Incidentally, what an absurd acronym UTC is. It stands for Coordinated Universal Time, aka GMT.
So why isn't it known as CUT? Because the French refused to accept an English acronym, and wanted a French one, Temps Universel Coordonné = TUC.
Everyone else laughed at them, but the French continued to moan, so in the end it was wearily agreed to call it UTC, which is makes no sense in all languages, French and English.
The French are narcissistic idiots. With a great football team.
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
Incidentally, what an absurd acronym UTC is. It stands for Coordinated Universal Time, aka GMT.
So why isn't it known as CUT? Because the French refused to accept an English acronym, and wanted a French one, Temps Universel Coordonné = TUC.
Everyone else laughed at them, but the French continued to moan, so in the end it was wearily agreed to call it UTC, which is makes no sense in all languages, French and English.
The French are narcissistic idiots. With a great football team.
They’ve been miffed ever since Greenwich best Paris for the prime meridian.
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
Why is it preposterous when they were found guilty of exactly the same form of maladministration when investigating the Lib Dems?
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
I don’t think it calls into question anything. Let’s not forget just how much the Remain side spent relative to leave, and that excludes the millions of pounds for the pamphlet.
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
Why is it preposterous when they were found guilty of exactly the same form of maladministration when investigating the Lib Dems?
What’s preposterous is that Vote Leave are directly accusing the Commission of lying in their account of the investigation.
Appropriate reference. Caesar and his methods were truly buried weren't they? As he later said, "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
Oh I agree with your point. I’ve been consistent in believing the referendum result was a catastrophe for Britain from which it will take decades to recover, however things go forward from here.
Point of order: the Roman Empire probably reached its apogee, geopolitically, architecturally, and culturally, soon after Caesar's assassination, under his great nephew, adopted son, and nominated successor, Augustus....
Trajan.
Yes, you can argue the precise emperor under which Rome did absolute best, but there's no disputing the death of Caesar and the advent of Augustus ushered in the peak of Roman imperial power - the 200 years of Pax Romana.
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
I don’t think it calls into question anything. Let’s not forget just how much the Remain side spent relative to leave, and that excludes the millions of pounds for the pamphlet.
Incidentally, what an absurd acronym UTC is. It stands for Coordinated Universal Time, aka GMT.
So why isn't it known as CUT? Because the French refused to accept an English acronym, and wanted a French one, Temps Universel Coordonné = TUC.
Everyone else laughed at them, but the French continued to moan, so in the end it was wearily agreed to call it UTC, which is makes no sense in all languages, French and English.
The French are narcissistic idiots. With a great football team.
I would have thought there was an obvious, Jeremy Hunt-style, reason why you would not want to use CUT as your acronym.
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
I don’t think it calls into question anything. Let’s not forget just how much the Remain side spent relative to leave, and that excludes the millions of pounds for the pamphlet.
What's Soames being Churchill's grandson got to do with anything at all.
Never mind Churchill's grandson: when does Churchill's biographer make his resignation speech?
I have read that book as I am a fan (like millions of others) of WSC. It is a very poor attempt, both from a biography perspective and from what one must suspect was the objective; a deluded attempt to draw parallels between it's lying political pigmy of an author with a statesman the like the world will never see again.
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
I don’t think it calls into question anything. Let’s not forget just how much the Remain side spent relative to leave, and that excludes the millions of pounds for the pamphlet.
The last few days in the HOC has been utterly disgraceful and all MP's, yes all of them, should hang their heads in shame at their collective descent into appalling anger, impatience, and hatred to one another.
No 10 has gone completely bonkers in suggesting bringing forward the recess, irrespective or not, that the request had come from some labour MP's. I hope they have the sense to withdraw the motion before they receive total humiliation by a comprehensive rejection across the house.
We have seen the ERG group actively trash business including some of our biggest employers and the remainers using every trick in the book to reverse the referendum including today's incandescent rage over Vote Leave overspending
I have no idea where this goes but any attempt to crash us onto the rocks by the philosophy of ERG or to manufacture a second referendum by remainers needs to be comprehensively rejected by MP's
Parliament must accept the damage this is doing to our reputation World wide and how we are belittling ourselves. Parliament as a whole has to get a grip
I am wholly ashamed of the politicians that are supposed to be acting in the Country's best interests
A plague on all their houses.
Well said
I'm not sure that the Commons is capable of taking any decision right now.
... so whittle the options down to 3 or less and put them to the people (by AV of course).
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
I don’t think it calls into question anything. Let’s not forget just how much the Remain side spent relative to leave, and that excludes the millions of pounds for the pamphlet.
The last few days in the HOC has been utterly disgraceful and all MP's, yes all of them, should hang their heads in shame at their collective descent into appalling anger, impatience, and hatred to one another.
