|
|
Post by nickr on Jan 31, 2023 11:51:25 GMT
My understanding is that, for some reason that I don't even begin to comprehend, Chairman of the Conservative Party is a cabinet level ministerial position, albeit unpaid. It may also be a paid position within the party. Actual employment status is vague, but technically, ministers are appointed by the monarch - in reality, they serve at the discretion of the PM. So I don't think there would be the slightest issue in the PM putting in place a procedure that looks like a normal employment disciplinary process, and I believe the PM is the one with the most to gain from this, politically. Looks awful the way it tends to go now - expression of full support, wavering, announce an investigation, sack. It would seem therefore that a process could be instituted such that, for example, the chairman of the party could be suspended pending investigation then either reinstated or sacked as appropriate. It would benefit all the political parties to have such a process as it would ensure that the leader of the party was not embroiled in anything during the process. As a country we look a shambles when these things happen, put in place a process and we look organised and professional. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Jan 31, 2023 13:33:08 GMT
Action probably depends on their wealth and popularity.
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Jan 31, 2023 19:50:22 GMT
Well he's gone (Zahawi that is) and I suppose that was inevitable under the circumstances. Picking up on my theme of toxicity in politics generally it was interesting to note that Sunak was criticised and accused of being weak for not firing him based on accusation, innuendo and rumour. Sunak had an investigation by his ethics advisor and that came down against Zahawi and he was immediately fired. Sunak was then criticised for being weak and "crumbling to public pressure". Damned if you do and damned if you don't!! Yesterday on radio an MP (happened to be Labour) insisted, several times, that the ethics advisor had written that Zahawi "lied". The advisor's report doesn't accuse Zahawi of lying. The nub of the matter is that Z denied that he was under investigation by HMRC. He claims that he didn't realise and thought that he was answering questions "for clarification". The ethics man came to the conclusion that any reasonable person undergoing the questioning (and receiving communications that are not in the public domain) should have realised that he was indeed under investigation. My take is that the advisor was leaving open the question of lying but offering incredible stupidity as an alternative. Whatever one's personal opinion the report does not directly accuse Z of lying. Of course one can form one's own opinion, as I have - and I do not believe that Z is incredibly stupid. Finally, before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, none of the above is to be taken in any possible way as a defence of Zahawi. He broke the rules, he's gone and it was right that he went. MIck It was a matter of record that when appointed he was under investigation. Journalists have been trying to report on it for years but kept getting threats from expensive lawyers which kept editors from publishing. The suggestion that this is rumour and innuendo is naive at best, and dishonest at worst. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Feb 1, 2023 8:55:53 GMT
It was a matter of record that when appointed he was under investigation. Journalists have been trying to report on it for years but kept getting threats from expensive lawyers which kept editors from publishing. The suggestion that this is rumour and innuendo is naive at best, and dishonest at worst. There is a difference between press report and evidence. Press report, however accurate it might eventually turn out to be, is not evidence.
If your "matter of record" is based on press (or opposition) report then I'm afraid that it just doesn't count.
However if there was real evidence and I mean evidence of the standard that a civil court would accept (balance of probability) then I withdraw my words.
Can you point to such evidence?
I'll add here that I agree with other posts that a proper process, similar to that in most general commerce, should have been in place. Heaven knows there appears to be enough sleaze about that it would be well used!
