe Saward agrees with me that Bottas is the most likely option for the vacant Mercedes seat. He's 17 with Betfair for the title, which will come in dramatically if he ends up at Brackley. https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/reality-in-brackley/
Lib Dems and dodgy donations. Who would have thunk it?
You and your arch smearer mate Staines attempting to smear the Lib Dems - shock horror .
If it is true how can it be a smear. It needs investigating
Both Staines and TC live to smear Lib Dems at every opportunity
But are you suggesting this allegation should not be investigated as if above board there is no problem
Remember the Tories and UKIp both gave Zac an assisted place. There was no screaming over that.
The LDs won - get over it.
I accept that but I find it a little disconcerting that you just want to dismiss it as a smear when there does seem to be some truth in the allegation and it needs laying to rest.
If this had happened in a conservative seat you would want it investigating
If the Greens managed to negotiate £250K of much needed cash and look Saintly by standing aside for the greater good in return for not losing their deposit in a hopeless by-election we should put them in charge of the Brexit negotiations.
Lib Dems and dodgy donations. Who would have thunk it?
You and your arch smearer mate Staines attempting to smear the Lib Dems - shock horror .
If it is true how can it be a smear. It needs investigating
Both Staines and TC live to smear Lib Dems at every opportunity
If it's a complete and baseless smear, then the Electoral Commission and the police won't have much work to do before dismissing the complaint.
If as the article implies there was no actual donation why should the Electoral Commission get involved .
Broadly, the Bribery Act 2010 defines bribery as giving or receiving a financial or other advantage in connection with the "improper performance" of a position of trust, or a function that is expected to be performed impartially or in good faith. Bribery does not have to involve cash or an actual payment exchanging hands.
So we should also investigate the decision by both UKIP and the Conservatives not to contest Richmond - a whole can of worms !!!
Produce the evidence of an attempted bribe in those cases - then you do the investigation. In this case we have the prima facie evidence. Interesting that you seem to want to hush it all up.
I'm no electoral law expert, but presumably this is not an electoral bribe as defined by EC as not a bribe aimed at an actual voter or group of voters. Or is there some indirect way of linking a candidate dropping out?
That would be my guess too. All the same, if it happened to me I'd be reporting it to the authorities anyway, not least out of self-preservation.
F1 journo Joe Saward agrees with me that Bottas is the most likely option for the vacant Mercedes seat. He's 17 with Betfair for the title, which will come in dramatically if he ends up at Brackley. https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/reality-in-brackley/
Is there a market simply on the next driver for Mercedes?
F1 journo Joe Saward agrees with me that Bottas is the most likely option for the vacant Mercedes seat. He's 17 with Betfair for the title, which will come in dramatically if he ends up at Brackley. https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/reality-in-brackley/
Is there a market simply on the next driver for Mercedes?
F1 journo Joe Saward agrees with me that Bottas is the most likely option for the vacant Mercedes seat. He's 17 with Betfair for the title, which will come in dramatically if he ends up at Brackley. https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/reality-in-brackley/
Is there a market simply on the next driver for Mercedes?
If you read Barnier's answers at his presser it is clear the EU will offer us something like EEA status, still paying contributions, fudging the issue of Free Movement..
"Q: Are you in principle in favour of a transitional arrangement?
Barnier says this would be useful it it were the path towards a new relationship.
But we need to know what what the perspective would be.
He says third countries, like EEA members, might be affected.
Norway and Iceland are examples of how a transitional arrangement could operate"
This is very likely where we will end up. The EU will say Look they still pay money and have less influence = bad deal; TMay will say Look we're out, with little damage, and we've taken back control of all laws bar single market, plus control on migrant benefits = good deal
Both sides will claim victory, and life will go on. Hardcore Brexiteers and Continuity Remain will vent and fume.
This makes logical sense as it is the least damaging outcome, politically and economically, for BOTH sides.
But we cannot ignore the other possibility of total and angry collapse in negotiation, and Full on Tumescent Brexit.
Exactly. In fact, that's how it has to be because unless both sides can claim political victory there will be no deal.
But there is a risk one or more EU countries will just go bonkers and vote the deal down, and the UK will be forced into Hard Brexit, no matter how damaging it is for all sides. That possibility has to be acknowledged.
The Brexit deal will be decided by QMV, so it doesn't matter if 'one or [not very many] EU countries' go bonkers. The trade deal - unless part of the Brexit deal - is a different matter.
If you read Barnier's answers at his presser it is clear the EU will offer us something like EEA status, still paying contributions, fudging the issue of Free Movement..
"Q: Are you in principle in favour of a transitional arrangement?
Barnier says this would be useful it it were the path towards a new relationship.
But we need to know what what the perspective would be.
He says third countries, like EEA members, might be affected.