No 10 has gone completely bonkers in suggesting bringing forward the recess, irrespective or not, that the request had come from some labour MP's. I hope they have the sense to withdraw the motion before they receive total humiliation by a comprehensive rejection across the house.
We have seen the ERG group actively trash business including some of our biggest employers and the remainers using every trick in the book to reverse the referendum including today's incandescent rage over Vote Leave overspending
I have no idea where this goes but any attempt to crash us onto the rocks by the philosophy of ERG or to manufacture a second referendum by remainers needs to be comprehensively rejected by MP's
Parliament must accept the damage this is doing to our reputation World wide and how we are belittling ourselves. Parliament as a whole has to get a grip
I am wholly ashamed of the politicians that are supposed to be acting in the Country's best interests
A plague on all their houses.
Well said
I'm not sure that the Commons is capable of taking any decision right now.
... so whittle the options down to 3 or less and put them to the people (by AV of course).
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
I don’t think it calls into question anything. Let’s not forget just how much the Remain side spent relative to leave, and that excludes the millions of pounds for the pamphlet.
The last few days in the HOC has been utterly disgraceful and all MP's, yes all of them, should hang their heads in shame at their collective descent into appalling anger, impatience, and hatred to one another.
No 10 has gone completely bonkers in suggesting bringing forward the recess, irrespective or not, that the request had come from some labour MP's. I hope they have the sense to withdraw the motion before they receive total humiliation by a comprehensive rejection across the house.
We have seen the ERG group actively trash business including some of our biggest employers and the remainers using every trick in the book to reverse the referendum including today's incandescent rage over Vote Leave overspending
I have no idea where this goes but any attempt to crash us onto the rocks by the philosophy of ERG or to manufacture a second referendum by remainers needs to be comprehensively rejected by MP's
Parliament must accept the damage this is doing to our reputation World wide and how we are belittling ourselves. Parliament as a whole has to get a grip
I am wholly ashamed of the politicians that are supposed to be acting in the Country's best interests
A plague on all their houses.
Well said
I'm not sure that the Commons is capable of taking any decision right now.
... so whittle the options down to 3 or less and put them to the people (by AV of course).
That would require the Commons to take a decision.
Incidentally, what an absurd acronym UTC is. It stands for Coordinated Universal Time, aka GMT.
So why isn't it known as CUT? Because the French refused to accept an English acronym, and wanted a French one, Temps Universel Coordonné = TUC.
Everyone else laughed at them, but the French continued to moan, so in the end it was wearily agreed to call it UTC, which is makes no sense in all languages, French and English.
The French are narcissistic idiots. With a great football team.
They're not identical though are they? I thought GMT is calculated from the Greenwich Observatory while UTC uses an atomic clock.
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
I don’t think it calls into question anything. Let’s not forget just how much the Remain side spent relative to leave, and that excludes the millions of pounds for the pamphlet.
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
I don’t think it calls into question anything. Let’s not forget just how much the Remain side spent relative to leave, and that excludes the millions of pounds for the pamphlet.
And you want to ignore remains massive spend relative to leave .
No, I’m much more interested in the casual way in which Leavers accept breaking electoral law because it’s in what they consider a good cause.
Which of these statements is true?
REMAIN "spent more money than LEAVE". REMAIN "spent" more money than LEAVE. REMAIN spent "more money than LEAVE". REMAIN spent "more" money than LEAVE. REMAIN spent more money than "LEAVE".
Mr. Meeks, but not a police finding. Also, the BBC often uses inverted commas unnecessarily, so I found their absence there interesting.
The Electoral Commission is the investigating body. This is the finding. Inverted commas would be actively incorrect here.
How modern is the phenomena of always calling into question the integrity of an organisation if you don't like the story? I am sure it has always been there to some extent, hence the phrase "shooting the messenger". The big problem for society now is that even intelligent people such as contributors to PB immediately want to see bias where there isn't any.
There is nothing that is completely absent of all bias as all organisations are made up of human beings, but there are three institutions that we in Britain should genuinely be proud of their fundamental fairness; the judiciary, the civil service and the BBC. Sadly all three have been viciously attacked by the brexit militias. It tells you all you need to know about those that wrap themselves in the union flag.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
I don’t think it calls into question anything. Let’s not forget just how much the Remain side spent relative to leave, and that excludes the millions of pounds for the pamphlet.
Leavers desperate to avoid condemning a serious breach of electoral law by any means possible. At some point post-Brexit they will want a bipartisan acceptance of civic structures. If they want that, they have to start accepting those structures themselves right now.
Incidentally, what an absurd acronym UTC is. It stands for Coordinated Universal Time, aka GMT.
So why isn't it known as CUT? Because the French refused to accept an English acronym, and wanted a French one, Temps Universel Coordonné = TUC.
