Is this another Tory scandal brewing? (Part 1)

First topic message reminder :

Justice minister stripped of powers

Ken Clarke to take charge after Djanogly failed to declare family interest in claims management companies

The justice minister, Jonathan Djanogly, has been stripped of his responsibility to regulate firms that "ambulance chase" the public following a Guardian investigation that revealed how he and his family could profit from controversial changes to legal aid he was piloting in parliament.

Djanogly, the heir to a £300m family business, had failed to declare that his teenage children were minority shareholders in his brother-in-law's businesses – two firms that advertise claims and are part of an industry that Djanogly regulated in government.

Do you get the feeling that after each Revelation about members of this government you just have to shout NEXT

blue,

Thanks for your support here, and making the effort to understand my point.

I know we don't particularly see eye to eye on all things politics; but as I've said before you are very reasonable and at least prepared to criticise the Tory party you generally support if you feel strongly enough. It seems if I criticise Labour in any way (a party I'd like to support) than it's verging on blasphemy as far as some are concerned.

Do you ever get one of those days when you lose faith in some people's maturity? I admire anyone who seeks to moderate on here ; it must be a thankless task - made no easier by juvenile imagined 'slights' and supposed and exaggerated 'complaints' from folk who really should know better...

This morning I received a strong complaint from a non-Tory member, and I think it was entirely justified. It concerned the puerile and childish distortion of Cameron to Camercon, Scam..er..on and Herr Cameron, and the ongoing modification of Blair to Bliar. To keep repeating the same ‘joke’ (if it merits such categorisation) over and over again just irritates readers and detracts from what is often an otherwise good posting. I hope that those who adopt this annoying practice will drop it.

blueturando. Can you please tell me how your this remark of yours….

Once again very disappointing from Mel and Ivan to try and gag you

…..equates with what I posted to sickchip?

We have a thread about Thatcher on this board, so you can certainly start one about Blair here

I can't decide whether you’re just trying to annoy me (if you are, you’re succeeding), or waste my time (I’ve at least a dozen other things connected to this forum I’d rather be doing right now), or whether you have genuinely convinced yourself that we’re all against you!

It was explained yesterday that if skwalker1964 posts material from another site owned by him, we can’t be done for breach of copyright. I thought you understood that, you kindly edited your post, and I hoped that would be the end of the matter. Last week I wrote to you after our lovely new membership secretary raised a few concerns. All of the staff here aim to be fair, and it’s certainly an essential element of my beliefs.

Do you happen to know how long Leveson is expected to last? It probably should have had a separate thread in the first place, but so much of it has been and gone already. If it’s going to end after Hunt and Cameron have given evidence, then a new thread would have a very short shelf life. However, if you, sickchip or anyone else wants to start a thread now, go and do it.

What annoys me is when you and tlttf post half-truths, or try the levelling down game and pretend that Labour sleaze equates with Tory sleaze, when it clearly doesn’t. Tory propagandists have dined out on the returned Bernie Ecclestone donation for well over a decade, yet taking bribes is a regular occurrence with the Tories. Look at the hundreds of millions of pounds that private healthcare firms gave to them (and even to Lansley’s private office) for carving up the NHS on their behalf? Even today it’s emerged that Ginsters have just given the Tories £100,000 to muddy the waters over the ‘pasty tax’. Then there were the Downing Street dinners with Cameron sold by Cruddas.

It’s patently absurd to say that Labour “cuddled up to Murdoch just as much” as the Tories. What did Labour give him? The Tories took a Murdoch man who resigned from the NOTW over phone-hacking and put him in Downing Street with access to sensitive information. When James Murdoch said he wanted the BBC licence fee frozen, Cameron promised it within days. Murdoch was promised the rest of BSkyB and Cameron was determined to give it to him. Cable was biased against Murdoch, so the decision was taken from him and given to Hunt, who was known to be very biased in favour of Murdoch. Gove remained on Murdoch’s payroll after leaving ‘The Times’, Hunt has also received payments. Gove has even been arranging for Murdoch to own a school or academy in London. Nothing like this happened with Labour.

