The Conservative Party

bluethrunthru said:
Truss handed her arse - its like shooting fish in a barrel. When this happens don't any of them get a personal pang of shame and realise just how daft, how poor politically they look? Sitting there looking smug whilst someone is tearing lumps out of you is not a good look

Click to expand...

Ouch! that is her arse handed to her on a plate.

And Thornberry is right, the people do deserve to be told the truth and not be given wild exaggerated claims. That is not fair on the people who voted to leave the EU and its not fair on the people who voted to remain. It is treating us the electorate with utter contempt.
 
And more corruption.

The retailer B&M was allowed to stay open during lockdown as it was classed as an essential retailer. B&M if you havent seen one is a big shed pile them high sell them cheap retailer. It sells Baked Beans cheap and other foodstuffs at knockdown prices. Most of its big sheds though as for homewares, furnishings etc, which were ordered to close.

It made so much profit during the initial lockdown that it is paying a £250m special dividend to shareholders and £37m to the owner a Mr Simon Arora. They didnt just cash in on lockdown they also got the extra subsidy that all other retailers got and were granted relief from business rates worth £38 million. Most retailers that were allowed to stay open returned the subsidy and furlough money, not B&M but guess what....

Their owner a Mr Simon Arora became a new donor to the Tory party and gave them £50,000 .

The bent bastards.
 
twosips said:
Well this shows how we're viewed nicely. Subjects according to JRM. Fucking hell.

Click to expand...

I am sure he meant Her Majesty's subjects being the Royalist that he is.

Nonetheless it is a tweet that is idiotic and lacks awareness. It is Mogg though and he is as out of touch with reality as any of the clowns that we currently have masquerading as a competent party of Government.
 
Those pesky do-gooder lawyers attempting to hold the Govt to account for breaking the law.

Received this today.


Hi David

To bring judicial review proceedings you have to establish you have an arguable case. Courts have, in recent times, interpreted this as imposing a relatively high bar for judicial review proceedings; think of it as being shortlisted for a job. And if they think you cross that bar they give you ‘permission’.

We are pleased that we have now heard – in relation to two more sets of claims – that the High Court thinks our claims are arguable.

Last week we learned the Court has given Good Law Project and EveryDoctor permission to bring our challenge against its decision to award contracts to Pestfix, Ayanda, and Clandeboye. The Court gave us permission on some – but not all – of our grounds of complaint. So we have asked the Court for a short oral hearing in which we will make the case to be given permission on the others. That hearing will take place this Thursday 3rd December.

A few days later we heard we’ve also been granted permission to bring our challenge against the lucrative public affairs contract given to long-time associates of Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings at Public First.

In the Government’s summary grounds of defence, they do not even bother to contest that their decision to award the contract without competition was lawful. And their conduct does not seem to have thrilled the Court:

“The Defendant has provided no substantive response to the Claimant’s challenges, whether by way of pre-action correspondence or his Acknowledgement of Service, other than to state his intention to challenge the Claimant’s standing…The Defendant ought to have been able to indicate the general nature of his grounds of resistance in the Acknowledgment of Service.

“It is arguable that there was, at 3 March 2020, no extreme urgency within Regulation 32(2)(c) in respect of a contract for services of this nature”.

This case will be heard next year.

The Government’s arguments are wearing thin. Now it will have to come clean about what really happened.

It is only with your backing that we can continue to hold Government to account. Thank you for your continued support.

Jolyon Maugham QC
 
dave_blue12 said:
Those pesky do-gooder lawyers attempting to hold the Govt to account for breaking the law.

Received this today.


Hi David

To bring judicial review proceedings you have to establish you have an arguable case. Courts have, in recent times, interpreted this as imposing a relatively high bar for judicial review proceedings; think of it as being shortlisted for a job. And if they think you cross that bar they give you ‘permission’.

We are pleased that we have now heard – in relation to two more sets of claims – that the High Court thinks our claims are arguable.

