Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Straw and Rifkind.
Topic Started: Sep 18 2015, 09:25 AM (160 Views)
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
For months I've thought that these two were immoral money grabbing whores who thought nothing of using their positions as public servants to line their own pockets.

After watching those clips I was under the impression it was wrong to boast about how doors open for you as a former foreign secretary, and the implication they'd open to anyone else prepared to pay a day rate of five grand, but luckily my fears were ill founded as the independent body overseeing standards in parliament has exonerated them of any wrong doing as their actions were entirely within the rules.

My faith in parliament is now fully restored and I'm very glad two wonderful human beings can now get on with their lives without anyone making snidey comments about their past and clearly misunderstood actions.

Post may contain irony.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Sep 18 2015, 09:25 AM
For months I've thought that these two were immoral money grabbing whores who thought nothing of using their positions as public servants to line their own pockets.

After watching those clips I was under the impression it was wrong to boast about how doors open for you as a former foreign secretary, and the implication they'd open to anyone else prepared to pay a day rate of five grand, but luckily my fears were ill founded as the independent body overseeing standards in parliament has exonerated them of any wrong doing as their actions were entirely within the rules.

My faith in parliament is now fully restored and I'm very glad two wonderful human beings can now get on with their lives without anyone making snidey comments about their past and clearly misunderstood actions.

Post may contain irony.
You have of course read the full report before gobbing off?

No? Quelle surprise (not). Well educate yourself:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmstandards/472/47202.htm


Channel 4 and the DT are very lucky Rifkind isn't suing the arses off them or even looking for criminal proceedings. He was sacked as an MP with no route back as a result of what turned out to be reckless and quite possibly malicious allegations involving disingenuous editing.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
Ah, but would you buy a second hand car from either of them? Still, it is nice to see that they are still honourable men. After all, they have been cleared by their peers; so THAT'S alright. Isn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Sep 18 2015, 09:25 AM
For months I've thought that these two were immoral money grabbing whores who thought nothing of using their positions as public servants to line their own pockets.

After watching those clips I was under the impression it was wrong to boast about how doors open for you as a former foreign secretary, and the implication they'd open to anyone else prepared to pay a day rate of five grand, but luckily my fears were ill founded as the independent body overseeing standards in parliament has exonerated them of any wrong doing as their actions were entirely within the rules.

My faith in parliament is now fully restored and I'm very glad two wonderful human beings can now get on with their lives without anyone making snidey comments about their past and clearly misunderstood actions.

Post may contain irony.
Do I smell a hint of sarcasm here????????
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 11:54 AM
Tigger
Sep 18 2015, 09:25 AM
For months I've thought that these two were immoral money grabbing whores who thought nothing of using their positions as public servants to line their own pockets.

After watching those clips I was under the impression it was wrong to boast about how doors open for you as a former foreign secretary, and the implication they'd open to anyone else prepared to pay a day rate of five grand, but luckily my fears were ill founded as the independent body overseeing standards in parliament has exonerated them of any wrong doing as their actions were entirely within the rules.

My faith in parliament is now fully restored and I'm very glad two wonderful human beings can now get on with their lives without anyone making snidey comments about their past and clearly misunderstood actions.

Post may contain irony.
You have of course read the full report before gobbing off?

No? Quelle surprise (not). Well educate yourself:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmstandards/472/47202.htm


Channel 4 and the DT are very lucky Rifkind isn't suing the arses off them or even looking for criminal proceedings. He was sacked as an MP with no route back as a result of what turned out to be reckless and quite possibly malicious allegations involving disingenuous editing.





You read all that? You need to find a hobby.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Sep 18 2015, 04:59 PM
You read all that? You need to find a hobby.
Of course I didn't. Speed read a fair chunk of it

But seems Tigger was prepared to condemn without reading a word of it.
Edited by Steve K, Sep 18 2015, 06:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well are we then saying they werent selling their contact list to the highest bidder at a daily rate equivalent to what blair charges an hour ??

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Sep 18 2015, 06:29 PM
Well are we then saying they werent selling their contact list to the highest bidder at a daily rate equivalent to what blair charges an hour ??