Norway and Iceland are examples of how a transitional arrangement could operate"
This is very likely where we will end up. The EU will say Look they still pay money and have less influence = bad deal; TMay will say Look we're out, with little damage, and we've taken back control of all laws bar single market, plus control on migrant benefits = good deal
Both sides will claim victory, and life will go on. Hardcore Brexiteers and Continuity Remain will vent and fume.
This makes logical sense as it is the least damaging outcome, politically and economically, for BOTH sides.
But we cannot ignore the other possibility of total and angry collapse in negotiation, and Full on Tumescent Brexit.
Exactly. In fact, that's how it has to be because unless both sides can claim political victory there will be no deal.
But there is a risk one or more EU countries will just go bonkers and vote the deal down, and the UK will be forced into Hard Brexit, no matter how damaging it is for all sides. That possibility has to be acknowledged.
Of course it's possible but who are the likely suspects to do that?
France is the biggest risk given our tumultuous history but they are our immediate neighbours and would have a lot to lose from a messy divorce too.
Eastern Europe opposes a fudge on migration but will bear the brunt financially of no more contributions (since they receive the contributions). They are also are wary of the Russian Bear and appreciate our military support in NATO.
Germany is a pragmatist and more worried about the Euro. So long as we don't rock the boat too much I can't see them being the issue.
Greece, Italy etc can't afford to rock the boat.
Ireland can't afford to see harmed relations with us.
Spain might play silly buggers regarding Gibraltar but don't want to see anything that makes Sindy more likely.
Nobody else really matters that I can think of as Portugal, Austria etc have little to gain from messing us around.
I see May has had her self photographed giving a speech to troops with the lectern between two gun turrets with something drapped in a huge Union Flag on one side. The whole thing is staged on a warship. #Mayday
If you read Barnier's answers at his presser it is clear the EU will offer us something like EEA status, still paying contributions, fudging the issue of Free Movement..
"Q: Are you in principle in favour of a transitional arrangement?
Barnier says this would be useful it it were the path towards a new relationship.
But we need to know what what the perspective would be.
He says third countries, like EEA members, might be affected.
Norway and Iceland are examples of how a transitional arrangement could operate"
This is very likely where we will end up. The EU will say Look they still pay money and have less influence = bad deal; TMay will say Look we're out, with little damage, and we've taken back control of all laws bar single market, plus control on migrant benefits = good deal
Both sides will claim victory, and life will go on. Hardcore Brexiteers and Continuity Remain will vent and fume.
This makes logical sense as it is the least damaging outcome, politically and economically, for BOTH sides.
But we cannot ignore the other possibility of total and angry collapse in negotiation, and Full on Tumescent Brexit.
Exactly. In fact, that's how it has to be because unless both sides can claim political victory there will be no deal.
But there is a risk one or more EU countries will just go bonkers and vote the deal down, and the UK will be forced into Hard Brexit, no matter how damaging it is for all sides. That possibility has to be acknowledged.
The Brexit deal will be decided by QMV, so it doesn't matter if 'one or [not very many] EU countries' go bonkers. The trade deal - unless part of the Brexit deal - is a different matter.
I don't see how we can agree anything without the trade deal being part of the Brexit deal. It makes no sense for us to divorce the two issues and permit one part going through but not the other.
If we eg agree divorce payments like Barnier wants in exchange for a trade deal that we want, how can you allow one part to be voted down but not the other? It would be like Blair agreeing to give up part of the rebate for promised CAP reform only for the CAP reform to die immediately the day after the rebate is cut.
What offence in law would either the donor or the Greens have committed if this is true ? Political Parties are under no legal obligation to contest every or indeed any election. If they just thought £250K to spend on elections they can win, like the GLA List, is a great deal for not standing in an election they can't what law would they have broken ? Non rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious ?
What offence in law would either the donor or the Greens have committed if this is true ? Political Parties are under no legal obligation to contest every or indeed any election. If they just thought £250K to spend on elections they can win, like the GLA List, is a great deal for not standing in an election they can't what law would they have broken ? Non rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious ?
What about the Bribery Act? IANAL but it sure sounds like bribery.
What offence in law would either the donor or the Greens have committed if this is true ? Political Parties are under no legal obligation to contest every or indeed any election. If they just thought £250K to spend on elections they can win, like the GLA List, is a great deal for not standing in an election they can't what law would they have broken ? Non rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious ?
What about the Bribery Act? IANAL but it sure sounds like bribery.
In law, does bribery extend past the individual? Can an organisation bribe another in law, or does that come under anti-competition regs?
"Angela Merkel calls for burqa ban 'wherever legally possible' in Germany
If the tories don;t implement this, I imagine UKIP will certainly campaign on it at the next election in the North.
And judging by the latest report on the complete collapse of progressive policies in Northern cities, they will have plenty of takers
Brexit Britain could become the most amenable part of Europe for fundamentalist Islam.
I bloody hope not!
The single contributor to the ability of radical Islam is to have dark corners. This is what happened in Paris, and Brussels, and to a lesser extent German cities. Places the police didn't go to, didn't investigate, people it wasn't tracking or even looking for.
