|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 18, 2020 16:10:50 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8536253/Russian-socialite-48-Tory-partys-biggest-female-donor-gifts-1-7m.htmlRussian socialite, 48, becomes Tory party's biggest female donor with gifts of £1.7m - including £45,000 to play tennis with Boris Johnson and £135,000 for dinner with Theresa May. Perhaps worthy of a mention in the suppressed Russia Report? Electoral Commission records show that Mrs Chernukhin, 48, who was criticised by a senior judge last year for giving unreliable evidence in court, has donated more than £335,000 to the Conservative Party in the first seven months of this year. In the 12 months since July 2019 her contributions to Tory funds reached almost £560,000. There have been three separate donations of £200,000 since June last year. One of those £200,000 gifts came on November 6, the day that parliament was dissolved to allow campaigning for the general election. That dissolution also put paid to hopes that the intelligence and security committee (ISC) report on alleged Russian interference in British political life would be published before the poll. The long-awaited dossier will be released next week and is expected to raise the issue of political donations by rich Russians as a matter of concern. The Times reported last year that Downing Street had delayed publication because, sources with knowledge of the document claimed, revelations about the Kremlin links of some Tory donors would have been “embarrassing” if aired before the poll in December. It is understood, however, that when the report is published the names of individual donors will be redacted. She is the director of a British property company, Capital Construction and Development Ltd, which recorded liabilities of more than £8.4 million and assets of only £23,000 in its 2019 accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 18, 2020 22:42:28 GMT 1
The question that really needs answering is why? Why does a Russian socialite want to donate money to the Tory party?
|
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jul 18, 2020 23:35:46 GMT 1
Once again the rampant tories on here have gone rather quiet. perhaps this is all ok in their book?!
|
|
|
|
Post by trojanskin on Jul 19, 2020 0:27:20 GMT 1
Once again the rampant tories on here have gone rather quiet. perhaps this is all ok in their book?! They are all as bad as one another. |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 19, 2020 9:12:39 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/18/if-you-dont-profess-undying-love-to-boris-johnson-he-will-destroy-you'If a leader wants to rule as if he is ruling a one-party state, the first institution he needs to bend to his will is not the judiciary, civil service or free press but the ruling party. The party gave him power and could take it away. He must turn it into the equivalent of Vladimir Putin’s United Russia or Donald Trump’s Republicans and fill it with politicians too venal and frightened to challenge the boss'. Cummings is obviously absolutely vital in assisting Johnson to achieve this. MPs have been quoted as being 'terrified' by him.
|
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 19, 2020 16:32:56 GMT 1
Terrified of Cummings? Well, it's about time Tory MPs got a bit of backbone then! People like Cummings have to be faced up to, and it's better sooner than later.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Jul 19, 2020 17:42:48 GMT 1
Terrified of Cummings? Well, it's about time Tory MPs got a bit of backbone then! People like Cummings have to be faced up to, and it's better sooner than later. Absolutely. This is a completely ridiculous state of affairs. It about time they grew some for all our sakes. Dreadful state of affairs just a load of wimps. See my previous posts. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 19, 2020 18:12:09 GMT 1
Terrified of Cummings? Well, it's about time Tory MPs got a bit of backbone then! People like Cummings have to be faced up to, and it's better sooner than later. Absolutely. This is a completely ridiculous state of affairs. It about time they grew some for all our sakes. Dreadful state of affairs just a load of wimps. See my previous posts. They have power until the next election, so if Cumming's was challenged and it led to Boris' demise, they have years to get sorted before the next election. Do they really think Starmer is going to be so easy to defeat with a three word slogan and some cheap photo opportuniities? |
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Jul 19, 2020 18:26:17 GMT 1
Perhaps that is what they are more scared of.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 20, 2020 9:05:00 GMT 1
It is not only Boris Johnson’s government that is nervous about scrutiny of Britain’s dealings with the Kremlin. Skeletons clog the cupboards of Theresa May and David Cameron (and before that the Labour governments of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair). Remember Alexander Litvinenko? His murder in London in 2006 was an outrage; the Russian hitmen’s reckless use of a radioactive poison could have made it a massacre as well. Instead of a speedy, clear-eyed rethink about Russia we got a determined damage-control effort, including years of delay to the public inquiry.