Well with Blair's hourly rate said to be up to £150k an hour that does seem a safe assumption

But that wasn't the point at hand was it
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 06:26 PM
gee4444
Sep 18 2015, 04:59 PM
You read all that? You need to find a hobby.
Of course I didn't. Speed read a fair chunk of it
.
Thought as much.
Edited by gee4444, Sep 18 2015, 07:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 07:26 PM
johnofgwent
Sep 18 2015, 06:29 PM
Well are we then saying they werent selling their contact list to the highest bidder at a daily rate equivalent to what blair charges an hour ??

Well with Blair's hourly rate said to be up to £150k an hour that does seem a safe assumption

But that wasn't the point at hand was it
Well the thing is, I'm not exactly sure what "the question at hand" is

Which is why I asked what I did. Is it now a matter of dispute that these two were - like Hoon before them - happy to sell their "personal acquaintance with people of influence, gained at the taxpayer's expense" to the biggest briber.

I'm well acquainted with the principle of selling to the arabs. Question One is "which Prince must I bribe" and question two is "Is my uncle already on chinwagging terms with said Prince, or will he have to grease someone else's palm as well before he gets to wag chins with the big cheese"

So I have no problem with doing business this way, my problem is that moralising assholes in parliament seem unhappy to allow this to go on except when they are the ones on the take ...

Hence my question. Is it now disputed as a matter of fact that these two intimated they would be prepared to use contacts made at public expense for private gain.

Once we get that out of the way we can move on to the second part, which is whether we think it is moral and just for our ex-politicians to behave in ways they demanded the serious fraud office bust BAE Systems for behaving ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Sep 18 2015, 07:55 PM
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 07:26 PM
johnofgwent
Sep 18 2015, 06:29 PM
Well are we then saying they werent selling their contact list to the highest bidder at a daily rate equivalent to what blair charges an hour ??

Well with Blair's hourly rate said to be up to £150k an hour that does seem a safe assumption

But that wasn't the point at hand was it
Well the thing is, I'm not exactly sure what "the question at hand" is

Which is why I asked what I did. Is it now a matter of dispute that these two were - like Hoon before them - happy to sell their "personal acquaintance with people of influence, gained at the taxpayer's expense" to the biggest briber.

I'm well acquainted with the principle of selling to the arabs. Question One is "which Prince must I bribe" and question two is "Is my uncle already on chinwagging terms with said Prince, or will he have to grease someone else's palm as well before he gets to wag chins with the big cheese"

So I have no problem with doing business this way, my problem is that moralising assholes in parliament seem unhappy to allow this to go on except when they are the ones on the take ...

Hence my question. Is it now disputed as a matter of fact that these two intimated they would be prepared to use contacts made at public expense for private gain.

Once we get that out of the way we can move on to the second part, which is whether we think it is moral and just for our ex-politicians to behave in ways they demanded the serious fraud office bust BAE Systems for behaving ...
Two wrongs dont make a right. It's not moral and tbh doing business helping very dark forces isn't either, but I realise you dont give a flying one (excuse the pun) so thats fine then.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 11:54 AM
Tigger
Sep 18 2015, 09:25 AM


Post may contain irony.
. He was sacked as an MP with no route back as a result of what turned out to be reckless and quite possibly malicious allegations involving disingenuous editing.





Speaking of 'irony' ........ when are the political press/media not prone to being malicious etc?
Edited by Affa, Sep 18 2015, 08:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Sep 18 2015, 07:55 PM
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 07:26 PM
johnofgwent
Sep 18 2015, 06:29 PM
Well are we then saying they werent selling their contact list to the highest bidder at a daily rate equivalent to what blair charges an hour ??

Well with Blair's hourly rate said to be up to £150k an hour that does seem a safe assumption

But that wasn't the point at hand was it
Well the thing is, I'm not exactly sure what "the question at hand" is

Which is why I asked what I did. Is it now a matter of dispute that these two were - like Hoon before them - happy to sell their "personal acquaintance with people of influence, gained at the taxpayer's expense" to the biggest briber.

I'm well acquainted with the principle of selling to the arabs. Question One is "which Prince must I bribe" and question two is "Is my uncle already on chinwagging terms with said Prince, or will he have to grease someone else's palm as well before he gets to wag chins with the big cheese"

So I have no problem with doing business this way, my problem is that moralising assholes in parliament seem unhappy to allow this to go on except when they are the ones on the take ...

Hence my question. Is it now disputed as a matter of fact that these two intimated they would be prepared to use contacts made at public expense for private gain.