Everyone else laughed at them, but the French continued to moan, so in the end it was wearily agreed to call it UTC, which is makes no sense in all languages, French and English.
The French are narcissistic idiots. With a great football team.
They're not identical though are they? I thought GMT is calculated from the Greenwich Observatory while UTC uses an atomic clock.
There have been similar claims against Remain. A real shame the electoral commission only seem interested in investigating one side.
Oh dear here we go again! See my previous comment. It would be interesting for a polling company to find out how many people who voted Leave also believe in the faked moon landings, the grassy knoll, and that the Queen is actually a lizard.
There have been similar claims against Remain. A real shame the electoral commission only seem interested in investigating one side.
Oh dear here we go again! See my previous comment. It would be interesting for a polling company to find out how many people who voted Leave also believe in the faked moon landings, the grassy knoll, and that the Queen is actually a lizard.
I voted remain and I believe in the faked moon landing
There have been similar claims against Remain. A real shame the electoral commission only seem interested in investigating one side.
Oh dear here we go again! See my previous comment. It would be interesting for a polling company to find out how many people who voted Leave also believe in the faked moon landings, the grassy knoll, and that the Queen is actually a lizard.
I voted remain and I believe in the faked moon landing
Incidentally, what an absurd acronym UTC is. It stands for Coordinated Universal Time, aka GMT.
So why isn't it known as CUT? Because the French refused to accept an English acronym, and wanted a French one, Temps Universel Coordonné = TUC.
Everyone else laughed at them, but the French continued to moan, so in the end it was wearily agreed to call it UTC, which is makes no sense in all languages, French and English.
The French are narcissistic idiots. With a great football team.
They're not identical though are they? I thought GMT is calculated from the Greenwich Observatory while UTC uses an atomic clock.
GMT is a time zone, UTC is a time standard
Well said, good encapsulation. How long before The Daily Mail tries to suggest that the EU/The French/The Germans are trying to force us to change the name of our time zone? Just like they managed to force us to change from MPH to KMH, and to drive on the right... oh hang on.....
Anyone know if the 1922's postbox gets opened when the House is in recess?
If the 48 vote trigger was hit during the recess, it'd be an absolute administrative nightmare running the election, the rules for which assume that parliament is sitting and MPs are physically present. I think some amendment to the rules would be inevitable.
That was behind my somewhat flippant question.
It would also explain why the PM wants a recess now! Fearing something nasty in the Sundays?
I just do not see anyone else wanting the job, and to be honest anyone who would be better at unlocking the deadlock
Indeed. Put up or shut up time. To paraphrase the man of the day Churchill, May is is the worst form of PM, except for all the others that have been suggested from time to time.
Just watched Kholi's demise again. The look on his face was priceless - shades of Gatting's reaction to being bowled by Warne (or being told there's only going to be two courses for lunch).
Leavers desperate to avoid condemning a serious breach of electoral law by any means possible. At some point post-Brexit they will want a bipartisan acceptance of civic structures. If they want that, they have to start accepting those structures themselves right now.
Which of these statements is true?
REMAIN "spent more money than LEAVE". REMAIN "spent" more money than LEAVE. REMAIN spent "more money than LEAVE". REMAIN spent "more" money than LEAVE. REMAIN spent more money than "LEAVE".
Leavers desperate to avoid condemning a serious breach of electoral law by any means possible. At some point post-Brexit they will want a bipartisan acceptance of civic structures. If they want that, they have to start accepting those structures themselves right now.
Which of these statements is true?
REMAIN "spent more money than LEAVE". REMAIN "spent" more money than LEAVE. REMAIN spent "more money than LEAVE". REMAIN spent "more" money than LEAVE. REMAIN spent more money than "LEAVE".
I always find Hockenheim a bit tricky to remember. It's fairly tight and twisty. Between the top two, I'd guess Mercedes, but I'd perhaps be more tempted by Red Bull.
Winner only on Betfair. Hamilton and Vettel are very similar odds, which seems more or less right given various uncertainties. Haven't decided which way to plump, yet.
I always find Hockenheim a bit tricky to remember. It's fairly tight and twisty. Between the top two, I'd guess Mercedes, but I'd perhaps be more tempted by Red Bull.
Winner only on Betfair. Hamilton and Vettel are very similar odds, which seems more or less right given various uncertainties. Haven't decided which way to plump, yet.
It's likely to be Hamilton or Vettel.
I just looked at the weather forecast. It might be an interesting weekend.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
Agree. Had a quick look at the Board - not who I was expecting to see. Gisela Stuart, Graham Stringer, Bernard Jenkin, Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Lord Forsyth are the politicians.
Leavers desperate to avoid condemning a serious breach of electoral law by any means possible. At some point post-Brexit they will want a bipartisan acceptance of civic structures. If they want that, they have to start accepting those structures themselves right now.
