Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

No 10 apology over 'slur' e-mails

butchersapron said:
Every time you let the guard down you reveal your contempt for 'ordinary people' - in common with most submeged consprialoons you are an elitist misanthropic tool.
Click to expand...

Except I despise how the elite operate. I dont have a contempt for "ordinary people" beyond that garnered from witinessing what they seem prepared to put with.
 
Who know what's going on? I think you claim to when you tell us what's really going on behind certain initiatives. All lies?

Your record of hate for the normal person drips from your post this last week.
 
i hate threads like this that start with one sentence and a fucking link. what's it fucking mean then? make the fucking effort tbh.....
 
This Derek 'Dolly' Draper seems to have missed the point, or affects to for the purpose of a cover up. You can't have a 'Left-wing version' of something that isn't simply right-wing. Guido Fawkes says he mostly slams Labour because Labour are in power. Laudable if true. There's no need for this 'Red Rag', therefore, unless Draper is accepting that the Tories are a shoe-in for government next year, and it looks far more like the 'Red Rag' was intended as a desperate attempt to stop Labour's slide into opposition, rather than a supposed socialist mirror to Fawkes.

If the News Of The World has the scoop, we shall have to sift carefully for the truth amongst the baloney. It'll all be over by Monday night?
 
London_Calling said:
Damian McBride sends the e-mails to Derek Draper, presumably among other recipients. But it's Draper who's mentioned, by the BBC, in relation to "finding their way to" the Tory-friendly Guido Fawkes blog.

Games within games.
Click to expand...


Guido may be tory-friendly, but he's no tory, and is critical of the conservatives.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Butchers, I aint going to play "whack the mole" with this one.

In submitting the expenses it is understood that the claim is legitimate. It wasnt. It was pretending to be something it wasnt. It was fraud.
Click to expand...

Butchers is right though, Smith's claim wasnt legally fraudulent, just embarassing - fundamentally there is no difference between her husband watching porn at our expense, and her getting bathplugs, barbeques, the TV he watched porn on, the interweb service to download the porn from, plantpots or patio heaters at our expense. She has only paid us back for the porn.

As Peter Oborne notes in his latest missive, the claims were itemized (hence how the papers were able to find out what he had watched) and paid by the Commons Authorities. When viewed against all the other nonsense - Conway, Spellman's "nanny", Clegg (and Blair) having his house renovated at our expense, and many others - its clear that the entire system is set up to allow MPs to, should they wish, take the piss with expenses. There is no fraud of the one when the entire system is set up and managed to encourage people to do exactly what she has done.

kid_eternity said:
No tory? Heh.
Click to expand...

He is a Tory, but he will (and has) gone after Tories who he considers to be fair game.
 
Damian McBride was one of my best friends in my mid to late teens. Always had a very nasty streak but there was a lot of good in him too.

Funny old world
 
[Irony]Butchersapron is clearly a NuLabour Poodle if he can't see that an error in Jacqui Smith's expense claim is unequivocal evidence of fraud. I mean what other possible explanation could there be for this claim. It was cklearly a deliberate and intentional act to rob us tax payers![/Irony]
 
agricola said:
Butchers is right though, Smith's claim wasnt legally fraudulent, just embarassing - fundamentally there is no difference between her husband watching porn at our expense, and her getting bathplugs, barbeques, the TV he watched porn on, the interweb service to download the porn from, plantpots or patio heaters at our expense. She has only paid us back for the porn.

As Peter Oborne notes in his latest missive, the claims were itemized (hence how the papers were able to find out what he had watched) and paid by the Commons Authorities. When viewed against all the other nonsense - Conway, Spellman's "nanny", Clegg (and Blair) having his house renovated at our expense, and many others - its clear that the entire system is set up to allow MPs to, should they wish, take the piss with expenses. There is no fraud of the one when the entire system is set up and managed to encourage people to do exactly what she has done.
Click to expand...

Surely if this was the case there would be no need to list expenses; they'd just hand in the bill each April. I'd say technically it was a fraudulent claim. I thought ignorance was no defence in law. Obviously though it can easily be presented as an oversight made by her accountant/secretary, which Smith merely signed off and as such would not be forced to resign over. The law is more equal for some. As a policeman do you honestly believe that the operation of law is impartial?