What offence in law would either the donor or the Greens have committed if this is true ? Political Parties are under no legal obligation to contest every or indeed any election. If they just thought £250K to spend on elections they can win, like the GLA List, is a great deal for not standing in an election they can't what law would they have broken ? Non rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious ?
What about the Bribery Act? IANAL but it sure sounds like bribery.
Yes, it might well be. From the Act:
(1)A person (“P”) is guilty of an offence if either of the following cases applies.
(2)Case 1 is where—
(a)P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and
(b)P intends the advantage—
(i)to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity, or
(ii)to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function or activity.
In this case, inducing a Party to not stand a candidate at an election for financial gain - even though they subsequently didn't stand a candidate despite not accepting the money - might be considered to be a reward for acting improperly.
It's a grey area though as Lucas' support for the Progressive Alliance idea opened the door to tactical support between parties so the offered donation might be argued to be in support of existing policy.
Ah, I thought Mr Meeks was having an amusing little dig at my Camden hood, because - to be fair - Arlington Road IS one of the scuzziest streets in London, thanks to the presence of several hostels, homeless shelters, &c.
I can't understand why anyone would pay 1.2 mill for a small flat there.
Can't understand why anyone would pay £1.2m for a small flat anywhere. This is what that kind of money would buy round where I live:
US President-elect Donald Trump is considering a billionaire Wall Street private equity investor who also owns the New York Jets American football franchise as his pick for his UK ambassador.
Ah, I thought Mr Meeks was having an amusing little dig at my Camden hood, because - to be fair - Arlington Road IS one of the scuzziest streets in London, thanks to the presence of several hostels, homeless shelters, &c.
I can't understand why anyone would pay 1.2 mill for a small flat there.
Wasn't the entrance to Dangermouse's secret HQ a drain in Picadilly? Not too far from a bin in Arlington Street!
Comments
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/reality-in-brackley/
https://twitter.com/VenSolidarity/status/604982182587662336
https://twitter.com/FT/status/806116000584364034
https://www.google.ae/maps/@51.5074264,-0.1412422,3a,75y,215.78h,106.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUw7lJZIc8fPKM2tRygpIvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go_type&category=SPORTS&disp_cat_id=&ev_class_id=8&ev_type_id=27878&ev_oc_grp_ids=2580919&bir_index=
"Angela Merkel calls for burqa ban 'wherever legally possible' in Germany
'The full-face veil must be banned, wherever it is legally possible,' Chancellor tells party
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-burqa-burka-ban-veils-angela-merkel-cdu-muslims-speech-refugee-crisis-elections-term-vote-a7458536.html
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/3019777/Mercedes+Special.html
France is the biggest risk given our tumultuous history but they are our immediate neighbours and would have a lot to lose from a messy divorce too.
Eastern Europe opposes a fudge on migration but will bear the brunt financially of no more contributions (since they receive the contributions). They are also are wary of the Russian Bear and appreciate our military support in NATO.
Germany is a pragmatist and more worried about the Euro. So long as we don't rock the boat too much I can't see them being the issue.
Greece, Italy etc can't afford to rock the boat.
Ireland can't afford to see harmed relations with us.
Spain might play silly buggers regarding Gibraltar but don't want to see anything that makes Sindy more likely.
Nobody else really matters that I can think of as Portugal, Austria etc have little to gain from messing us around.
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/motor-racing/formula-1/specials/who-will-be-lewis-hamiltons-team-mate-in-2017/222983228/
https://www.skybet.com/formula-1/special-bets/event/20085542
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsKbwR7WXN4
If we eg agree divorce payments like Barnier wants in exchange for a trade deal that we want, how can you allow one part to be voted down but not the other? It would be like Blair agreeing to give up part of the rebate for promised CAP reform only for the CAP reform to die immediately the day after the rebate is cut.
If the tories don;t implement this, I imagine UKIP will certainly campaign on it at the next election in the North.
And judging by the latest report on the complete collapse of progressive policies in Northern cities, they will have plenty of takers
http://www.oddschecker.com/motorsport/formula-one/next-mercedes-driver
5/2 Bottas best price.
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1374715-car-crashes-into-virgin-train-at-level-crossing-in-lanarkshire/
Lucky, lucky, lucky ...
(1)A person (“P”) is guilty of an offence if either of the following cases applies.
(2)Case 1 is where—
(a)P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and
(b)P intends the advantage—
(i)to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity, or
(ii)to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function or activity.
In this case, inducing a Party to not stand a candidate at an election for financial gain - even though they subsequently didn't stand a candidate despite not accepting the money - might be considered to be a reward for acting improperly.
It's a grey area though as Lucas' support for the Progressive Alliance idea opened the door to tactical support between parties so the offered donation might be argued to be in support of existing policy.
NEW THREAD
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44488570.html
Video
Rita Panahi
"The removal of the McRib has affected my family..." #courage
https://t.co/oNVnxYFeWE