Which of these statements is true? REMAIN "spent more money than LEAVE". REMAIN "spent" more money than LEAVE. REMAIN spent "more money than LEAVE". REMAIN spent "more" money than LEAVE. REMAIN spent more money than "LEAVE".
All of them, young Sunil. Because the inverted commas are around certain words to indicate that they are a quotation, and whatever the words selected, they do not alter the sense of the proposition.
Although if Leave spent more than Remain, none of them is true of course.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
Agree. Had a quick look at the Board - not who I was expecting to see. Gisela Stuart, Graham Stringer, Bernard Jenkin, Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Lord Forsyth are the politicians.
If they sanctioned this scheme, they should certainly be punished for it.
Leavers desperate to avoid condemning a serious breach of electoral law by any means possible. At some point post-Brexit they will want a bipartisan acceptance of civic structures. If they want that, they have to start accepting those structures themselves right now.
This Brighton fashion student seems to be the one you want us to finger.
Why don't you show us all how?
Really? Can we please try to keep debate on here a bit more civilised than that?
It will have no impact on jobs, investment or the economy, or so we have all been assured. They need our cars more than they need their oil..... errr.....
I doubt it. I'm always amazed by the reluctance of Fleet Street newspapers to investigate each other - perhaps because journalists always have their eye on their next job (Tony Gallagher, for example, started at the Telegraph, then the Mail, now the Sun). Pretty sure this will be about Boris, not the Tele.
CUT is liable to misreading and misinterpretation.
You sometimes see knotboards displaying something labelled as a cutsplice; it is fairly obvious on inspection that the proper name has an extra letter in it.
Government defeating the Labour amendments by majorities of 30 or so. So the rebellion from yesterday needs to find an additional Tory I think to get over the line.
No, I’m much more interested in the casual way in which Leavers accept breaking electoral law because it’s in what they consider a good cause.
Anyone who broke the law should be prosecuted.
At the end of the day though, this was £0.5m extra over a £7m limit. It's peanuts compared to the £9m the government spent that somehow wasn't included in the official limits.
I doubt it. I'm always amazed by the reluctance of Fleet Street newspapers to investigate each other - perhaps because journalists always have their eye on their next job (Tony Gallagher, for example, started at the Telegraph, then the Mail, now the Sun). Pretty sure this will be about Boris, not the Tele.
Yes, they all move around so are probably thinking of that to some extent, but if they started really going for each other it would be a complete sh1t-show with them screaming about other papers, proprietors and journalists from their front pages long after their readers had stopped caring.
This story is that Boris took a job and failed to follow the protocol for departing ministers taking up employment. The process is completely on the individual in conjunction with Parliamentary Standards, nothing to do with their new employer. The press (even the Leave-supporting press) are coming hard for Boris and it's not likely to end well for him.
It’s quite straightforward what’s happening here. Leavers cannot tolerate the idea of anything that calls into question in any way the integrity of the Leave vote, no matter how rigorous the finding or preposterous the attack on the investigating body.
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
Agree. Had a quick look at the Board - not who I was expecting to see. Gisela Stuart, Graham Stringer, Bernard Jenkin, Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Lord Forsyth are the politicians.
What was "career-ending" was the use of £9m of taxpayers money by Cameron and Osborne to promote their view on Remain, just before the spending limits kicked in.
Let's hear the po-faced Remainers bemoan that destruction of civic integrity.
I doubt it. I'm always amazed by the reluctance of Fleet Street newspapers to investigate each other - perhaps because journalists always have their eye on their next job (Tony Gallagher, for example, started at the Telegraph, then the Mail, now the Sun). Pretty sure this will be about Boris, not the Tele.
Yes, they all move around so are probably thinking of that to some extent, but if they started really going for each other it would be a complete sh1t-show with them screaming about other papers, proprietors and journalists from their front pages long after their readers had stopped caring.
This story is that Boris took a job and failed to follow the protocol for departing ministers taking up employment. The process is completely on the individual in conjunction with Parliamentary Standards, nothing to do with their new employer. The press (even the Leave-supporting press) are coming hard for Boris and it's not likely to end well for him.
From a member of the government, however, that is advocating penalties for employers who give jobs to people who are not eligible to work here, for example, on account of them being furrin'.
What's Soames being Churchill's grandson got to do with anything at all.
Because Churchill is the most revered leader we have ever had, and probably ever will have, and an outstanding thinker on our flawed system of democracy. Therefore the fact that his grandson says something as fundamental as this is reason enough to comment. Soames is also quite correct, though the political class will not listen. A new system of representative democracy with a directly elected PM is long overdue.
I'd have more respect for Soames if he hadn't blocked me on Twitter for some wholly innocuous comment. It's not like I made fun of his weight or anything.