Until such time as Blair is indicted by the UN or the International Court at The Hague, he’s no more of a war criminal than Thatcher is over the sinking of the Belgrano, and to say so is libellous. Yet your friend tlttf thinks we shouldn’t accuse Hunt of corruption until he’s been investigated, something which Cameron won’t allow (Leveson is not for that purpose, that was just a smokescreen to buy time).

How many members have been “excluded for a period of time”, as you seem to be implying, for not sticking to our posting rules? None. One person was banned from starting threads, and his views are well to the left. Just because he accepted the decision and has made no fuss on the forum doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. If he wishes to identify himself, that’s up to him; in every other respect, he’s a good poster. And unless you can give me some specific examples of where we’ve been unfair, instead of just making sarcastic smears, I’m afraid that I shall treat your latest outburst as little more than mischief-making.

Phil Hornby wrote:Do you ever get one of those days when you lose faith in some people's maturity? I admire anyone who seeks to moderate on here ; it must be a thankless task - made no easier by juvenile imagined 'slights' and supposed and exaggerated 'complaints' from folk who really should know better...

Oh dear! The party whips are out.

The 'gagging' complaints are about as convincing as an expenses claim from Lord Hanningfield...

To be fair Ivan I am frickin annoyed too!!! Without wishing to kiss ass in front of al the other posters, I have always have the upmost respect for you and what you have acheived on Cutting Edge......and that's why I am here.

The ONLY time I see you get annoyed is when someone doesn't agree with the majority rule here. This seems to be a recent occurance though, so what changed???

And please dont talk to me about half truths, when many on this board live and breath off half truths, playground name calling and hypocratic stratements.

ALL I AM ASKING IS YOU MAKE THIS FAIR!!!!!!! No matter if you're Tory, Labour or whatever your politics are

Now I so annoyed I'm going to go and beat the staff and give them a pay cut....see what you made me do now

blue,

I'm going to go and beat the staff

...too much information.

blue said : Now I so annoyed I'm going to go and beat the staff and give them a pay cut....see what you made me do now

Now we have it, your not a real Tory at all, a real Tory would have had them boiled in oil, before feeding them to the Dogs, that is if you kept any after the foxhunting ban,

Phil Hornby wrote:Do you ever get one of those days when you lose faith in some people's maturity? I admire anyone who seeks to moderate on here ; it must be a thankless task - made no easier by juvenile imagined 'slights' and supposed and exaggerated 'complaints' from folk who really should know better...

My lovely wife has frequently remarked, "Why be difficult when with just a little more effort you could be absolutely impossible?".

Excellent post Ivan, and actually, I get the impression that blue's complaints are genuine, even if they don't seem justified. However, I agree with the argument that specific examples would be useful! It's impossible to deal with an issue otherwise.

It's true about Leveson - it could have done with its own thread. I think it's a bit late now though.

I've nearly finished watching Tony Blair. Whether or not you agree with his policies and outlook, he is an amazing leader. He has a way of drawing you in and convincing you that he knows exactly what he's doing. He is also adept at deflecting negative attention. He manages to never have to resort to defensiveness. He's also forthright and sure of himself. Cameron tries to emulate his style, but I don't think he has the X factor.

Blam,

Since I was, according to Mel and Ivan, in the wrong here.....I would advise that you read the post history on page 10.

I was actually right........and, imo, blue was right to point that out. I was only 'chastised' by Mel because I dared to criticise Blair (I guess some of us can see through his BS). However I don't feel that Mel, or Ivan, were attempting to 'gag' my voice as blue stated.....we merely see things a little differently.

I guess Murdoch must be ok with all the Labour/Blair fans here.....if King Tony thinks he's a good guy - how can you argue he's not? Forget Blairs sheen and his performance - look at the content, and his actions....a book is more than it's cover.

