Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just shows what a bunch of back stabbing twats they are, they took the lobbying money and now they are going back on agreements and giving the 2 fingers. "Well with the morals compass that their leader is no wonder they welch on their deals. The North and Midlands must be really peeved that they got the PM in power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the BBC: "The UK government has refused permission for a £1.2bn electricity link between England and France. Aquind Ltd wanted to lay cables through Portsmouth, Hampshire, to Normandy. But a decision notice posted on the government's website said Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng was not satisfied "more appropriate alternatives to the proposed route" had been fully considered. ............ The company - which is part-owned by Russian-born Victor Fedotov - and another of his businesses, have donated £700,000 to 34 Conservative MPs since the Aquind project began, the BBC Panorama programme reported in October. Another director, Ukrainian-born Alexander Temerko, has donated a further £700,000 to the party." So that £1.4m donations from Russian & Ukrainian businessmen. Can anyone explain what possible reason a foreign national would have to make donations to a UK political party? Should donations from foreign donors be forbidden? Should donations from wealthy UK businessmen (and Unions) be limited or even forbidden? I realise that politics & campaigning is an expensive business and someone has to pay for it. But how does accepting donations of this sort, or indeed offers of donations to decorate one's house, satisfy the Nolan Principles of public office? " Because he is a British citizen  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just shows what a bunch of back stabbing twats they are, they took the lobbying money and now they are going back on agreements and giving the 2 fingers. "Or it could be it was just a donation ever thought of that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the BBC: "The UK government has refused permission for a £1.2bn electricity link between England and France. Aquind Ltd wanted to lay cables through Portsmouth, Hampshire, to Normandy. But a decision notice posted on the government's website said Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng was not satisfied "more appropriate alternatives to the proposed route" had been fully considered. ............ The company - which is part-owned by Russian-born Victor Fedotov - and another of his businesses, have donated £700,000 to 34 Conservative MPs since the Aquind project began, the BBC Panorama programme reported in October. Another director, Ukrainian-born Alexander Temerko, has donated a further £700,000 to the party." So that £1.4m donations from Russian & Ukrainian businessmen. Can anyone explain what possible reason a foreign national would have to make donations to a UK political party? Should donations from foreign donors be forbidden? Should donations from wealthy UK businessmen (and Unions) be limited or even forbidden? I realise that politics & campaigning is an expensive business and someone has to pay for it. But how does accepting donations of this sort, or indeed offers of donations to decorate one's house, satisfy the Nolan Principles of public office? Because he is a British citizen "So do you think donations such as these, are acceptable? How do you see them fitting with the Nolan Principles? Guidance: The Seven Principles of Public Life Published 31 May 1995 1. The Seven Principles of Public Life The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors delivering public services. 1.1 Selflessness Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. 1.2 Integrity Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships. 1.3 Objectivity Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias. 1.4 Accountability Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this. 1.5 Openness Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing. 1.6 Honesty Holders of public office should be truthful. 1.7 Leadership Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the BBC: "The UK government has refused permission for a £1.2bn electricity link between England and France. Aquind Ltd wanted to lay cables through Portsmouth, Hampshire, to Normandy. But a decision notice posted on the government's website said Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng was not satisfied "more appropriate alternatives to the proposed route" had been fully considered. ............ The company - which is part-owned by Russian-born Victor Fedotov - and another of his businesses, have donated £700,000 to 34 Conservative MPs since the Aquind project began, the BBC Panorama programme reported in October. Another director, Ukrainian-born Alexander Temerko, has donated a further £700,000 to the party." So that £1.4m donations from Russian & Ukrainian businessmen. Can anyone explain what possible reason a foreign national would have to make donations to a UK political party? Should donations from foreign donors be forbidden? Should donations from wealthy UK businessmen (and Unions) be limited or even forbidden? I realise that politics & campaigning is an expensive business and someone has to pay for it. But how does accepting donations of this sort, or indeed offers of donations to decorate one's house, satisfy the Nolan Principles of public office? Because he is a British citizen
So do you think donations such as these, are acceptable? How do you see them fitting with the Nolan Principles?
