|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 10, 2024 23:34:05 GMT
Don't be silly Terry. Of course I am against corruption. I prefer to read real facts and not a biased opinion piece by a "charity" that has a vested interest, especially as it's presented on here as the truth! All these charities you mentioned, yes, they often produce reports but you also have to bear in mind that anything they produce will be presented as an effort to increase their charities revenue. Their reports will be biased. That's the name of the game I'm afraid. But that's not the case here Nobby, they are not publishing their report to raise funds. They are producing objective reports globally. They are not raising funds for kids or famine. They have registered as a charity as they are a non profit making organisation. Registering just as many non profit organisations do. Their specific objective is to look at global corruption. You write as if they are some tinpot organisation just looking to raise a few quid and can be ignored. Do you not want someone independent to take an objective global view, not attached to any one Government and hold people to account. How do we otherwise understand Government corruption? Because your attitude seems to be that we can just ignore it as its a charity. Or have I misread you. So therefore, I further take it that you do not believe that a charity can publish a report that is of use as it 'will be biased' so when the Samaritans produce a report on ways to reduce suicide it shouldn't be listened to as it is biased, nor Oxfam on famine, nor Save the Children or raising children out of poverty..... interesting. Terry, of course they are biased. They may be a non-profit organisation, but they have costs so therefore they need funds! They have a need to promote alleged areas of corruption to attract the funds. It's the fact the post was put up as a sort of, "look at this" ! As if the words presented were true and honest, when they are blatantly not as the report creators have a vested interest in making the claims worse than they probably are. Does this "charity" have access to the government information regarding the funds given out, or are they making assumptions?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 10, 2024 23:29:26 GMT
Wow, this is from the Guardian........and the Guardian is a friend of Lablour! "As the nights begin to draw in, the brief euphoria of 5 July increasingly feels like something that happened in a lost time of sunny innocence. Today, amid deep dismay, the House of Commons approved the government’s ill-conceived and dangerous plan to withdraw the winter fuel allowance from most pensioners in England and Wales. Rachel Reeves has reportedly given ministers and civil servants until Friday to draw up departmental savings. In some parts of Keir Starmer’s administration, meanwhile, minds are at least partly focused on interesting and exciting policies – but the Treasury is spreading a familiar sense of fear and foreboding. What this highlights is simple enough: that there are two strands of this government. One is recognisably left-of-centre, and is personified by a handful of key cabinet ministers: Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, and Louise Haigh, who is in charge of the transport brief. This grouping’s priorities are manifested in such policies as improving people’s rights at work, creating a new, publicly owned energy company and gradually renationalising the railways and reregulating local buses in England: all well-intentioned and avowedly social-democratic proposals that serve as instant reminders that the Tories are no longer in charge. The other key Labour tendency, however, has a rather different mindset – and given that its representatives include the prime minister and the chancellor, it is much more powerful. In their own way, Reeves and Starmer are as stereotypically Labour as their more left-leaning colleagues, but they are statist technocrats rather than merchants of social change: their shared quest, it seems, is to put the government machine back in working order and cling on to its orthodoxies in the hope that they can be restored, while somehow sparking renewed economic growth. This is really a bureaucrat’s prospectus, all about such apolitical concepts as competence and efficiency. It reflects Starmer’s time as the director of public prosecutions, and Reeves’s spell at the Bank of England. And its most vivid illustration is the three-pronged insistence that will define the immediate political future: that supposed fiscal rectitude must prevail, that no really ambitious thinking can be brought to the tax system and, as a consequence, that meaningfully lifting the country out of the hole it has been stuck in for 14 years is going to have to wait. Treasury spreadsheets, it seems, have decided our fate – and the national malaise may be about to deepen even further." Labour in trouble
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 10, 2024 9:33:02 GMT
This is from a 'charity'? Seriously? Do you expect this to be news? You surprise me more and more each day Nobby. It's registered as a charity as it wishes to be non profit making but is global. I thought you would be against corruption, guess not. So you believe that charities can be ignored and their reports ignored? What about Oxfam, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Barnados, Save the Chidren, Samaritans, etc www.transparency.org/en/aboutAbout Transparency International is a global movement working in over 100 countries to end the injustice of corruption. We focus on issues with the greatest impact on people’s lives and hold the powerful to account for the common good. Through our advocacy, campaigning and research, we work to expose the systems and networks that enable corruption to thrive, demanding greater transparency and integrity in all areas of public life. Our mission