A series of other incidents in which Kremlin critics met untimely deaths, ranging from a suicide by multiple stab wounds to the crash of an expertly piloted and well-maintained helicopter, were feebly investigated. Britain’s weakness prompted bafflement and fury in other countries, notably the US. The chief culprit, I fear, is Russian cash. It feeds the influential money-laundering industry on the one hand and the market for mansions and penthouses on the other, and flows in donations to politicians and their hangers-on, not least in the Conservative Party.
Delaying the report has heightened the appetite for it. Trying to install the docile Chris Grayling as the ISC’s chairman prompted a revolt, underlining the committee’s statutory independence. Now the seasoned Kremlin-watcher Julian Lewis is in the chair. By withdrawing the Tory whip from Mr Lewis, Boris Johnson made himself look weak and vindictive. By seeking to distract attention from the report’s publication by highlighting what appears to have been a Russian stunt in the 2019 general election, the government has emphasised the need to ask questions about other attacks on our elections, such as Kremlin meddling in the Scottish independence and EU referendums.
The Times.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 20, 2020 9:29:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 21, 2020 8:58:14 GMT 1
Ministers used a government regeneration scheme to target millions of pounds in grants at marginal Conservative seats before the last election, an analysis by The Times suggests.
Today a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) reveals the process by which ministers selected 101 towns in England to each benefit from a £25 million boost to their economies last September.
It shows 61 of the towns were chosen at the discretion of ministers led by Robert Jenrick, the housing and communities secretary. An analysis shows that all but one of them were either Conservative-held seats or Tory targets before the election.
Of those held by Conservative MPs, 80 per cent had majorities of less than 5,000. Every single Labour seat targeted for funding fell to the Conservatives.
Only two towns chosen had Tory majorities of more than 10,000 before the election, one of which was Mr Jenrick’s seat, Newark.
The NAO’s findings bear out Times research from November last year which found evidence of the fund being used to boost Tory target seats.
Steve Reed, the shadow communities secretary, said: “There are now serious concerns that ministers may have allocated funding for political gain at the 2019 election, something which breaks strict rules on impartiality.
“The secretary of state must explain as a matter of urgency how ministers decided where to spend this money and why so many communities lost out.”
The £3.6 billion towns fund was unveiled last summer shortly after Boris Johnson entered Downing Street as part of his early pledges to “rebalance growth” across England after Brexit.
Those towns selected to benefit from the scheme were announced by Mr Jenrick in September but his department refused to publish the selection criteria amid criticism that affluent towns had been prioritised over poorer communities. The NAO’s report reveals that officials attempted to create a set of seven criteria for deciding which towns should benefit, including income and skill deprivation, low productivity and exposure to Brexit.
But while ministers accepted a recommendation that all 40 high-priority towns identified be selected to bid for funding they retained discretion over the remaining 61 places allocated.
The NAO report shows that these towns were often less in need of assistance — 12 were officially classed as “low priority’” of which, The Times’s figures suggest, nine were in marginal seats.
The Times.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 21, 2020 9:07:20 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jul 21, 2020 9:28:24 GMT 1
did he drop it in the style of David de gea ? |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 21, 2020 10:56:55 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 21, 2020 13:04:42 GMT 1
Some of you will be aware of the so-called Nolan Principles, drawn up by Lord Nolan at John Major’s request after the so-called cash for questions affair in 1994. Honesty. Openness. Integrity. Transparency. Accountability. Selflessness. Leadership by example.
Johnson and Co break one or all of those every day of the week. It used to be a resigning offence to lie at the despatch box. Johnson can’t get through a PMQs without transgressing on that one. The Patel bullying. The unexplained Johnson holidays. The Jenrick/Desmond affair. The hounding out of senior civil servants to be replaced by cronies. The awarding of multi million contracts to friends and family without a proper tendering process. If this was an emerging market in Africa, we would be dusting off the banana republic clichés of Johnson’s journalist past. And plenty of the Nolan seven have been breached by the government’s handling of the Russia Report, which had to be dragged kicking and screaming into daylight.
"The Article".