Once we get that out of the way we can move on to the second part, which is whether we think it is moral and just for our ex-politicians to behave in ways they demanded the serious fraud office bust BAE Systems for behaving ...
The key allegation was inferred by the reporting: that they had broken the rules

On this the report is devastating (my emphasis)

Quote:
 
If in their coverage of this story, the reporters for Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph had accurately reported what was said by the two Members in their interviews, and measured their words against the rules of the House, it would have been possible to avoid the damage that has been done to the lives of two individuals and those around them, and to the reputation of the House.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 11:54 AM
Tigger
Sep 18 2015, 09:25 AM
For months I've thought that these two were immoral money grabbing whores who thought nothing of using their positions as public servants to line their own pockets.

After watching those clips I was under the impression it was wrong to boast about how doors open for you as a former foreign secretary, and the implication they'd open to anyone else prepared to pay a day rate of five grand, but luckily my fears were ill founded as the independent body overseeing standards in parliament has exonerated them of any wrong doing as their actions were entirely within the rules.

My faith in parliament is now fully restored and I'm very glad two wonderful human beings can now get on with their lives without anyone making snidey comments about their past and clearly misunderstood actions.

Post may contain irony.
You have of course read the full report before gobbing off?

No? Quelle surprise (not). Well educate yourself:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmstandards/472/47202.htm


Channel 4 and the DT are very lucky Rifkind isn't suing the arses off them or even looking for criminal proceedings. He was sacked as an MP with no route back as a result of what turned out to be reckless and quite possibly malicious allegations involving disingenuous editing.







Already been through it.

Sorry Steve my violin is unplayable on this and my levels of pedanticism are no where near your stratospheric norm, despite predictably having all bases covered by those oh so wonderful rules it looks fucking shabby when we constantly hear the word austerity coming out of Westminster and yet here we are again seeing politicians on the make, not good enough is it?

And as if you did not know this is precisely the thing that has led to record levels of mistrust in politics, and no sorry I don't have an official graph for that either, it's just something you instinctively feel............ ;-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Sep 18 2015, 04:49 PM
Tigger
Sep 18 2015, 09:25 AM
For months I've thought that these two were immoral money grabbing whores who thought nothing of using their positions as public servants to line their own pockets.

After watching those clips I was under the impression it was wrong to boast about how doors open for you as a former foreign secretary, and the implication they'd open to anyone else prepared to pay a day rate of five grand, but luckily my fears were ill founded as the independent body overseeing standards in parliament has exonerated them of any wrong doing as their actions were entirely within the rules.

My faith in parliament is now fully restored and I'm very glad two wonderful human beings can now get on with their lives without anyone making snidey comments about their past and clearly misunderstood actions.

Post may contain irony.
Do I smell a hint of sarcasm here????????
It's in the small print.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 08:19 PM
Quote:
 
If in their coverage of this story, the reporters for Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph had accurately reported what was said by the two Members in their interviews, and measured their words against the rules of the House, it would have been possible to avoid the damage that has been done to the lives of two individuals and those around them, and to the reputation of the House.




It's a crying shame you did not quote the three or four lines directly above that selection ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34279476

Quote:
 

Parliament's standards commissioner Kathryn Hudson said there had been "errors of judgement" from Sir Malcolm while Mr Straw had breached the code of conduct "by a minor misuse of parliamentary resources".


So it seems that Straw DID break some rules with his boast that he had taken a facilitators fee of sixty grand to arrange some meetings "under the radar". Of course, whether the rule he broke was taking the money, or bragging that he had done so, we'll never know.
Edited by johnofgwent, Sep 18 2015, 09:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Sep 18 2015, 09:51 PM

. . It's a crying shame you did not quote the three or four lines directly above that selection ...

I did not quote the 4 lines above because I was quoting from the actual report and the 4 lines above it in that were

"impact upon how Members' activities are seen and reported.[121] It also considers how the House might give a clearer picture of the role and expectations of a Member. It makes proposals to improve contact with the media in relation to standards matters, again with a view to increasing the knowledge and understanding of the general public of the work of Members. The new Committee, with the increase in lay members from 3 to 7, may wish to take up some of the ideas contained in that report and develop that work further."

Bit of a false insinuation about me there methinks
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 10:05 PM
johnofgwent
Sep 18 2015, 09:51 PM

. . It's a crying shame you did not quote the three or four lines directly above that selection ...

