Nadim Zahawi

Fuck the lot of them, if the country has any sense they’ll be out on their ears at the next available opportunity.
 
BrianW said:
What amazes me is that there are people out there - people who would be really outraged if you called them stupid or suggested they didn't understand what they were voting for - who imagine that the likes of this man have their interests at heart, and want them to be better off.

Well, here's the news. Cunts like this are only interested in enriching themselves. They don't give a flying fuck about you, your family, the place where you live or the country. They wrap themselves up in the Union Jack, but it doesn't make them patriots. It's all a ploy, intended to stir your base instincts and emotions, so you will vote for them.

And if you say Keir Starmer is no better, I can understand it. But it's all a matter of degree. I'd sooner eat corned beef than dog meat.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is that we have to believe that Starmer is a better option. The alternative of giving these corrupt fckers a mandate to run the country for another 5 years is totally unbearable.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
There are people who’ve never had a pot to piss in who support looking after millionaires just in case they become one, one day. Don’t forget the true working class Tory who just believes that they’re better than him and his ilk. If it wasn’t so sad, it’d be hysterical.…
Click to expand...
Its like " The ragged trousered philanthropists" still,one hundred years on,alas.
 
Saw this article in the twitter replies:

www.mirror.co.uk

'Hard working and decent' mum jailed for £20,000 benefit fraud

Angela Prendergast, from Hull, made a genuine working and child tax claim in 2011 however she failed to declare a change in her circumstances after her partner moved in with her
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk



A 'hard working and decent' mum has been jailed for a £20,000 benefit fraud.

Angela Prendergast, 49, from Hull, made a genuine claim for working and child tax benefits in 2011 on the basis she was a single parent with a limited income.



She failed to tell the Department of Pensions that her partner had moved in with her in July 2016, changing their circumstances.

The mum withheld the information for nearly two years, despite informing her local authority about the move, Hull Live reports.

Hull Crown Court heard that Prendergast claimed over £20,000 until she eventually contacted the DWP at the end of May 2018.


Prosecuting barrister Michele Stuart-Lofthouse told the court that Prendergast believed she could continue to claim tax credits as her partner was only living at her property part-time.

She said: “The defendant failed to notify the Department of Work and Pensions as she was obliged to declare any changes in her circumstances.

“She had been claiming these benefits, which had been renewed yearly since July 2011, on the basis she was a single parent with two dependent children and had limited income.




“The tax credits stopped in June 2018 when the defendant notified the Department of Work and Pensions that her partner had moved in on May 31.”

After notifying the DWP, an investigation was carried out which revealed that Prendergast’s partner had actually moved in with her in July 2016.

Prendergast had contacted Hull City Council about her change in circumstances which affected her housing benefit and council tax.



She failed to tell the Department of Work and Pensions about a change in her circumstances (

Ms Stuart-Lofthouse told the court that Prendergast claimed her partner had been living with her for three to four nights a week but this was only for correspondence but did not contact the DWP for almost two years.

"The defendant was interviewed in September 2018 and she confirmed she claimed working tax and child tax credits until May 31, 2018, when she declared her partner had moved in to her address.

"She informed Hull City Council that he had moved into her address in 2016 but was only using it for correspondence. She believed he was not living there full-time and she could still claim tax credits and did not consider to seek advice."

His honour Judge Mark Bury asked: “Why did she notify the local authority that her partner moved in but not the Department of Work and Pensions?”

Mitigating barrister Mark Savage told the court that the money was “not used to fund a lavish lifestyle”.

He said: “She accepts there is no excuse and she accepts fully her culpability. She at the time was struggling with two young children and holding down a responsible and stressful job. She was in debt.

“I would urge the court to accept that she is ordinarily a hardworking and decent woman raising two children on her own and doing very well by all accounts in a responsible high pressure job. She is not ordinarily irresponsible but someone who provides a great deal for society.

“She should have made a phone call or written to the Department of Work and Pensions. She has not used this money to fund a lavish lifestyle, she doesn’t have one.

“She and her partner do not have a great deal of money. What that money enabled her to do was pay forward some debts. She doesn’t smoke, she doesn’t drink, they don’t go on holidays and she doesn’t buy expensive clothes.

“This has been hanging over her for two years and she has had to come to terms with what she has done.”

The court heard how Prendergast had a previous offence of benefit fraud way back in 1998 in which she was given a conditional discharge.

Judge Bury told her that this was “relevant to your present position” as he passed a sentence of four months imprisonment.

He said: “You had been paid over £20,000 of taxpayers money to which you were not entitled to.

“Your initial claim was a genuine one. You were a single parent and you had dependent children so in 2011 when that claim began there was no suggestion of the claim being fraudulent. I entirely accept that.
 
AlexWilliamsGloves said:
He said: “You had been paid over £20,000 of taxpayers money to which you were not entitled to.
Click to expand...


In this instance that is a painful read, if she gets jail for £20,000 complete with a lecture from a sanctimonious tosser then the thieves in the big house should get life because they should be held to a higher standard.
 
mexico1970 said:
In this instance that is a painful read, if she gets jail for £20,000 complete with a lecture from a sanctimonious tosser then the thieves in the big house should get life because they should be held to a higher standard.
Click to expand...
The cost of sending her to prison and putting her kids in care will likely be more than the £20K. Unlike the tax man and very wealthy individuals, she can’t offer to pay back the cash and therefore ‘get away with it’.
Sadly, as a woman, she’s also much more likely to go down for this type of an offence than a man is. Also cannot see any benefit to society of her ‘going down’ when community service would be much more appropriate, she could likely keep her job and carry on looking after her kids.
 
west didsblue said:
Looking likely to me that the ethics investigation was purely for the purpose of giving Sunak a reason for not sacking Zahawi earlier and for him to pretend he has acted decisively upon receipt of the results of the investigation. Transparent as fuck.
Click to expand...
It so obvious what has gone on here. As soon as the issue was first raised there should have been some basic questions asked. The answers would have resulted in either an investigation or a sacking if he was not straight with the answers.