In truth, Soames' supposed gravitas comes from nothing more than the weight of his ancestry.
Indeed. Lamarkian Evolution has been thoroughly debunked.
But Lamarck's ideas are making something of a comeback through the discovery of the power of epigenetics. Lamarck was actually on to something, but chose the wrong example. Much culture and behaviour is somewhat Lamarckian, but even the physical at a small enough scale can be, too. Finally, horizontal gene transfer may or may not be random, per Darwin, and sometimes might be directed, per Lamarck:
No, I’m much more interested in the casual way in which Leavers accept breaking electoral law because it’s in what they consider a good cause.
Anyone who broke the law should be prosecuted.
At the end of the day though, this was £0.5m extra over a £7m limit. It's peanuts compared to the £9m the government spent that somehow wasn't included in the official limits.
Which other laws are you happy to handwave away? A malleable attitude to right and wrong is hardly a prepossessing trait.
No, I’m much more interested in the casual way in which Leavers accept breaking electoral law because it’s in what they consider a good cause.
Anyone who broke the law should be prosecuted.
At the end of the day though, this was £0.5m extra over a £7m limit. It's peanuts compared to the £9m the government spent that somehow wasn't included in the official limits.
Which other laws are you happy to handwave away? A malleable attitude to right and wrong is hardly a prepossessing trait.
No, I’m much more interested in the casual way in which Leavers accept breaking electoral law because it’s in what they consider a good cause.
Anyone who broke the law should be prosecuted.
At the end of the day though, this was £0.5m extra over a £7m limit. It's peanuts compared to the £9m the government spent that somehow wasn't included in the official limits.
Which other laws are you happy to handwave away? A malleable attitude to right and wrong is hardly a prepossessing trait.
The question is not whether the law was broken. If it's believed to have been then prosecutions should follow and if those charges stand up, then the perpetrators should be convicted.
The question is whether there's a meaningful chance that any breach of the law had a material outcome on the result (which was in any case advisory, as the ultra-Remainers never tired of telling us before they found it convenient to drop that argument).
I doubt it. I'm always amazed by the reluctance of Fleet Street newspapers to investigate each other - perhaps because journalists always have their eye on their next job (Tony Gallagher, for example, started at the Telegraph, then the Mail, now the Sun). Pretty sure this will be about Boris, not the Tele.
Yes, they all move around so are probably thinking of that to some extent, but if they started really going for each other it would be a complete sh1t-show with them screaming about other papers, proprietors and journalists from their front pages long after their readers had stopped caring.
This story is that Boris took a job and failed to follow the protocol for departing ministers taking up employment. The process is completely on the individual in conjunction with Parliamentary Standards, nothing to do with their new employer. The press (even the Leave-supporting press) are coming hard for Boris and it's not likely to end well for him.
From a member of the government, however, that is advocating penalties for employers who give jobs to people who are not eligible to work here, for example, on account of them being furrin'.
It's not quite the same, it's more like a company hiring someone who's still on gardening leave from their previous job. The contract is between the old company and the individual, not the new company. It's going to be Boris in trouble, rather than the Telegraph.
Hiring illegal immigrants is a serious offence, as it should be.
Which other laws are you happy to handwave away? A malleable attitude to right and wrong is hardly a prepossessing trait.
"Anyone who broke the law should be prosecuted." <---- seems pretty clear to me.
The whole point of this is about legitimacy though, as if it was a level playing field - when one side gets a free £9m gift from the government not included in the figures.
"Findings 4.46. BeLeave was never registered with the Commission as a campaigner in the EU Referendum. Unregistered campaigners could only legally spend up to £10,000 on referendum campaigning. But Mr Grimes, acting on its behalf, incurred spending of over £675,000. 4.47. On 15 March 2016 Mr Grimes applied to register a permitted participant for the EU Referendum. He put down the name of the campaigner as ‘BeLeave’, 26 but ticked the box to say he was applying as an individual. We treated the application as for an individual and approved it. At the time BeLeave was not eligible to register as a permitted participant. If we had treated Mr Grimes’ application as an attempt to register BeLeave, it would have been rejected. It only met the eligibility criteria in May 2016. 4.48. Mr Grimes knew that BeLeave was not a permitted participant. He knew that he was. He also knew or ought reasonably to have known that while he could incur referendum spending of up to £700,000, BeLeave, as an unregistered campaigner, was limited to spending of £10,000. Despite this BeLeave – with Mr Grimes acting on its behalf – incurred spending of £675,315.18." http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/244900/Report-of-an-investigation-in-respect-of-Vote-Leave-Limited-Mr-Darren-Grimes-BeLeave-and-Veterans-for-Britain.pdf
I doubt it. I'm always amazed by the reluctance of Fleet Street newspapers to investigate each other - perhaps because journalists always have their eye on their next job (Tony Gallagher, for example, started at the Telegraph, then the Mail, now the Sun). Pretty sure this will be about Boris, not the Tele.