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 21, 2020 16:46:41 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Jul 21, 2020 18:32:00 GMT 1
Some of you will be aware of the so-called Nolan Principles, drawn up by Lord Nolan at John Major’s request after the so-called cash for questions affair in 1994. Honesty. Openness. Integrity. Transparency. Accountability. Selflessness. Leadership by example. Johnson and Co break one or all of those every day of the week. It used to be a resigning offence to lie at the despatch box. Johnson can’t get through a PMQs without transgressing on that one. The Patel bullying. The unexplained Johnson holidays. The Jenrick/Desmond affair. The hounding out of senior civil servants to be replaced by cronies. The awarding of multi million contracts to friends and family without a proper tendering process. If this was an emerging market in Africa, we would be dusting off the banana republic clichés of Johnson’s journalist past. And plenty of the Nolan seven have been breached by the government’s handling of the Russia Report, which had to be dragged kicking and screaming into daylight. "The Article". we seem hell bent on repeating the mistakes/ negilgence we made with Russia with China. Russia has immeresed itself in the british establishment, just as China is now doing. |
|
|
|
Post by LetchworthShrew on Jul 22, 2020 11:39:05 GMT 1
Ministers used a government regeneration scheme to target millions of pounds in grants at marginal Conservative seats before the last election, an analysis by The Times suggests. Today a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) reveals the process by which ministers selected 101 towns in England to each benefit from a £25 million boost to their economies last September. It shows 61 of the towns were chosen at the discretion of ministers led by Robert Jenrick, the housing and communities secretary. An analysis shows that all but one of them were either Conservative-held seats or Tory targets before the election. Of those held by Conservative MPs, 80 per cent had majorities of less than 5,000. Every single Labour seat targeted for funding fell to the Conservatives. Only two towns chosen had Tory majorities of more than 10,000 before the election, one of which was Mr Jenrick’s seat, Newark. The NAO’s findings bear out Times research from November last year which found evidence of the fund being used to boost Tory target seats. Steve Reed, the shadow communities secretary, said: “There are now serious concerns that ministers may have allocated funding for political gain at the 2019 election, something which breaks strict rules on impartiality. “The secretary of state must explain as a matter of urgency how ministers decided where to spend this money and why so many communities lost out.” The £3.6 billion towns fund was unveiled last summer shortly after Boris Johnson entered Downing Street as part of his early pledges to “rebalance growth” across England after Brexit. Those towns selected to benefit from the scheme were announced by Mr Jenrick in September but his department refused to publish the selection criteria amid criticism that affluent towns had been prioritised over poorer communities. The NAO’s report reveals that officials attempted to create a set of seven criteria for deciding which towns should benefit, including income and skill deprivation, low productivity and exposure to Brexit. But while ministers accepted a recommendation that all 40 high-priority towns identified be selected to bid for funding they retained discretion over the remaining 61 places allocated. The NAO report shows that these towns were often less in need of assistance — 12 were officially classed as “low priority’” of which, The Times’s figures suggest, nine were in marginal seats. The Times. Sounds like Russia could learn a few things when it comes to influencing elections!!  |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 23, 2020 9:12:18 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 25, 2020 8:59:51 GMT 1
Jenrick's brave new world of housing: www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/24/our-slum-future-the-planning-shakeup-set-to-blight-british-housing?CMP=share_btn_twThe government has extended rules allowing former offices, shops and warehouses to be converted into housing – as research shows the policy results in dwellings unfit for human habitation. The Conservative government has a known mistrust of experts, but rarely do ministers fly in the face of their own commissioned research as starkly as the housing secretary did this week. On the very same day that Robert Jenrick triumphantly extended permitted development rights (PDR), allowing a range of building types to be converted into housing without planning permission, his own ministry published a report condemning the same rules for leading to “worse quality” homes. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902220/Research_report_quality_PDR_homes.pdfThe new rules, which include a right for developers to demolish vacant office and industrial premises and rebuild them as homes, were branded “disgraceful” by the Royal Institute of British Architects, while the Royal Town Planning Institute described them as a “serious error”. The government has pushed ahead with introducing the rights despite most of the changes being opposed in previous consultations, and despite the conclusions of a government-commissioned review, which found that previous permitted development rights had created significantly worse quality homes. “The new legislation fundamentally undermines the notion of a democratic, professional and accountable planning system,” says Dr Ben Clifford, professor at UCL’s Bartlett School of Planning, who co-led the research. “Not only will it continue to produce more tiny flats with poor living conditions, but it also means the developers are not required to provide any affordable housing or make any contributions to local infrastructure, like parks and playgrounds. It’s placing a huge burden on local communities, while at the same time making more profit for developers.” |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Aug 2, 2020 13:19:54 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8585181/Housing-Secretary-Robert-Jenrick-insists-bars-stay-open.htmlThere are no plans to shut England's pubs the Housing Secretary said today despite England's Chief Medical Officer warning that they may have to close so schools can restart in September. Robert Jenrick, this morning was asked on Times Radio whether the Government would look to close pubs after a rise in coronavirus transmissions and said: 'We don't have any plans to do that.' I just hope that for once he's being truthful. I've heard 'we don't have any plans to do that' from this lot before. And obviously I already have no confidence whatsoever in any statement made by Mr Jenrick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 13:35:16 GMT 1
They never have plans to do anything until around 2200hrs the night before!
