Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Well that just about wraps it up for Peter Hain

tbaldwin said:
Flippin eck less than 100 grand to run a deputy leadership campaign. That is amazing. I wonder how much it costs to run as deputy pres in the US?

Seems like another big fuss about fuck all.
It's not about the cost, its about not disclosing donations according to parliamentary rules instituted by his own party when in power. This fucker presides over a department that would skin any benefit claimant alive if they "forgot" to declare that they'd received a cash gift that meant their savings were over the appropriate limits, yet Hain says "sorry, it was an oversight" and its not a problem. Hypocrisy of the highest degree imo.
 
Meltingpot said:
That was later exposed as being by the South African Intelligence Service at the time (BOSS), and was an attempt to frame him in order to get him behind bars and out of action. What ruined it was that Hain had recently changed his hairstyle and the stooge who impersonated him didn't know this.
Everyone in the know knows it was TV newsreader Denis Tuohy.

denistuohytonight77.jpg
 
SpookyFrank said:
Labour never campaigns in my constituency, it's a lib dem/tory race every time. Which means that, if I were to vote for Labour, then my vote would count for fuck all :(

Same here. I'm not a Labour supporter so it doesn't bother me personally but it's not justifiable.

SpookyFrank said:
It's a crappy system and no mistake, but like so many things it's a sight better than what the americans have.

Maybe, but it should still be changed; we need electoral reform including some form of PR (I expect there's been a thread about that here somewhere).
 
Paulie Tandoori said:
It's not about the cost, its about not disclosing donations according to parliamentary rules instituted by his own party when in power. This fucker presides over a department that would skin any benefit claimant alive if they "forgot" to declare that they'd received a cash gift that meant their savings were over the appropriate limits, yet Hain says "sorry, it was an oversight" and its not a problem. Hypocrisy of the highest degree imo.

Spot on.
 
I've got no sympathy for Peter Hain. I watched this so-called libertarian slip effortlessly into place beside Blair during the whole Iraq debacle, defending his leader at every turn. So, if he goes, I will not shed a tear.

But it's just one more case of donors who have asked to do a back-door thing, because they say they want to remain anonymous. And it seems to me that these donors know the implications of their anonymous donations even if the party fundraisers (blinded by greed) don't.

I think we run the risk of missing the whole point of this by looking at the greedy politician rather than at the motives of the 'anonymous' donors. Why should any donor want to remain anonymous in an atmosphere where Labour was happy to offer grand titles (and all their attendant benefits) in exchange for money?
 
It takes a lot to make these creeps resign but more revelation's maybe pushing him to the brink.i think he may have been a left winger but he as sold out big time
 
I dont know where the idea he is "libertarian" comes from. Around a year ago on Question Time he said we should have biometric ID because thats what they use in the Disneyland Carpark. He is dangerous like most labourscum.
 
another classic example of no matter how radical or right on they appear to be in their youth, they still become as corrupt and worthy of contempt as all the others
 
Meltingpot said:
That was later exposed as being by the South African Intelligence Service at the time (BOSS), and was an attempt to frame him in order to get him behind bars and out of action. What ruined it was that Hain had recently changed his hairstyle and the stooge who impersonated him didn't know this.

Indeed ----- all that is true.
 
shagnasty said:
It seems he is not the only one at it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7185622.stm
osborne seems to be at it as well, strangely the daily hate mail broke the story ,It shows no matter what party they support papers are like a pack of wolves only wolves do it for food to survive these cretins do it for financial gain:p

Remember ye this: when both sides of the dupololy slag each other off as corrupt hypocrites it is the only occasion when they are correct.
 
Not quite the same situation:

BBC News said:
Mr Osborne had declared the money to the Electoral Commission
In any case, New Labour can't really claim that the Tories being corrupt makes it ok to be corrupt.
 
Back
Top Bottom