Yes, they all move around so are probably thinking of that to some extent, but if they started really going for each other it would be a complete sh1t-show with them screaming about other papers, proprietors and journalists from their front pages long after their readers had stopped caring.
This story is that Boris took a job and failed to follow the protocol for departing ministers taking up employment. The process is completely on the individual in conjunction with Parliamentary Standards, nothing to do with their new employer. The press (even the Leave-supporting press) are coming hard for Boris and it's not likely to end well for him.
Such innocence. The story is that Boris is due to make his resignation speech so must be discredited.
I doubt it. I'm always amazed by the reluctance of Fleet Street newspapers to investigate each other - perhaps because journalists always have their eye on their next job (Tony Gallagher, for example, started at the Telegraph, then the Mail, now the Sun). Pretty sure this will be about Boris, not the Tele.
Yes, they all move around so are probably thinking of that to some extent, but if they started really going for each other it would be a complete sh1t-show with them screaming about other papers, proprietors and journalists from their front pages long after their readers had stopped caring.
This story is that Boris took a job and failed to follow the protocol for departing ministers taking up employment. The process is completely on the individual in conjunction with Parliamentary Standards, nothing to do with their new employer. The press (even the Leave-supporting press) are coming hard for Boris and it's not likely to end well for him.
From a member of the government, however, that is advocating penalties for employers who give jobs to people who are not eligible to work here, for example, on account of them being furrin'.
It's not quite the same, it's more like a company hiring someone who's still on gardening leave from their previous job. The contract is between the old company and the individual, not the new company. It's going to be Boris in trouble, rather than the Telegraph.
Hiring illegal immigrants is a serious offence, as it should be.
Is not the standard required for and sanctions for violation of parliamentary employment more rigorous than just a non-compete or gardening leave?
No, I’m much more interested in the casual way in which Leavers accept breaking electoral law because it’s in what they consider a good cause.
Anyone who broke the law should be prosecuted.
At the end of the day though, this was £0.5m extra over a £7m limit. It's peanuts compared to the £9m the government spent that somehow wasn't included in the official limits.
Which other laws are you happy to handwave away? A malleable attitude to right and wrong is hardly a prepossessing trait.
There are two issues:-
1. Was the law broken? The Electoral Commission has ruled that it was. Unless those who have been found to have broken the law successfully challenge that finding, then it is entirely correct that they should be fined. If they broke the criminal law, then they should be prosecuted.
2. Did it alter the result? This is not a legal point (the Referendum was technically advisory) but does matter morally and politically. I don't consider it did alter the result, as the losing side had a very considerable financial advantage, which was only slightly offset by this illegal overspend.
What's Soames being Churchill's grandson got to do with anything at all.
Because Churchill is the most revered leader we have ever had, and probably ever will have, and an outstanding thinker on our flawed system of democracy. Therefore the fact that his grandson says something as fundamental as this is reason enough to comment. Soames is also quite correct, though the political class will not listen. A new system of representative democracy with a directly elected PM is long overdue.
I'd have more respect for Soames if he hadn't blocked me on Twitter for some wholly innocuous comment. It's not like I made fun of his weight or anything.
In truth, Soames' supposed gravitas comes from nothing more than the weight of his ancestry.
Indeed. Lamarkian Evolution has been thoroughly debunked.
But Lamarck's ideas are making something of a comeback through the discovery of the power of epigenetics. Lamarck was actually on to something, but chose the wrong example. Much culture and behaviour is somewhat Lamarckian, but even the physical at a small enough scale can be, too. Finally, horizontal gene transfer may or may not be random, per Darwin, and sometimes might be directed, per Lamarck:
Mrs C, indeed, Intelligent Design has been a somewhat, it seems, successful rebranding of the concept of Creationism, but the idea it's scientific is literally incredible.
Mrs C, indeed, Intelligent Design has been a somewhat, it seems, successful rebranding of the concept of Creationism, but the idea it's scientific is literally incredible.
I doubt it. I'm always amazed by the reluctance of Fleet Street newspapers to investigate each other - perhaps because journalists always have their eye on their next job (Tony Gallagher, for example, started at the Telegraph, then the Mail, now the Sun). Pretty sure this will be about Boris, not the Tele.
Yes, they all move around so are probably thinking of that to some extent, but if they started really going for each other it would be a complete sh1t-show with them screaming about other papers, proprietors and journalists from their front pages long after their readers had stopped caring.
This story is that Boris took a job and failed to follow the protocol for departing ministers taking up employment. The process is completely on the individual in conjunction with Parliamentary Standards, nothing to do with their new employer. The press (even the Leave-supporting press) are coming hard for Boris and it's not likely to end well for him.