Last week we learned the Court has given Good Law Project and EveryDoctor permission to bring our challenge against its decision to award contracts to Pestfix, Ayanda, and Clandeboye. The Court gave us permission on some – but not all – of our grounds of complaint. So we have asked the Court for a short oral hearing in which we will make the case to be given permission on the others. That hearing will take place this Thursday 3rd December.

A few days later we heard we’ve also been granted permission to bring our challenge against the lucrative public affairs contract given to long-time associates of Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings at Public First.

In the Government’s summary grounds of defence, they do not even bother to contest that their decision to award the contract without competition was lawful. And their conduct does not seem to have thrilled the Court:

“The Defendant has provided no substantive response to the Claimant’s challenges, whether by way of pre-action correspondence or his Acknowledgement of Service, other than to state his intention to challenge the Claimant’s standing…The Defendant ought to have been able to indicate the general nature of his grounds of resistance in the Acknowledgment of Service.

“It is arguable that there was, at 3 March 2020, no extreme urgency within Regulation 32(2)(c) in respect of a contract for services of this nature”.

This case will be heard next year.

The Government’s arguments are wearing thin. Now it will have to come clean about what really happened.

It is only with your backing that we can continue to hold Government to account. Thank you for your continued support.

Jolyon Maugham QC
Click to expand...


We probably don't agree on all things politically - even on judicial review - but I think most on this forum would agree that these contracts are a disgrace and if there are actual laws in place (as there should be) that make this kind of corruption illegal, then the Government absolutely should be held to account.
 
The odious **** Gove is on Kay Burley, you know he is lying, his lips are moving.

He is trying to explain covid rules on substantial meals and talking himself up his own backside.

He is a smarmy ****, he gives me the creeps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Rascal said:
And more corruption.

The retailer B&M was allowed to stay open during lockdown as it was classed as an essential retailer. B&M if you havent seen one is a big shed pile them high sell them cheap retailer. It sells Baked Beans cheap and other foodstuffs at knockdown prices. Most of its big sheds though as for homewares, furnishings etc, which were ordered to close.

It made so much profit during the initial lockdown that it is paying a £250m special dividend to shareholders and £37m to the owner a Mr Simon Arora. They didnt just cash in on lockdown they also got the extra subsidy that all other retailers got and were granted relief from business rates worth £38 million. Most retailers that were allowed to stay open returned the subsidy and furlough money, not B&M but guess what....

Their owner a Mr Simon Arora became a new donor to the Tory party and gave them £50,000 .

The bent bastards.
Click to expand...

You don't want people to be able to buy food and other items at knock down prices?
 
blueinsa said:
You don't want people to be able to buy food and other items at knock down prices?
Click to expand...
Yes of course I want people to be able shop for cheap food.

But that is not the issue. A large company makes a huge profit out of the rules and then the owner donates to the Tory party whilst the small shop keeper who sells cheap food at knock down prices and doesn't donate to the Tory party is not allowed to open.

Not very fair that on the owner of the small shop is it.
 
Rascal said:
And more corruption.

The retailer B&M was allowed to stay open during lockdown as it was classed as an essential retailer. B&M if you havent seen one is a big shed pile them high sell them cheap retailer. It sells Baked Beans cheap and other foodstuffs at knockdown prices. Most of its big sheds though as for homewares, furnishings etc, which were ordered to close.

It made so much profit during the initial lockdown that it is paying a £250m special dividend to shareholders and £37m to the owner a Mr Simon Arora. They didnt just cash in on lockdown they also got the extra subsidy that all other retailers got and were granted relief from business rates worth £38 million. Most retailers that were allowed to stay open returned the subsidy and furlough money, not B&M but guess what....

Their owner a Mr Simon Arora became a new donor to the Tory party and gave them £50,000 .

The bent bastards.
Click to expand...


No doubt the workers on the shop floor (probably on 0 hours) will receive no form of bonus for working through the pandemic/ exposing themselves to the virus despite the business thriving and receiving government aid.