Guidance:
The Seven Principles of Public Life
Published 31 May 1995
1. The Seven Principles of Public Life
The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors delivering public services.
1.1 Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
1.2 Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
1.3 Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
1.4 Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
1.5 Openness
Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
1.6 Honesty
Holders of public office should be truthful.
1.7 Leadership
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.
"All parties take donations thats the way it works im not saying its right i just like a bit of balance i didnt see many kicking off about Barry Gardiner taking 1/2 mil from a chinese spy that was called deflecting from partygate by people on here when mentioned the lib/dem leader pocketed 5 grand from her too. The accusation that it was a bung has totally been debunked as his proposals have been rejected. Im old enough to remember when i wasnt allowed to work in some places without joining a union then some of my fees were sent direct to the labour party legalised extortion. If an overhaul of party funding is required i would think the opposition would be all over it but not hearing anything from them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the BBC: "The UK government has refused permission for a £1.2bn electricity link between England and France. Aquind Ltd wanted to lay cables through Portsmouth, Hampshire, to Normandy. But a decision notice posted on the government's website said Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng was not satisfied "more appropriate alternatives to the proposed route" had been fully considered. ............ The company - which is part-owned by Russian-born Victor Fedotov - and another of his businesses, have donated £700,000 to 34 Conservative MPs since the Aquind project began, the BBC Panorama programme reported in October. Another director, Ukrainian-born Alexander Temerko, has donated a further £700,000 to the party." So that £1.4m donations from Russian & Ukrainian businessmen. Can anyone explain what possible reason a foreign national would have to make donations to a UK political party? Should donations from foreign donors be forbidden? Should donations from wealthy UK businessmen (and Unions) be limited or even forbidden? I realise that politics & campaigning is an expensive business and someone has to pay for it. But how does accepting donations of this sort, or indeed offers of donations to decorate one's house, satisfy the Nolan Principles of public office? Because he is a British citizen
So do you think donations such as these, are acceptable? How do you see them fitting with the Nolan Principles?
Guidance:
The Seven Principles of Public Life
Published 31 May 1995
1. The Seven Principles of Public Life
The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors delivering public services.
1.1 Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
1.2 Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
1.3 Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
1.4 Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
1.5 Openness
Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
1.6 Honesty
Holders of public office should be truthful.
1.7 Leadership
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.
All parties take donations thats the way it works im not saying its right i just like a bit of balance i didnt see many kicking off about Barry Gardiner taking 1/2 mil from a chinese spy that was called deflecting from partygate by people on here when mentioned the lib/dem leader pocketed 5 grand from her too.
The accusation that it was a bung has totally been debunked as his proposals have been rejected.
Im old enough to remember when i wasnt allowed to work in some places without joining a union then some of my fees were sent direct to the labour party legalised extortion.
If an overhaul of party funding is required i would think the opposition would be all over it but not hearing anything from them." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" the scale of the Tory alleged ongoing corruption is obscene and appears endemic. Rotten to the core? " utterly and irrefutably | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the BBC: "The UK government has refused permission for a £1.2bn electricity link between England and France. Aquind Ltd wanted to lay cables through Portsmouth, Hampshire, to Normandy. But a decision notice posted on the government's website said Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng was not satisfied "more appropriate alternatives to the proposed route" had been fully considered. ............ The company - which is part-owned by Russian-born Victor Fedotov - and another of his businesses, have donated £700,000 to 34 Conservative MPs since the Aquind project began, the BBC Panorama programme reported in October. Another director, Ukrainian-born Alexander Temerko, has donated a further £700,000 to the party." So that £1.4m donations from Russian & Ukrainian businessmen. Can anyone explain what possible reason a foreign national would have to make donations to a UK political party? Should donations from foreign donors be forbidden? Should donations from wealthy UK businessmen (and Unions) be limited or even forbidden? I realise that politics & campaigning is an expensive business and someone has to pay for it. But how does accepting donations of this sort, or indeed offers of donations to decorate one's house, satisfy the Nolan Principles of public office? " And the Chinese Communist Party have donated large amounts to Labour..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just shows what a bunch of back stabbing twats they are, they took the lobbying money and now they are going back on agreements and giving the 2 fingers. "There were no agreements. And does it not show that the money donated by backers of the project does NOT buy them influence? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just shows what a bunch of back stabbing twats they are, they took the lobbying money and now they are going back on agreements and giving the 2 fingers.