From a member of the government, however, that is advocating penalties for employers who give jobs to people who are not eligible to work here, for example, on account of them being furrin'.
It's not quite the same, it's more like a company hiring someone who's still on gardening leave from their previous job. The contract is between the old company and the individual, not the new company. It's going to be Boris in trouble, rather than the Telegraph.
Hiring illegal immigrants is a serious offence, as it should be.
Is not the standard required for and sanctions for violation of parliamentary employment more rigorous than just a non-compete or gardening leave?
So the key question is what sanctions may be applied for a minister who is found, following complaint and investigation by the relevant standards body, to be in breach of the code?
I doubt it. I'm always amazed by the reluctance of Fleet Street newspapers to investigate each other - perhaps because journalists always have their eye on their next job (Tony Gallagher, for example, started at the Telegraph, then the Mail, now the Sun). Pretty sure this will be about Boris, not the Tele.
Yes, they all move around so are probably thinking of that to some extent, but if they started really going for each other it would be a complete sh1t-show with them screaming about other papers, proprietors and journalists from their front pages long after their readers had stopped caring.
This story is that Boris took a job and failed to follow the protocol for departing ministers taking up employment. The process is completely on the individual in conjunction with Parliamentary Standards, nothing to do with their new employer. The press (even the Leave-supporting press) are coming hard for Boris and it's not likely to end well for him.
From a member of the government, however, that is advocating penalties for employers who give jobs to people who are not eligible to work here, for example, on account of them being furrin'.
It's not quite the same, it's more like a company hiring someone who's still on gardening leave from their previous job. The contract is between the old company and the individual, not the new company. It's going to be Boris in trouble, rather than the Telegraph.
Hiring illegal immigrants is a serious offence, as it should be.
Is not the standard required for and sanctions for violation of parliamentary employment more rigorous than just a non-compete or gardening leave?
So the key question is what sanctions may be applied for a minister who is found, following complaint and investigation by the relevant standards body, to be in breach of the code?
I doubt it. I'm always amazed by the reluctance of Fleet Street newspapers to investigate each other - perhaps because journalists always have their eye on their next job (Tony Gallagher, for example, started at the Telegraph, then the Mail, now the Sun). Pretty sure this will be about Boris, not the Tele.
Yes, they all move around so are probably thinking of that to some extent, but if they started really going for each other it would be a complete sh1t-show with them screaming about other papers, proprietors and journalists from their front pages long after their readers had stopped caring.
This story is that Boris took a job and failed to follow the protocol for departing ministers taking up employment. The process is completely on the individual in conjunction with Parliamentary Standards, nothing to do with their new employer. The press (even the Leave-supporting press) are coming hard for Boris and it's not likely to end well for him.
From a member of the government, however, that is advocating penalties for employers who give jobs to people who are not eligible to work here, for example, on account of them being furrin'.
It's not quite the same, it's more like a company hiring someone who's still on gardening leave from their previous job. The contract is between the old company and the individual, not the new company. It's going to be Boris in trouble, rather than the Telegraph.
Hiring illegal immigrants is a serious offence, as it should be.
Is not the standard required for and sanctions for violation of parliamentary employment more rigorous than just a non-compete or gardening leave?
In both cases it's a "civil" rather than criminal matter. Boris can be called before the Standards and Privileges Committee if he's found to have not followed the correct procedure. I'm sure the government whips will be more than happy to see that all appropriate investigatory processes are followed in this case!
No, I’m much more interested in the casual way in which Leavers accept breaking electoral law because it’s in what they consider a good cause.
Anyone who broke the law should be prosecuted.
At the end of the day though, this was £0.5m extra over a £7m limit. It's peanuts compared to the £9m the government spent that somehow wasn't included in the official limits.
Which other laws are you happy to handwave away? A malleable attitude to right and wrong is hardly a prepossessing trait.
There are two issues:-
1. Was the law broken? The Electoral Commission has ruled that it was. Unless those who have been found to have broken the law successfully challenge that finding, then it is entirely correct that they should be fined. If they broke the criminal law, then they should be prosecuted.
2. Did it alter the result? This is not a legal point (the Referendum was technically advisory) but does matter morally and politically. I don't consider it did alter the result, as the losing side had a very considerable financial advantage, which was only slightly offset by this illegal overspend.
Question 3 is what impact, if any, would/will successful prosecution of the two responsible people have on the political environment and public attitudes to the Brexit process?
Mr. B2, I don't know what sanctions there are for an ex-minister who breaches the ministerial code, but I suspect the Conservatives are regretting not buying themselves a space cannon right now.
Comments
This should be, but sadly won’t be, career-ending for every politician on the Vote Leave board who oversaw this abuse. I have yet to see a Leaver acknowledge that this was a big deal and completely unacceptable. Leavers are destroying the civic structures of the country.