Our mission is to stop corruption and promote transparency, accountability and integrity at all levels and across all sectors of society. Our vision
Our vision is a world in which government, politics, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption. We are independent, non-governmental, not-for-profit and work with like-minded partners across the world to end the injustice of corruption. Don't be silly Terry. Of course I am against corruption. I prefer to read real facts and not a biased opinion piece by a "charity" that has a vested interest, especially as it's presented on here as the truth! All these charities you mentioned, yes, they often produce reports but you also have to bear in mind that anything they produce will be presented as an effort to increase their charities revenue. Their reports will be biased. That's the name of the game I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 10, 2024 9:28:08 GMT
No. There was no way Reform were going to form a government, but small steps etc etc. And just how I voted.....what has that got to do with you posting an opinion piece from a "charity" that you seem to believe is the gospel truth? Who said I thought it was the Gospel truth? Your words not mine. As for the Reform plc comment, you've questioned their ability by being a charity, whereas you are happy to vote for Reform despite its status. Aren't a lot of private schools registered as charities? Do you question their teaching ability because of that? But you did post it as 'the truth'. It was posted as a "look at these figures" type of post! If you personally don't believe the figures in that report, then why did you post it? A school registered as a charity is fine. That is totally different to what you are trying to claim with this so-called 'report'. I'm surprised you are trying these deflection techniques. Yes, I was happy to vote for Reform. Many people vote for the LibDems don't they? I don't hear you screaming and howling about that! "According to the electoral commission register, the entity which is registered form Reform UK is just an unincorporated political party like any other - you’d find the same for any major (or minor) political party. In truth, there is nothing illegal or improper about registering a limited company as a political party (which is why they have a column for it) - but Reform UK have not done so. However, all major political parties typically include some limited companies within their group structure in relation to specific asset holding or contractual roles. For example, the Labour Party has Labour Party Properties Limited (Company number 00964628) and Labour Party Nominees Limited (Company number 00966540). It’s nothing illegal or sinister.
I don’t claim to know much about how Reform is structured, but I don’t think there is anything particularly Machiavellian about having one (or more) limited liability companies within the party structure."
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 10, 2024 7:27:53 GMT
This is from a 'charity'? Seriously? Do you expect this to be news? Didn't you vote for a 'limited company' to form the next government? No. There was no way Reform were going to form a government, but small steps etc etc. And just how I voted.....what has that got to do with you posting an opinion piece from a "charity" that you seem to believe is the gospel truth?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 9, 2024 23:50:57 GMT
Not sure where this best sits, happy to have it moved if appropriate. "An anti-corruption charity says it has identified significant concerns in contracts worth over £15.3bn awarded by the Conservative government during the Covid pandemic, equivalent to one in every £3 spent. Transparency International UK found 135 “high-risk” contracts with at least three red flags - warning signs of a risk of corruption. Twenty-eight contracts worth £4.1bn went to firms with known political connections, while 51 worth £4bn went through a "VIP lane" for companies recommended by MPs and peers, a practice the High Court ruled was unlawful. A Conservative spokesperson said: “Government policy was in no way influenced by the donations the party received – they are entirely separate.” Transparency International UK analysed 5,000 contracts for red flags. The charity said its analysis also indicated that almost two thirds of high-value contracts to supply items such as masks and protective medical equipment during the pandemic, adding up to a total of £30.7bn, were awarded without any competition. A further eight contracts worth a total of £500m went to suppliers no more than 100 days old – another red flag for corruption. Normal safeguards designed to protect the process of bidding for government contracts from corruption were suspended during the pandemic. The government, led by Boris Johnson, justified this at the time by stressing the need to short-cut the bidding process to accelerate the supply of much-needed items such as personal protective equipment (PPE). But Transparency International UK, a core participant in the Covid-19 inquiry which begins its third module on Monday, said the suspension of normal safeguards was often unjustifiable, costing the public purse billions and eroding trust in political institutions. It is urging the authorities to investigate the high-risk contracts it has identified." www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevj3y7n33voThis is from a 'charity'? Seriously? Do you expect this to be news?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 9, 2024 23:47:35 GMT