There were no agreements. And does it not show that the money donated by backers of the project does NOT buy them influence?"I think it was the local council screaming about where’s the due diligence and there was no clear evidence of where the money was coming from. Also a little matter of a data line being piggy backed on the pipelines which was not in the original tender. It seems local councillors have pulled the governments pants down in public. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just shows what a bunch of back stabbing twats they are, they took the lobbying money and now they are going back on agreements and giving the 2 fingers.
There were no agreements. And does it not show that the money donated by backers of the project does NOT buy them influence?
I think it was the local council screaming about where’s the due diligence and there was no clear evidence of where the money was coming from. Also a little matter of a data line being piggy backed on the pipelines which was not in the original tender.
It seems local councillors have pulled the governments pants down in public. "Why is it you think they have pulled their pants down? do you not realise how democracy works in the uk and its exactly the reason we have local councils. Your bias is unbelievable sometimes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just shows what a bunch of back stabbing twats they are, they took the lobbying money and now they are going back on agreements and giving the 2 fingers.
There were no agreements. And does it not show that the money donated by backers of the project does NOT buy them influence?
I think it was the local council screaming about where’s the due diligence and there was no clear evidence of where the money was coming from. Also a little matter of a data line being piggy backed on the pipelines which was not in the original tender.
It seems local councillors have pulled the governments pants down in public. Why is it you think they have pulled their pants down? do you not realise how democracy works in the uk and its exactly the reason we have local councils. Your bias is unbelievable sometimes. "So why didn’t the government who were backing this initially mention due diligence and ask where the money came from . Maybe because they knew? Your obsession with me is unbelievable sometimes! Because your Tory party ( once mine I admit) has been exposed as a bunch of lying cheating self serving scumbags who will only be happy when they have this country under the thumb, you find it necessary to attack me personally yet again. If you just want go keep personally attacking me then I will quite a happily respond to your attacks as your ignorance of anything counter to your blind devotion to everything Tory is quite sad and pathetic. I openly admit on here when I’m wrong. You just stop posting and go quiet for a bit . Remember Cummings stating we had to find those foolish enough to believe? Need I say more. Is this what you’re after? I have respect for a lot of your views Costa because you put a good case many times but this personal stuff is just childish. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just shows what a bunch of back stabbing twats they are, they took the lobbying money and now they are going back on agreements and giving the 2 fingers.
There were no agreements. And does it not show that the money donated by backers of the project does NOT buy them influence?
I think it was the local council screaming about where’s the due diligence and there was no clear evidence of where the money was coming from. Also a little matter of a data line being piggy backed on the pipelines which was not in the original tender.
It seems local councillors have pulled the governments pants down in public. Why is it you think they have pulled their pants down? do you not realise how democracy works in the uk and its exactly the reason we have local councils. Your bias is unbelievable sometimes.
So why didn’t the government who were backing this initially mention due diligence and ask where the money came from . Maybe because they knew?
Your obsession with me is unbelievable sometimes!
Because your Tory party ( once mine I admit) has been exposed as a bunch of lying cheating self serving scumbags who will only be happy when they have this country under the thumb, you find it necessary to attack me personally yet again.