Also, and in fairness, there could well be discussions going on about this issue and others, but that isn’t the same as planning to do it 👍
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Aug 2, 2020 14:37:16 GMT 1
Mrs Elphicke goes the same way as Burton's Mrs Griffiths to keep herself in place as a Tory MP by disassociating herself from her husband. However, Elphicke had defended her husband for 2½ years after the allegations emerged. She had claimed the Tories threw her husband “to the wolves”, before ultimately securing the candidacy for Dover and Deal, the 12,278-majority seat he had represented since 2010. Critics say the local party engineered a deal in which she would “keep the seat warm” for her husband. It is understood that Dover’s local Tory party did not hold an open selection when deciding on its parliamentary candidate last year. Such contests usually see local members vote on three candidates who have been vetted by Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ). Two sources said they were given only a “yes or no” choice about backing Elphicke. On November 8 she posted a tweet saying she was “delighted to have been selected unanimously” to contest the seat. A week and a half later, Paul Goodman, editor of the Conservative Home website, wrote: “Why was Dover’s association not allowed the choice that others were permitted?” (The Times) www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8575789/Naughty-Tory-Charlie-Elphicke-guilty-three-sex-attacks-against-two-women.htmlwww.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/disgraced-mp-andrew-griffiths-wife-17253616The late Labour Party M.P. Tessa Jowell did much the same thing with her husband David Mills. And here's another one. Rob Roberts of Delyn. I wonder if his wife has ambitions to replace him as Tory MP for his constituency? Perhaps she could phone Mrs Griffiths for some advice. Mr Griffiths got away with it because the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said it had not found evidence that the Burton and Uttoxeter MP sent the messages while engaged in parliamentary activities! I can't see Rob Roberts being able to offer the same excuse. Mrs Elphicke had already put her insurance policy in place before her husband's court case by replacing him as M.P. for Dover. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-53472289www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rob-roberts-mp-illagl-party-lockdown-birthday-wife-delyn-mold-a9534056.htmlAnd now we have this: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/01/former-minister-arrested-sexual-assault-charge'Tory MP arrested on suspicion of rape of parliamentary staffer'. |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Aug 3, 2020 9:16:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Aug 3, 2020 9:47:20 GMT 1
In November 2017, Elphicke was suspended from the Conservative Party after "serious allegations" made against him were referred to the police. Elphicke stated: "I am not aware of what the alleged claims are and deny any wrongdoing."
In March 2018, Elphicke was told that he was accused of sex offences against two members of his staff. He said in response: "I am completely confident I will be able to prove my innocence".
On 12 December 2018, Elphicke had the Conservative whip reinstated prior to a confidence vote in Theresa May.
On 22 July 2019, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that they had charged Elphicke with three counts of sexual assault relating to two women; one charge relating to 2007 and the other two in 2016. The Conservative party again withdrew Elphicke's whip later that day. Wiki.
So, Elphicke was nemed and suspended by the party in 2017 even though he wasn't charged until 2019. The 2016 rule wasn't applied! In a post on Twitter, Elphicke wrote: "The party tipped off the press before telling me of my suspension".
Note the cynical reinstatement of the whip for the confidence vote on May. Griffiths also had the whip restored for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Aug 3, 2020 11:26:43 GMT 1
The name of the MP currently accused of rape is being widely circulated, it will be very unfortunate for the person concerned and presumably those spreading the rumour if it isn’t him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 11:37:32 GMT 1
The name of the MP currently accused of rape is being widely circulated, it will be very unfortunate for the person concerned and presumably those spreading the rumour if it isn’t him. It will be equally unfortunate for the alleged victim if it causes problems with any future trial. Twitter can be awful sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Aug 3, 2020 11:43:56 GMT 1
whereas cliff Richard got £2m for his wrong accusation of being a peodo I got accused of something far worse last week and got nothing, I was accused of being a government supporter |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Aug 3, 2020 12:46:09 GMT 1
Had a look on twitter, not found the name, but this tweet shows the distrust around: "Until they name the Tory MP, I think the best course of action is to assume it's any and all of them".
|
|