And Hamas/Iran could have stopped this a long long time ago. All they had to do was release the hostages, but they didn't, because the Israeli hostages are no different to the Palestinian people. They are all hostages to be used by Hamas/Iran. Their lives (both hostages and Palestinian people) are meaningless in the fight against Israel. Iran are supplying Russia with drones and ballistic missiles. They are supplying Hezbollah with weapons. They are supplying Hamas with weapons. They are the main suppliers to the Houthies in Yeman! Wouldn't the world be a better place (and Iran as well) if all the money and effort were put into making Iran a better place to live? There is a s**t storm heading towards Iran, and I have no doubt Oldie that you would be one of the first to complain about it, especially if it's the Israelis that do it. Yes, it's a terrible terrible thing that is happening in Gaza, but it could all have been avoided, and in fact it would stop tomorrow if the hostages were released.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 9, 2024 23:36:17 GMT
I've not seen any suggestion that's the case except from you two. That's because you have zero understanding of the law. Nonsense. Most of the videos in the public domain were shot by members of the public on their phones. You cannot suppress this information getting into the public domain unless you have a totalitarian state ! These videos should help the Police to convict these criminals. Time and time again we see the Police issuing videos along the lines of "have you seen this man/woman?". Every time they do that are they not possibly "prejudicing the trial" that could result? Good policing is dependent on the goodwill of the public. To even suggest these videos could prejudice the trial is nonsense and that argument is a just 'barrack room argument'. We are seeing people being sent to prison for something they posted on Facebook, and not only that but some of these are 'first offenders'. I fully expect these criminals involved in this incident at Manchester Airport to be tried, convicted and to receive a lengthy prison sentence. If they had pleaded guilty then it would be all over by now. By declaring they are not guilty I fully expect the sentence to be even harsher, as is the law. Anything less will be a further indication of the two-tier judicial system that seems to have been developed. The same applies to the Labour guy who declared that the throats should be cut of any 'right winger'. He has pleaded 'not guilty'. Should that video have also been suppressed? Has the release of the video of him declaring that 'prejudiced' his trial? Oh, and for a guy who is a local councilor, how can he afford to have a KC defend him? Where has the money come for that? Are you saying that the video of him declaring this should never have been released into the public domain? After all, it is the video that is the main piece of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 9, 2024 14:40:32 GMT
Meanwhile, in Germany... "Germany will bring in controls on all its land borders to deal with the 'continuing burden' of migration and 'Islamist terrorism', the country's interior minister has told the EU. Nancy Faeser of the struggling Social Democrat party (SPD) has finally accepted that Germany has no choice but to enforce proper border controls if it has any hope of coping with the staggering amount of unauthorised entries. According to German newspaper Bild, the new rules will see 'harsh rejections of migrants at the borders'. Faeser has reportedly already informed the EU Commission of the decision, which is fuelled by deep-rooted panic over Germany's current migrant situation and internal security threats." "Manuel Ostermann, deputy federal chairman of the Federal Police Union, has launched a fierce condemnation of Schengen, the EU's hair-brained border-free scheme, in an interview with Focus magazine. 'The crisis in Germany's security is a direct consequence of Schengen's ineffective policies. Schengen's inability to manage migration effectively has put Germany's safety at stake.' 'Germany must realize the current failure of Schengen and either make a concerted effort to return to the current legal situation or terminate Schengen,' Here he pointed to the rising crime rates in Germany, exacerbated by the migration crisis, as proof that Schengen is no longer viable. He said Schengen's open borders have made it easier for criminals to operate across Europe, impacting Germany's safety. 'Schengen has failed to protect Germany from the influx of criminals, necessitating immediate action.' 'We must continue to notify our internal borders because border controls, whose effectiveness has been proven, are no longer maintained under Schengen. 'The failure of Schengen is evident in the increased crime rates, making it clear that changes are needed.'" Daily Mail
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 6, 2024 8:57:49 GMT
Well, well, well.
Germany are going to use the very same facilities that we built in Rwanda to house immigrants!