Apologies to bring Blair up again on this thread.....but I'm actually quite annoyed now.

[I've nearly finished watching Tony Blair. Whether or not you agree with his policies and outlook, he is an amazing leader.

...only if you're gullible, or easily impressed.

sickchip said:...only if you're gullible, or easily impressed.

As you so obveously are, to believe all thats being said about Tony Blair in the Tory Press, You forget all the good he did, If you want a list I will be pleased to furnish you with one, Can you produce a list showing just what he did that was so wrong.

I fully agree with Mels view of Tony Blair, he will imho go down in history as one of our best Prime Ministers.

bobby,

Stick to the thread topic....

....or start another thread about best PM's.

sickchip wrote:Blam,

Since I was, according to Mel and Ivan, in the wrong here.....I would advise that you read the post history on page 10.

I was actually right........and, imo, blue was right to point that out. I was only 'chastised' by Mel because I dared to criticise Blair (I guess some of us can see through his BS). However I don't feel that Mel, or Ivan, were attempting to 'gag' my voice as blue stated.....we merely see things a little differently.

I wasn't having a go at you at all. It was just a direct response to a post. I don't dislike anyone

Ivan Wrote:

This morning I received a strong complaint from a non-Tory member, and I think it was entirely justified. It concerned the puerile and childish distortion of Cameron to Camercon, Scam..er..on and Herr Cameron, and the ongoing modification of Blair to Bliar. To keep repeating the same ‘joke’ (if it merits such categorisation) over and over again just irritates readers and detracts from what is often an otherwise good posting. I hope that those who adopt this annoying practice will drop it.


I haven’t until now been called Puerile or childish, many other things but never Puerile and childish. I like others have been posting on these boards for several years, and ways of expressing ourselves, some like yourself, Phil Hornby et al, have a better command of the English Language than do others, so use different methods to get our point across. I see my regular use of the term Herr Cameron has been pointed out, I’m sorry Ivan, but so long as I am posting I will use whatever terminology I wish, so long as its Legal, and what’s illegal in calling a Male by the title of mister. That’s my excuse, now for my real feelings. Herr Cameron and the rest of his Tory Bully boys have adopted, as you so frequently have said yourself, the Joseph Goebbels school of propaganda, where if you say something long enough, it will be seen as the truth. I think this government is the closest we have ever had to being a fascist Government, and my use of the title Herr Cameron, is my way of letting others know how I feel, and also hope others see them for the same.

As I said I along with several others on Cutting Edge, have been posting for several years and it is only now that a new comer (if its who I think she is) comes on here to tell us we are puerile and childish. I’m sorry Ivan I most certainly will carry on being Puerile and childish, unless of course you wish to ban me.

We Have had our own happy way of doing things for years, just who does this newcomer think they are, If SHE/he doesn’t like what’s been said then perhaps SHE/he should look for another forum that will suit HER/his delicate nature.

Again Ivan I am sorry, But either Ban me, or put up with my bit of childish behaviour.

I have a strong feeling I know where this strong complaint came from, but will leave it to HER or him to tell us if they so wish.

"Strong complaint"'s a bit...er... strong lol. I just had a grumble about it in a chat via Twitter DM. I think name-calling's only purpose it to wind up people who disagree and it's really irritating. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that? The posts would sound far more intelligent without, and they'd read better as well... wouldn't they? It might just be me! Honestly, I'm not sure. I just pointed out that it grates on me because it's the truth.

You're right - I could go elsewhere. I'm all right for now though

I guess I am a bit delicate. Not sure what to say to that. Is it a criticism or an observation? I don't know if I should change that attribute.

In any group of humans, there will always be someone who could start an argument in an empty room.

LOL I dunno whether you mean me. I'm actually incredibly non-argumentative and happy by disposition.

Grin.

Apologies, Blam....I'm not having a go at you either.