Butchers, do you think that if the OB that pushed Ian Tomlinson isn't charged with assault or manslaughter then the assault didn't happen?
 
sus said:
I'd say technically it was a fraudulent claim. I thought ignorance was no defence in law.
Click to expand...

Not fraudulent as no dishonest intent. Ignorance of the law is no excuse but that maxim doesn't apply here because nobody's saying they were ignorant of the law.
 
sus said:
Surely if this was the case there would be no need to list expenses; they'd just hand in the bill each April. I'd say technically it was a fraudulent claim. I thought ignorance was no defence in law. Obviously though it can easily be presented as an oversight made by her accountant/secretary, which Smith merely signed off and as such would not be forced to resign over. The law is more equal for some. As a policeman do you honestly believe that the operation of law is impartial?

Butchers, do you think that if the OB that pushed Ian Tomlinson isn't charged with assault or manslaughter then the assault didn't happen?
Click to expand...
What law did she break?

And yes, yes i do.
 
From here

http://handbooks.homeless.org.uk/hostels/risks/drugs/wintercomfort

"The judge interpreted “permit” or “suffer” as the same thing. He stressed that it meant that the defendants had to use any reasonable means that were readily available to them to prevent the prohibited activity. If they failed to use these means, they could be said to be ‘permitting’ the activity."

Ironically, she could have paid a book-keeper to thoroughly scrutinize her expense claim-on expenses.
 
sus said:
Surely if this was the case there would be no need to list expenses; they'd just hand in the bill each April. I'd say technically it was a fraudulent claim. I thought ignorance was no defence in law. Obviously though it can easily be presented as an oversight made by her accountant/secretary, which Smith merely signed off and as such would not be forced to resign over. The law is more equal for some. As a policeman do you honestly believe that the operation of law is impartial?
Click to expand...

Sus, you appear to be under the impression that this area is specifically covered by legislation - it isnt, the nature of what was claimable at the time is covered by the Green Book and is overseen by the Department of Finance and Administration, and the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Both of those bodies will probably exonerate her (indeed the DFA did pay the bill), for the simple reason that she was probably safe to claim for it along with everything else she claimed for (she is allowed to claim under ACA for "telecommunications services", fittings and furnishings, "repairs" and so on)).

As Oborne says, this acceptance and lack of consequences for obvious pisstaking - as shown here, and in the cases of Conway (who only paid back a fraction of his "mistaken claims"), Spellman (ditto), Trend and everyone else - is probably enough to demonstrate that the system is actually working as they intend it to work.

I appreciate this is probably obvious, but I am not saying that these claims are in any way acceptable morally (I mean ffs under the ACA as it was they could claim for a TV licence), just that under the system that they devised they are legal.
 
sus said:
Tell this poor sod.http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=267211&highlight=nightclub

BA I don't have the statute number to hand and :eek::( don't know to say.
Click to expand...

The definition of fraud as "gaining an advantage by deception" comes from the common law, not statute, and while in England there are stautes covering the crime the principle is unchanged. You can't deceive someone without mens rea (guilty intent). The maxim ignorantia juris neminem excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse) is derived from Roman law and again isn't expressed in statute. The drugs case you quoted relates to ignorance or otherwise of facts in a statutory offence to do with controlling prenmises, not fraud. Nothing to do with the issue under discussion here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kebabking
Multiple stabbings at Synagogue in Greater Manchester 02/10/25
28 29 30 31 32
Replies
939
Views
27K
Flavour
Flavour
weltweit
Royal Mail scraps 2nd class mail on Saturdays
2
Replies
40
Views
948
Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
dshl
Someone drives over children in Cumbria, March 2025
Replies
5
Views
361
hash tag
hash tag
Larry O'Hara
MI5: Threat Assessment 8/10/24 given a good kicking
Replies
0
Views
272
Larry O'Hara
Larry O'Hara
A380
  • Poll Poll
Should the UK have a statute of limitation? 92 year old man imprisoned for offence in 1967.
Replies
28
Views
1K
teuchter
teuchter
Back
Top Bottom