Mrs C, this is no plaice for such a discussion.
https://i1-wp-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PA.jpg
So is the PM a politicienne?
http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/writings/2018/07/17/bletchley-east-betting-market/
REMAIN "spent more money than LEAVE".
REMAIN "spent" more money than LEAVE.
REMAIN spent "more money than LEAVE".
REMAIN spent "more" money than LEAVE.
REMAIN spent more money than "LEAVE".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Time#Versions
Oh dear here we go again! See my previous comment. It would be interesting for a polling company to find out how many people who voted Leave also believe in the faked moon landings, the grassy knoll, and that the Queen is actually a lizard.
An interesting virtue to praise (morality) given under Trajan the empire reached its greatest ever geographical extent.
Mrs C, one suspects you've been taking classical history lessons from Mr. Eagles.
I voted remain and I believe in the faked moon landing
And the Queen is a lizard.
Just watched Kholi's demise again. The look on his face was priceless - shades of Gatting's reaction to being bowled by Warne (or being told there's only going to be two courses for lunch).
REMAIN "spent more money than LEAVE".
REMAIN "spent" more money than LEAVE.
REMAIN spent "more money than LEAVE".
REMAIN spent "more" money than LEAVE.
REMAIN spent more money than "LEAVE".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time#Etymology
Had a quick look at the Board - not who I was expecting to see.
Gisela Stuart, Graham Stringer, Bernard Jenkin, Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Lord Forsyth are the politicians.
Although if Leave spent more than Remain, none of them is true of course.
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1019194891035963392
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1019232216088502272?s=21
If you finger a person or organization, you tell someone, usually the police, that the person or organization has done something illegal or wrong.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/finger
Exactly what Monsieur Meeks is after, non?
You sometimes see knotboards displaying something labelled as a cutsplice; it is fairly obvious on inspection that the proper name has an extra letter in it.
At the end of the day though, this was £0.5m extra over a £7m limit. It's peanuts compared to the £9m the government spent that somehow wasn't included in the official limits.
This story is that Boris took a job and failed to follow the protocol for departing ministers taking up employment. The process is completely on the individual in conjunction with Parliamentary Standards, nothing to do with their new employer. The press (even the Leave-supporting press) are coming hard for Boris and it's not likely to end well for him.
Let's hear the po-faced Remainers bemoan that destruction of civic integrity.
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/08/epigenetic_chan/
The question is whether there's a meaningful chance that any breach of the law had a material outcome on the result (which was in any case advisory, as the ultra-Remainers never tired of telling us before they found it convenient to drop that argument).
Hiring illegal immigrants is a serious offence, as it should be.
The whole point of this is about legitimacy though, as if it was a level playing field - when one side gets a free £9m gift from the government not included in the figures.
4.46. BeLeave was never registered with the Commission as a campaigner in
the EU Referendum. Unregistered campaigners could only legally spend up to
£10,000 on referendum campaigning. But Mr Grimes, acting on its behalf,
incurred spending of over £675,000.
4.47. On 15 March 2016 Mr Grimes applied to register a permitted participant
for the EU Referendum. He put down the name of the campaigner as ‘BeLeave’,
26
but ticked the box to say he was applying as an individual. We treated the
application as for an individual and approved it. At the time BeLeave was not
eligible to register as a permitted participant. If we had treated Mr Grimes’
application as an attempt to register BeLeave, it would have been rejected. It
only met the eligibility criteria in May 2016.
4.48. Mr Grimes knew that BeLeave was not a permitted participant. He knew
that he was. He also knew or ought reasonably to have known that while he
could incur referendum spending of up to £700,000, BeLeave, as an unregistered
campaigner, was limited to spending of £10,000. Despite this BeLeave – with Mr
Grimes acting on its behalf – incurred spending of £675,315.18."
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/244900/Report-of-an-investigation-in-respect-of-Vote-Leave-Limited-Mr-Darren-Grimes-BeLeave-and-Veterans-for-Britain.pdf
THAT BASTARD TICKED THE WRONG BOX
LOCK HIM UP!!
Eh? They don't call for a vote. They send letters to 1922 chair.
1. Was the law broken? The Electoral Commission has ruled that it was. Unless those who have been found to have broken the law successfully challenge that finding, then it is entirely correct that they should be fined. If they broke the criminal law, then they should be prosecuted.
2. Did it alter the result? This is not a legal point (the Referendum was technically advisory) but does matter morally and politically. I don't consider it did alter the result, as the losing side had a very considerable financial advantage, which was only slightly offset by this illegal overspend.
Sorry, but I do not put much credence in a website run by US conservatives advocating "Intelligent Design"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/don-t-call-me-a-billionaire-says-the-billionaire-elon-musk-k2slhz30w
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1019245338480308224