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 5, 2024 12:46:50 GMT
I'll repost the links. x.com/DenisDanilovL/status/1827282706574537013www.newsweek.com/full-list-investors-elon-musks-x-revealed-court-filing-1942970From the Twitter account: "Petr Aven is a Russian billionaire, founder of Alfa Group, which is one of the main wallets for Putin. This man is controlled by the Kremlin as much as possible, for example, in 2018 he traveled to Washington with his colleague Fridman to lobby on behalf of the Russian government to lift international sanctions on Russia. Aven is one of Putin's oldest friends. In general, without Peter's interference, Putin would be in jail rather than becoming president. After all, Aven covered for Vladimir Putin in 1992, when he organized the illegal trade in export licenses. Aven promptly approved him as an authorized representative of the Ministry of Foreign Economic Affairs with the right of foreign economic activity, thus saving the future from prison. Aven also attended a meeting with Putin on February 24, 2022 to mark the start of the invasion of Ukraine. He did not express any protest, started the special military operation and silently supported Putin. By the way, he along with Friedman is trying to get sanctions lifted, just yesterday he received another rejection in this matter. Twitter is represented in the purchase by 8VC Opportunities Fund II, L.P., a company in which his son Denis works. Vadim Moshkovich is a sub-sanctioned Russian agrarian billionaire who was a member of the “Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”. In other words, he was officially part of Putin's closest circle. Moshkovich owns Russia's largest agricultural holding Rusagro. Naturally, he also attended the meeting with Putin on February 24, 2022 and, like Aven, did not express any protest against Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Twitter is represented in the purchase by 8VC Opportunities Fund II, L.P., a company in which his son Jack (Eugene) works. Also an interesting personality is Al-Waleed bin Talal Al Saud, who both personally and through his Kingdom Holding Company is represented in the list of investors as many as three times. This man continues his investment business in Russia and does not publicly support Hamas in the war against Israel. He regularly works with Rosneft, Lukoil and Gazprom on investments in Russia." Boom What do you think Nobby? I'm thinking that you had "25 rip roaring years in the City" so I am surprised at you. Surely you know how big money deals are financed?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 5, 2024 12:45:20 GMT
I am not defending Russia or it's 'acolytes'. I have five very good friends who are Russian, and all of them are very good people. I'm surprised at you all for suggesting that all Russians are bad. You all get into a right huff when anyone else says the same about Muslims, yet you are all guilty of the same offence. I am fed-up though of all these claims of "Russian interference" eveywhere. The claims against Trump were proven to be false, yet you all believed them even though it was fake news. Caused a lot of damage though eh, and some of you even keep bringing it up! The lies spread by Carole Cadwaller (spelling) against Aaron Banks that he was funded by Russia were proven to be false, yet you all believed the fake news. Caused a lot of damage though eh. You all get mad at the so-called "right wing" for believing fake news yet you are all just as guilty! I suggest you all find a mirror and take a good look. Sorry Nobby, where did I say all Russians are bad? Stop putting words into my posts. I have worked with Russians in banking so don't how you are supposing I think all Russians are bad..... In fact I got several Russian banks into CEER deals which they had found difficulty getting into. I would point out that Carole Cadwallader only lost part of her claim against Aaron Banks. I suggest you also take a good look in the mirror buddy! She was lucky that she didn't lose then....Oh, and she issued two public apologies to him as well. "Journalist Carole Cadwalladr has been ordered to pay legal costs of around £1.2 million to Arron Banks after he partially won an appeal in a long-running libel dispute. Brexit campaigner Mr Banks originally lost his case against Ms Cadwalladr for her remarks in a speech and a tweet. In February he succeeded in partially reversing that at the Court of Appeal. Ms Cadwalladr said it was a "dark day for press freedom". Banks called it "vindication". The case centred on comments Ms Cadwalladr made in a Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) talk broadcast online in April 2019, in which she accused Mr Banks of lying about "his covert relationship with the Russian government", as well as a tweet linking to the speech. Mr Banks argued her remarks were "false and defamatory" and sought damages and an injunction to restrain the continued publication of the remarks. In June 2022, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled in favour of Ms Cadwalladr, concluding she held a "reasonable belief" that her comments were in the public interest until April 2020, when the Electoral Commission announced that a National Crime Agency investigation concluded there was no evidence to support the allegations against Mr Banks or his companies.
Mr Banks then went to the Court of Appeal, which partially ruled in his favour, concluding that it had in fact been defamatory for the allegations to still be published after it had become clear that they were unsubstantiated. However it upheld other rulings made by Justice Steyn, including that Mr Banks had not proved that what Ms Cadwalladr tweeted had caused or was likely to cause "serious harm to his reputation". Subsequently, court documents dated 17 May said Mr Banks "was the successful party on the appeal and overall", and that Ms Cadwalladr must pay 60% of the businessman's original costs - listing an interim figure of £400,000. She must also repay almost £800,000 in costs that Mr Banks paid her after he initially lost the case. In addition, she was ordered to pay a third of his costs at the Court of Appeal - £52,000."