What we got was an attempt to minimise and then delay any consequence. Only when those attempts were clearly failing did Sunak act. Even now there is no apology or even acknowledgement of how wrong his was.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
The cost of sending her to prison and putting her kids in care will likely be more than the £20K. Unlike the tax man and very wealthy individuals, she can’t offer to pay back the cash and therefore ‘get away with it’.
Sadly, as a woman, she’s also much more likely to go down for this type of an offence than a man is. Also cannot see any benefit to society of her ‘going down’ when community service would be much more appropriate, she could likely keep her job and carry on looking after her kids.
Click to expand...

I think she got jail time because it was her second time up in front of the beak for benefit fraud. First time she got community. Just paying your dues doesn’t get you off the hook of going to prison either.

Also not sure why you’d measure the value of the crime against cost of jail. That’s just bonkers.
 
metalblue said:
I think she got jail time because it was her second time up in front of the beak for benefit fraud. First time she got community. Just paying your dues doesn’t get you off the hook of going to prison either.

Also not sure why you’d measure the value of the crime against cost of jail. That’s just bonkers.
Click to expand...
The scale of the fraud and the mitigating circumstances for the woman in Hull compare favourably with the scale of Zahawi's evasion and his resolute attempts to hide it from scrutiny. If she deserved 4 months for that, then Zahawi deserved 4 years rather than a fine that he won't even notice. Lester Piggott got 3 years for tax dodging at a similar scale to Zahawi, and he wasn't the minister responsible for HMRC at the time. It's a disgrace that Zahawi isn't being prosecuted.
 
west didsblue said:
Looking likely to me that the ethics investigation was purely for the purpose of giving Sunak a reason for not sacking Zahawi earlier and for him to pretend he has acted decisively upon receipt of the results of the investigation. Transparent as fuck.
Click to expand...
Ding ding ding we have a winner. They insult our intelligence with every passing scandal.
 
metalblue said:
I think she got jail time because it was her second time up in front of the beak for benefit fraud. First time she got community. Just paying your dues doesn’t get you off the hook of going to prison either.

Also not sure why you’d measure the value of the crime against cost of jail. That’s just bonkers.
Click to expand...
It’s a completely unjustifiable sentence, in my view.
Is she a danger to society?
Will her kids be worse off with her in the nick? Will she find it easier or harder to get work and contribute to society?
As for the cost, ‘society’ is £20k out of pocket. Once she’s inside and her kids are in care and she’s on the dole when she gets out, we’ll be much more out of pocket.
My biggest gripe is that she was getting benefits because her employer wasn’t paying her enough. If she’d got a proper wage then there’s no possibility of crime being committed.
 
A57 the snake said:
The sickening thing again is they have to get found out before they come clean, how much money do these people need or want ??
He comfortably sat there in parliament arms folded holing the second highest job in government whilst debating the country’s desperate needs. Despicable human being.
Never known a corrupt government like this.
Makes a South American government Look like democracy.
Click to expand...

This is what really annoys me too, that they need an investigation into their own behaviour. I don’t think it twigs just how ridiculous that is. Johnson costing the tax player 200k for legal fees for partygate being another prime example.

Threatening to sue journalists for telling what is now been admitted to be demonstrably true should be enough for Zahawi to stand down as an MP in itself, let alone everything else.
 
west didsblue said:
The scale of the fraud and the mitigating circumstances for the woman in Hull compare favourably with the scale of Zahawi's evasion and his resolute attempts to hide it from scrutiny. If she deserved 4 months for that, then Zahawi deserved 4 years rather than a fine that he won't even notice. Lester Piggott got 3 years for tax dodging at a similar scale to Zahawi, and he wasn't the minister responsible for HMRC at the time. It's a disgrace that Zahawi isn't being prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Maybe he isn’t being prosecuted because he hasn’t done anything illegal? If he had he would be facing criminal prosecution. Then he would be getting 4 years or more.

The alternative to this narrative is that the HMRC is corrupt to the core and can be brought off, for that you’d need some actual evidence.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
It’s a completely unjustifiable sentence, in my view.
Is she a danger to society?
Will her kids be worse off with her in the nick? Will she find it easier or harder to get work and contribute to society?
As for the cost, ‘society’ is £20k out of pocket. Once she’s inside and her kids are in care and she’s on the dole when she gets out, we’ll be much more out of pocket.
My biggest gripe is that she was getting benefits because her employer wasn’t paying her enough. If she’d got a proper wage then there’s no possibility of crime being committed.
Click to expand...

As Aristotle said “law is reason unaffected by desire” - often re-quoted as “law is reason, free from passion”. You’re bringing emotion in to it. She committed a crime, for the second time - this the judge said when passing her a 4 month sentence was relevant - in other words if this was her first rodeo she’d have got a slap on the wrist and community. How many chances does she deserve?

I get why you think like you do mate. I’d have made a shit judge as I’m a sucker for a heart breaking story and I’d set her free with a kitten. I’m merely highlighting that she’s not some hard done by innocent and the judge passed a fair sentence all things considered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top