If you just want go keep personally attacking me then I will quite a happily respond to your attacks as your ignorance of anything counter to your blind devotion to everything Tory is quite sad and pathetic.
I openly admit on here when I’m wrong. You just stop posting and go quiet for a bit . Remember Cummings stating we had to find those foolish enough to believe? Need I say more. Is this what you’re after?
I have respect for a lot of your views Costa because you put a good case many times but this personal stuff is just childish.
"As i have said thats how democracy works in this country not everything the government backs goes through, if the people the local council object then the local mp takes the case to parliament there are plenty of examples as you very well know fracking is one example. As for personal attacks take it as you see it but i will call out anyone who i think is talking crap and you are working on the assumption that donations were a backhander for this project to go ahead.No proof just what you care to believe even though the project not going ahead should be proof enough but no not to you there has to be another reason. As for not posting on here so often two reasons i have a life away from here and secondly the quality of debate has gone down hill for a few months now in fact there is no debate on here anymore just people sounding off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is a short list as there are others involved. Quoted from the BBC “ Alok Sharma recused himself from the decision following revelations he had shared a table with Mr Temerko at a Conservative fundraising event. Former energy minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan also recused herself after her local party group received several donations from Aquind and Mr Temerko. In 2019 Conservative MP David Morris was found to have breached parliamentary rules when he spoke in favour of Aquind in the House of Commons, only weeks after having received a £10,000 donation from the company. Gavin Millar QC, an elections expert, said: "The question is: if you're a political party in government, why aren't you recognizing the risk that there's a connection between the money you're receiving and the person who's giving that money??"? He added: "It's in their interests not to look too hard. And it's lucrative to not look hard if you're good at raising the money." In a statement, the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) told the BBC Lord Callanan has recused himself from any decisions relating to Aquind.” Callahan worked directly for Aquind. All of the above recusing was done after questions were raised not before when they all knew they had a conflict of interest . They had to be exposed first before they withdrew their involvement. In business you would be sacked for gross misconduct. As I stated above the Labour Party are also in the mire for the Chinese donations but here we literally have government for sale. Are there other wealthy individuals who donate getting similar turning of a blind eye? " All donations must be declared which are checked by the parliamentary commission for standards so to try and imply that these people recused because they were FOUND to have a conflict of interest is another interpretation, do you really think they are that thick that they dont know that people will be checking on them in the register of interests? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is a short list as there are others involved. Quoted from the BBC “ Alok Sharma recused himself from the decision following revelations he had shared a table with Mr Temerko at a Conservative fundraising event. Former energy minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan also recused herself after her local party group received several donations from Aquind and Mr Temerko. In 2019 Conservative MP David Morris was found to have breached parliamentary rules when he spoke in favour of Aquind in the House of Commons, only weeks after having received a £10,000 donation from the company. Gavin Millar QC, an elections expert, said: "The question is: if you're a political party in government, why aren't you recognizing the risk that there's a connection between the money you're receiving and the person who's giving that money??"? He added: "It's in their interests not to look too hard. And it's lucrative to not look hard if you're good at raising the money." In a statement, the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) told the BBC Lord Callanan has recused himself from any decisions relating to Aquind.” Callahan worked directly for Aquind. All of the above recusing was done after questions were raised not before when they all knew they had a conflict of interest . They had to be exposed first before they withdrew their involvement. In business you would be sacked for gross misconduct. As I stated above the Labour Party are also in the mire for the Chinese donations but here we literally have government for sale. Are there other wealthy individuals who donate getting similar turning of a blind eye? All donations must be declared which are checked by the parliamentary commission for standards so to try and imply that these people recused because they were FOUND to have a conflict of interest is another interpretation, do you really think they are that thick that they dont know that people will be checking on them in the register of interests? " Why did it take exposure of their interests before they recuse themselves? How often do you check the 650MPs register of interests? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just shows what a bunch of back stabbing twats they are, they took the lobbying money and now they are going back on agreements and giving the 2 fingers.