I explained, for the benefit of Mel and Ivan, why I initially mentioned Blair's Leveson appearance and why I thought it was a valid reference on this thread, and asked Mel, and Ivan, to explain why I shouldn't mention Blair's Leveson appearance here. Alas, no reply. It leaves one thinking that my criticism of Blair is their primary objection.

I do disagree with you on Blair's leadership qualities though...

as you so frequently have said yourself, the Joseph Goebbels school of propaganda

Hey, that's my line! I often refer to the propaganda tactics being used by the American right-wingers as coming from the Joseph Goebbels School of Propaganda and Ministry of Truth.

Butt out, Shirina...

sickchip wrote:Apologies, Blam....I'm not having a go at you either.

I do disagree with you on Blair's leadership qualities though...

Haha! All's good.

Blair - yeah, I know he's not terribly popular with either Labour or Conservative supporters, but I have a soft spot for him. I think he has some incredible abilities and just seems more in control and capable than Cameron could hope to be.

sickchip. I'm not a great fan of Tony Blair, and I think Attlee and Wilson were better Labour leaders. I also never supported the Iraq war, though I'm still not convinced it was illegal, because UN Resolution 678 was still in force from the previous Gulf War. No doubt lawyers will argue about it - and get rich on it - for decades to come.

However, it cannot be denied that Blair was Labour's most successful leader ever, winning three successive elections, the first two by a landslide. I'm more Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner, but they don't win general elections. And as the Tories will be the first to tell you, winning is everything. Without power you can achieve nothing and have to watch the Tories asset-stripping the country.

I've suggested already that you start a thread about Blair on this board, if that's what you want to do. There's one here already about Thatcher's legacy, so why not? What else do you want me to say?

Blam,

....and just seems more in control and capable than Cameron could hope to be.

Not difficult! An incontinent raving looney three sheets to the wind with two left feet is in more control, and more capable, than Cameron.

Butt out, Shirina

sickchip. That's right out of order. As a member of this forum, Shirina is as entitled as you are to comment on any message on any board. As the Global Moderator and my partner in running this forum, she's also entitled to intervene on any board that shows signs of getting out of hand, and she can, and will, take further action if necessary.

sickchip wrote:Blam,

....and just seems more in control and capable than Cameron could hope to be.

Not difficult! An incontinent raving looney three sheets to the wind with two left feet is in more control, and more capable, than Cameron.

Haha! That is true, of course. I just think comparing the two provides such a stark contrast that it's interesting to note.

Ivan,

I wasn't trying to make a massive point about Blair - obviously I'm not keen on the chap; but I did explain why I thought his Leveson testimony was relevant to this thread,

Blairs testimony at Leveson revealed how cosy politicians had to be to Murdoch to ensure support......evidently cosy enough to become godfather to Murdoch's kid.

That leads one to conclude that after 13yrs in opposition the Tories had to seek support from the powerful, and influential, Murdoch empire; and thus had to cosy up to him perhaps more than Labour, and promise more favours, co-operation, and extend him more influence. I have no doubt this involved his (Murdoch's) BskyB bid being allowed......until the scandal broke regarding NI's nefarious activities.

The reason I brought up Blair was to demonstrate that the cosiness/compromise that exists between government and Murdoch is evident, by Blairs evidence at Leveson. That was my point re: Blair.

Nothing can be done about that past now - except lessons can be learned.......but the present incumbents (government) and their dealings with Murdoch can be exposed, and dealt with now. And hopefully that might just be enough to collapse this catastrophic coalition.

....and will stand by that.

As I said - minor quibble with Mel; but no worries, it's water under the bridge.

Ivan wrote:

Butt out, Shirina

sickchip. That's right out of order. As a member of this forum, Shirina is as entitled as you are to comment on any message on any board. As the Global Moderator and my partner in running this forum, she's also entitled to intervene on any board that shows signs of getting out of hand, and she can, and will, take further action if necessary.