May I repeat that none of my posts are to be taken as a defence of Z or Sunak.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Feb 1, 2023 9:18:17 GMT
Well he's gone (Zahawi that is) and I suppose that was inevitable under the circumstances. Picking up on my theme of toxicity in politics generally it was interesting to note that Sunak was criticised and accused of being weak for not firing him based on accusation, innuendo and rumour. Sunak had an investigation by his ethics advisor and that came down against Zahawi and he was immediately fired. Sunak was then criticised for being weak and "crumbling to public pressure". Damned if you do and damned if you don't!! Yesterday on radio an MP (happened to be Labour) insisted, several times, that the ethics advisor had written that Zahawi "lied". The advisor's report doesn't accuse Zahawi of lying. The nub of the matter is that Z denied that he was under investigation by HMRC. He claims that he didn't realise and thought that he was answering questions "for clarification". The ethics man came to the conclusion that any reasonable person undergoing the questioning (and receiving communications that are not in the public domain) should have realised that he was indeed under investigation. My take is that the advisor was leaving open the question of lying but offering incredible stupidity as an alternative. Whatever one's personal opinion the report does not directly accuse Z of lying. Of course one can form one's own opinion, as I have - and I do not believe that Z is incredibly stupid. Finally, before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, none of the above is to be taken in any possible way as a defence of Zahawi. He broke the rules, he's gone and it was right that he went. MIck It was a matter of record that when appointed he was under investigation. Journalists have been trying to report on it for years but kept getting threats from expensive lawyers which kept editors from publishing. The suggestion that this is rumour and innuendo is naive at best, and dishonest at worst. Being "under investigation" is not the same as being guilty. The whole point of an investigation is to reveal the facts and follow the evidence, where ever that may lead. If the evidence points to wrong doing then, and only then, is it reasonable to act. It may be appropriate to suspend a person who is under investigation but such suspension is not evidence of guilt. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Feb 1, 2023 9:30:40 GMT
To be precise he did deny that he was under investigation. His 'defence' was that he thought that he was answering questions for clarification. The ethics advisor obviously thought that he was 'trying it on' and thought that a reasonable person should/would have realised that he was being investigated.
As others have posted maybe the system should be that HMRC specifically inform a person that they are under investigation.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Feb 1, 2023 9:32:44 GMT
He was sacked for having failed to disclose relevant information about being under investigation, not for being a dodgy tax cheat. I recall reading that HMRC had confirmed he was under investigation prior to his appointment as chancellor, which I recall preceded the appointment he's been sacked from. If your media sources aren't reporting these things, ask yourself (or them, of course) why not.
|
|
|
|
Post by mick on Feb 1, 2023 9:42:36 GMT
Sorry Zou.
I have to repeat that media reports are NOT evidence.
Before this gets too far, let's make it clear that my opinion of Z and his actions is probably identical to yours. I doubt that there's any significant difference. Where we do seem to differ is on the process and what constitutes evidence.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Feb 9, 2023 9:20:59 GMT
Lee Anderson. Surely even Tory supporters are embarrassed that this bloke was given a cabinet level job by Roland Rat Rishi Sunak? This is a guy who
,amongst other things, scuffled with peaceful, non-violent protesters outside the HoC and then challenged them to a fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Feb 9, 2023 9:33:01 GMT
Lee Anderson. Surely even Tory supporters are embarrassed that this bloke was given a cabinet level job by Roland Rat Rishi Sunak? This is a guy who ,amongst other things, scuffled with peaceful, non-violent protesters outside the HoC and then challenged them to a fight. It appears to me that Rishi Rodent selects cabinet level jobs on criteria of which we have no knowledge, but which have nothing to do with their ability to fulfill their duties. |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Feb 9, 2023 10:09:48 GMT
Are fighter jets a step too far (near) war with Russia?
|
|
|
|
Post by gezza on Feb 9, 2023 10:24:29 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
|
politics
Feb 9, 2023 12:20:52 GMT
via mobile
kate likes this
Post by MJB on Feb 9, 2023 12:20:52 GMT
Are fighter jets a step too far (near) war with Russia? It's a double-edged sword. If we (by 'we' I mean NATO, as I doubt we have any combat aircraft types available to send to Ukraine other than aged Harriers and Tornados in mothballs) supply frontline jets to them it has the potential to seriously escalate and broaden the conflict. If we don't supply modern offensive weapons in numbers then the war is just going to drag on with no conclusion. I'm guessing that Ukraine primarily want soviet types still being operated by eastern European countries and then probably F-16s that serve in many NATO air force's and exported to friendly nations. |
|
|
|
politics
Feb 9, 2023 12:28:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by andy on Feb 9, 2023 12:28:13 GMT
Can we send them some weather balloons so Russia can waste ammo on them too?
|
|
|
|
politics
Feb 9, 2023 13:24:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by zou on Feb 9, 2023 13:24:54 GMT
The weapons to Ukraine thing is in large part a way to subsidise the domestic arms industry. If Ukraine don't pay for it we will, and if they pay for it the debt is being tied up into making fortunes for investors. War is great for business.
|
|