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 5, 2024 11:17:38 GMT
Terry, seriously, once again you attack the source, and don't even comment on the issue? Alright Nobby - "It was all a lie. On Monday the Prime Minister signed off an arms embargo on Israel that will undermine its capacity to defend itself, rescue its hostages and protect its citizens."The withdrawal of the licences is only a small number [30 of 350] and those considered that could be used for offensive rather than defensive operations. There are still a large number of licences in place. It is a political gesture to show Israel that the UK has concerns about its operations against the Palestinian population. Further Israel can more than cope without weapons from the UK. It is also interesting that the US is constantly reviewing its own supply of weapons. As an ex-serviceman do you believe the number of citizens killed as collateral damage and the amount of destruction of property including whole towns would be considered acceptable and justifiable to British forces? People were up in arms when the British were in Afghan and a small amount of the general public were killed on occasions. The attack by Hamas was horrendous and unforgiveable, but where does defense and justifiable response become vengeance? In terms of population numbers, the 1,200 murdered on Oct 7th in Israel equates to 10,000 in the UK. Can you imagine the response of this country if we had 10,000 innocent people murdered by terrorists in one day! Can you even imagine what the people of the UK would demand of the government if that were to happen?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 5, 2024 11:13:55 GMT
Interesting Nobby that you are so keen to defend Russia and its acolytes. I am not defending Russia or it's 'acolytes'. I have five very good friends who are Russian, and all of them are very good people. I'm surprised at you all for suggesting that all Russians are bad. You all get into a right huff when anyone else says the same about Muslims, yet you are all guilty of the same offence. I am fed-up though of all these claims of "Russian interference" eveywhere. The claims against Trump were proven to be false, yet you all believed them even though it was fake news. Caused a lot of damage though eh, and some of you even keep bringing it up! The lies spread by Carole Cadwaller (spelling) against Aaron Banks that he was funded by Russia were proven to be false, yet you all believed the fake news. Caused a lot of damage though eh. You all get mad at the so-called "right wing" for believing fake news yet you are all just as guilty! I suggest you all find a mirror and take a good look.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 5, 2024 11:06:38 GMT
Precisely, the point was who he got to help, though. Well exactly. Nobody forces anyone to accept money from malign actors. Just because they are Russian does not mean they are 'malign actors'. Tis not good to paint a whole nation with the same brush, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 5, 2024 7:59:31 GMT
So, we pay more and more for a degrading service. A private company wouldn't last long with that business model.
As Sir Alan Bates has said, sell the Post Office/Royal Mail to Amazon for one quid. Draw up the obvious legal contracts, SLA's etc and then we'll not have any problems with the service.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 5, 2024 7:56:29 GMT
Genuine question, is this correct or just hear say? As the point I think Nobby is making, is the Musk is the richest person in the world so does need any outside help, money wise with anything. It was confirmed in a financial submission to the US authorities. The link was added at the time on another thread. It's because people do not understand how large financing works with these huge deals, like buying Twitter. Simply put, if you are going to buy a company for 4 billion, you do not use all your own money. You get investors on board. No need to risk all your own money! In the case of Musk and Twitter, there are over one hundred companies and individuals who have invested. It's called sharing the risk.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 5, 2024 0:14:11 GMT
Having read numerous factually incorrect and inaccurate articles from Dan Hodges, the article doesn't surprise me at all. It would be in line with his normal spiel.... Terry, seriously, once again you attack the source, and don't even comment on the issue?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 5, 2024 0:12:12 GMT
According to Richard Tice of the Reform Party Limited men were snatching life jackets from women [without evidence] Now we learn there were only 8 jackets.... The mayor is factually wrong in many of his comments and obviously believing the propaganda himself. He's been spouting crap to justify his continuation as mayor for years. Another one who shouts loud, but does bugger all to try to change or improve the situation. Maybe it's because no matter what he does, he cannot change the situation? Maybe he is right in his summary? It is a fact that we cannot return the vast majority of illegal immigrants. It's a fact that we house them in hotels, give them money, provide free health care etc etc. It's a fact that the majority of illegal immigrants will never be exported from the UK. Maybe it's a fact that the majority of illegal immigrants will find work, especially with crime paying? Maybe it's a fact that illegal immigrants are a higher percentage of people locked up in prison compared to the native population. Please, tell me that none of these facts are true.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 5, 2024 0:04:45 GMT
According to Richard Tice of the Reform Party Limited men were snatching life jackets from women [without evidence] Now we learn there were only 8 jackets.... The mayor is factually wrong in many of his comments and obviously believing the propaganda himself. He's been spouting crap to justify his continuation as mayor for years. Another one who shouts loud, but does bugger all to try to change or improve the situation. The mayor is just passing the buck, trying to avoid culpability. Of course, it's all the fault of the Mayor of Calais, of course it is! Wise up, for pity's sake.
|
|