Ivan - It was said in humour (in reference to the previous minor squabble on this thread) - I would hope Shirina, and others, recognise that. And I am disappointed you imagine there was any malice meant....you should know I don't speak to people like that - we've been posting together long enough.

Apologies if anybody did take it the wrong way.

"Blair Leveson" sounds like one of those Palestinian villages mentioned in the Bible where people begat other people.

Much appreciated, sickchip. Some things that might be okay if said face to face can easily be misunderstood on the internet. I'm sure Shirina won't take any offence. Thanks.

Strange how this thread about 'Another Tory Scandal Brewing' has suddenly become a slanging match between members just as another of Dave's 'Hand Picked Team' gets caught with their hand in teh Cookie jar.......also notice that there is mention of another SPAd involved so she's already got the scapegoat lined up for the chopping block....

Thereby acting as a smoke screen for the real story of Warsi and her rent claims

What I want to know is what is the difference between the LAW and the 'SPIRIT of the LAW'?

Is there any legal foundation in law for the 'Spirit of the Law'?

Thanks for getting us back on track!

If she had simply said "I followed the rules", everyone would say she might have followed them strictly-speaking, but was being sneaky. By saying she followed the letter and spirit of the law, she's making it hard to criticise her.

Re: Warsi

One wonders how people apparently so incompetent at managing their own affairs, and arrangements, in a correct manner are deemed suitable to govern and make decisions on national issues.

Apologies if anybody did take it the wrong way.

I know it was said in jest, sickchip, and never thought for a moment you were being rude.


Tsk, tsk, Ivan! Grrrr.

LOL. Not the first time that my loyalty has got me into trouble!!

astradt1 wrote:Strange how this thread about 'Another Tory Scandal Brewing' has suddenly become a slanging match between members just as another of Dave's 'Hand Picked Team' gets caught with their hand in teh Cookie jar.......also notice that there is mention of another SPAd involved so she's already got the scapegoat lined up for the chopping block....

Thereby acting as a smoke screen for the real story of Warsi and her rent claims

What I want to know is what is the difference between the LAW and the 'SPIRIT of the LAW'?

Is there any legal foundation in law for the 'Spirit of the Law'?

While there may well be some mileage in the Warsi expenses situation, I believe the real trouble for the tories still lies in the Leveson inquiry, and their ahem 'arrangements' and deals with Murdoch.

Don't let Warsi (small fish) divert too much attention away from Cameron's, and Hunt's, situations.

The truly depressing aspect of this latest allegation of fiddled expenses is that it's about the hundred-and-twentieth since some MPs WENT TO JAIL.
Is dishonesty simply something that goes with the territory?

I don't know how you can blame the Baroness for 'accounting errors'. She is a trained solicitor, not an accountant. Oh. I don't know though, she should know enough 'legal loopholes' to get out of it.

bobby. We've known each other a long time, nobody called you puerile or childish, and in fact nobody was named at all. I passed on a piece of advice from a fellow Labour Party member which was intended to make our postings look more serious and sensible.

I can't actually imagine what anyone hopes to achieve when they change 'Blair' to 'Bliar', about ten years after someone first thought of doing so. Does the poster really think if he or she writes Bliar, everyone will roll on the floor laughing and think how original, clever and witty they are? Don't they realise it's more likely to elicit either a yawn or a groan, rather like the Tory lie of "it's all Labour's fault" produces these days?

As I started the thread about velvet glove fascism, you will be well aware that I share your view that this government is extremely right-wing and dangerously so. It was reported on Twitter earlier that the government has given the police permission to enter properties and tear down anti-Olympics posters. What next? Will Labour material be torn out of windows at the next election?

You carry on posting anything you want which is legal, and which doesn't insult other members, and nobody will consider banning you. For the record, I don't ban people anyway, that only happens if at least three of Shirina's team of moderators decide on it. Long before that would be considered, messages would be edited and warnings issued.

I apologise for taking this thread off topic again.