Giffords/yes men in middle management won't be fussed and continue to work silly hours whilst those at the top will revel in their fortunes (funded by the tax payer).

Standard organisational chart for a pro tory business.
 
Rascal said:
Yes of course I want people to be able shop for cheap food.

But that is not the issue. A large company makes a huge profit out of the rules and then the owner donates to the Tory party whilst the small shop keeper who sells cheap food at knock down prices and doesn't donate to the Tory party is not allowed to open.

Not very fair that on the owner of the small shop is it.
Click to expand...
Come on Rascal, you claim to stand up for the working class but do you think it was better for B&M to close and furlough its staff on 80% wages purely in order to somehow prevent company dividends being paid?

I have no problem with company dividends being paid if their performance deserves it. B&M stayed open to provide cheap essentials and by employment it helped to pay peoples bills... I really don't see the problem.

The company I work for has just paid out a dividend to shareholders which I'm fully in favour of because I am one of them!
 
inbetween said:
Come on Rascal, you claim to stand up for the working class but do you think it was better for B&M to close and furlough its staff on 80% wages purely in order to somehow prevent company dividends being paid?

I have no problem with company dividends being paid if their performance deserves it. B&M stayed open to provide cheap essentials and by employment it helped to pay peoples bills... I really don't see the problem.

The company I work for has just paid out a dividend to shareholders which I'm fully in favour of because I am one of them!
Click to expand...

They paid dividend despite receiving government aid to the tune of £39m. If they returned this subsidy then many wouldn't take issue.
 
inbetween said:
Come on Rascal, you claim to stand up for the working class but do you think it was better for B&M to close and furlough its staff on 80% wages purely in order to somehow prevent company dividends being paid?

I have no problem with company dividends being paid if their performance deserves it. B&M stayed open to provide cheap essentials and by employment it helped to pay peoples bills... I really don't see the problem.

The company I work for has just paid out a dividend to shareholders which I'm fully in favour of because I am one of them!
Click to expand...
I have a problem because it is unfair on smaller shopkeepers and the money they received in support from the Government was then donated to the Tory party. That is corruption.

Do you support corruption?
 
Rascal said:
Yes of course I want people to be able shop for cheap food.

But that is not the issue. A large company makes a huge profit out of the rules and then the owner donates to the Tory party whilst the small shop keeper who sells cheap food at knock down prices and doesn't donate to the Tory party is not allowed to open.

Not very fair that on the owner of the small shop is it.
Click to expand...

What issue is there with the rules that allows them to sell food at low cost?

Had he donated to Labour or the Socialist Worker you wouldn't have an issue or a thought for the small shop.
 
Rascal said:
Yes of course I want people to be able shop for cheap food.

But that is not the issue. A large company makes a huge profit out of the rules and then the owner donates to the Tory party whilst the small shop keeper who sells cheap food at knock down prices and doesn't donate to the Tory party is not allowed to open.

Not very fair that on the owner of the small shop is it.
Click to expand...
Something tells me blueinsa knew that. Just reduced to wumming.
 
blueinsa said:
What issue is there with the rules that allows them to sell food at low cost?

Had he donated to Labour or the Socialist Worker you wouldn't have an issue or a thought for the small shop.
Click to expand...
B&M are mostly a homewares retailer than sells small amounts of cheap food, rather than a Grocer who might sell a City mug.

That they were allowed to circumvent the rules by having the status of a food retailer and then the owner donating to the Tory party stinks of corruption. They kept the Government grant, unlike most similar companies and the owner donated virtually the same amount to the Tory party.

If he had donated money to the Labour Party or the SWP or the Lib Dems or the Monster Raving Loonies is immaterial, they are not in Government. If they were in Government it would be corruption and i would say it was corruption.

By the way, one of the reasons i am not over enamoured with Starmer is because he has taken corporate donations for the Labour party and that disgusts me, the Party should be funded by members and party affiliates.
 
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