There were no agreements. And does it not show that the money donated by backers of the project does NOT buy them influence?
I think it was the local council screaming about where’s the due diligence and there was no clear evidence of where the money was coming from. Also a little matter of a data line being piggy backed on the pipelines which was not in the original tender.
It seems local councillors have pulled the governments pants down in public. Why is it you think they have pulled their pants down? do you not realise how democracy works in the uk and its exactly the reason we have local councils. Your bias is unbelievable sometimes.
So why didn’t the government who were backing this initially mention due diligence and ask where the money came from . Maybe because they knew?
Your obsession with me is unbelievable sometimes!
Because your Tory party ( once mine I admit) has been exposed as a bunch of lying cheating self serving scumbags who will only be happy when they have this country under the thumb, you find it necessary to attack me personally yet again.
If you just want go keep personally attacking me then I will quite a happily respond to your attacks as your ignorance of anything counter to your blind devotion to everything Tory is quite sad and pathetic.
I openly admit on here when I’m wrong. You just stop posting and go quiet for a bit . Remember Cummings stating we had to find those foolish enough to believe? Need I say more. Is this what you’re after?
I have respect for a lot of your views Costa because you put a good case many times but this personal stuff is just childish.
As i have said thats how democracy works in this country not everything the government backs goes through, if the people the local council object then the local mp takes the case to parliament there are plenty of examples as you very well know fracking is one example.
As for personal attacks take it as you see it but i will call out anyone who i think is talking crap and you are working on the assumption that donations were a backhander for this project to go ahead.No proof just what you care to believe even though the project not going ahead should be proof enough but no not to you there has to be another reason.
As for not posting on here so often two reasons i have a life away from here and secondly the quality of debate has gone down hill for a few months now in fact there is no debate on here anymore just people sounding off. "So your personal attacks add to the quality of debate? Interesting stand point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is a short list as there are others involved. Quoted from the BBC “ Alok Sharma recused himself from the decision following revelations he had shared a table with Mr Temerko at a Conservative fundraising event. Former energy minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan also recused herself after her local party group received several donations from Aquind and Mr Temerko. In 2019 Conservative MP David Morris was found to have breached parliamentary rules when he spoke in favour of Aquind in the House of Commons, only weeks after having received a £10,000 donation from the company. Gavin Millar QC, an elections expert, said: "The question is: if you're a political party in government, why aren't you recognizing the risk that there's a connection between the money you're receiving and the person who's giving that money??"? He added: "It's in their interests not to look too hard. And it's lucrative to not look hard if you're good at raising the money." In a statement, the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) told the BBC Lord Callanan has recused himself from any decisions relating to Aquind.” Callahan worked directly for Aquind. All of the above recusing was done after questions were raised not before when they all knew they had a conflict of interest . They had to be exposed first before they withdrew their involvement. In business you would be sacked for gross misconduct. As I stated above the Labour Party are also in the mire for the Chinese donations but here we literally have government for sale. Are there other wealthy individuals who donate getting similar turning of a blind eye? All donations must be declared which are checked by the parliamentary commission for standards so to try and imply that these people recused because they were FOUND to have a conflict of interest is another interpretation, do you really think they are that thick that they dont know that people will be checking on them in the register of interests? Why did it take exposure of their interests before they recuse themselves? How often do you check the 650MPs register of interests? " Exactly this. Until it hits the news, it's not news. I agree that all parties have faced problems with donations, though in all honesty it seems the Tories have taken it to new heights (maybe that's because they have held power for so long now that there's little mileage to be gained in dropping a few quid here and there to Labour). And yes I remember the days of required Union membership in some industries. But laws were changed. Isn't it time for more controls in law, on what donations should be allowed and how much? Maybe parties should be funded centrally and no donations allowed at all? Why shouldn't every 'political' donation automatically be in the public domain? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