I did not quote the 4 lines above because I was quoting from the actual report and the 4 lines above it in that were

"impact upon how Members' activities are seen and reported.[121] It also considers how the House might give a clearer picture of the role and expectations of a Member. It makes proposals to improve contact with the media in relation to standards matters, again with a view to increasing the knowledge and understanding of the general public of the work of Members. The new Committee, with the increase in lay members from 3 to 7, may wish to take up some of the ideas contained in that report and develop that work further."

Bit of a false insinuation about me there methinks
Fuck em Steve, they are money grubbing tossers full stop, you must be the only partially sane person in the country yet to realise this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Sep 18 2015, 10:09 PM
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 10:05 PM
johnofgwent
Sep 18 2015, 09:51 PM

. . It's a crying shame you did not quote the three or four lines directly above that selection ...

I did not quote the 4 lines above because I was quoting from the actual report and the 4 lines above it in that were

"impact upon how Members' activities are seen and reported.[121] It also considers how the House might give a clearer picture of the role and expectations of a Member. It makes proposals to improve contact with the media in relation to standards matters, again with a view to increasing the knowledge and understanding of the general public of the work of Members. The new Committee, with the increase in lay members from 3 to 7, may wish to take up some of the ideas contained in that report and develop that work further."

Bit of a false insinuation about me there methinks
Fuck em Steve, they are money grubbing tossers full stop, you must be the only partially sane person in the country yet to realise this.
Excuse me but when did I say they weren't? Please point such out or retract that^.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 10:10 PM
Excuse me but when did I say they weren't? Please point such out or retract that^.
You once again and predictably appear to be defending a couple of moral degenerates by quoting the "rules".

No one but you it would seem thinks this is in any way acceptable or an excuse of any kind, so sorry no retraction.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Sep 18 2015, 10:18 PM
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 10:10 PM
Excuse me but when did I say they weren't? Please point such out or retract that^.
You once again and predictably appear to be defending a couple of moral degenerates by quoting the "rules".

No one but you it would seem thinks this is in any way acceptable or an excuse of any kind, so sorry no retraction.
And you yet again imagine what others have posted and attack them for your deluded extrapolations

Why don't you actually read what I posted? The DT and Channel 4 have been found out for deliberately misrepresenting in order to get a bigger story. A man lost his job and career as a result - I find that appalling

It doesn't mean Rifkind and Straw are good guys, just that they were not in breach of the rules
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Sep 18 2015, 10:18 PM
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 10:10 PM
Excuse me but when did I say they weren't? Please point such out or retract that^.
You once again and predictably appear to be defending a couple of moral degenerates by quoting the "rules".

No one but you it would seem thinks this is in any way acceptable or an excuse of any kind, so sorry no retraction.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frédéric Bastiat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 10:26 PM


It doesn't mean Rifkind and Straw are good guys, just that they were not in breach of the rules
The rules are bollocks and an affront to decency and transparency, more fool you if you can't comprehend that.

And that's a nice quote Cymru, sums it up perfectly for me. :thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Sep 18 2015, 10:30 PM
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 10:26 PM


It doesn't mean Rifkind and Straw are good guys, just that they were not in breach of the rules
The rules are bollocks and an affront to decency and transparency, more fool you if you can't comprehend that. . . .
So to you it's perfectly fair that a man loses his job and career through someone else's false story

Be careful what you wish for
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 10:35 PM
So to you it's perfectly fair that a man loses his job and career through someone else's false story

Be careful what you wish for
No, it's perfectly fair that a pair of cocks were filmed boasting that they could open doors for fat fees whilst the rest of the country is in the grip of austerity, the contrast was rather stark in my view.

Nobody but you would bog themselves down with half arsed moralising trying to defend a couple of politicians on the take, despite both you and indeed the politicians themselves knowing full well that this does not look good in any way shape or form, regardless of ANY mitigating circumstances.

You can take your pick from these three words because I'm finished with this subject now, hypocrisy, cynicism or contempt, and personally I think all three apply here to these honourable members..........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Sep 18 2015, 10:47 PM
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 10:35 PM
So to you it's perfectly fair that a man loses his job and career through someone else's false story

Be careful what you wish for
No, it's perfectly fair that a pair of cocks were filmed boasting that they could open doors for fat fees whilst the rest of the country is in the grip of austerity, the contrast was rather stark in my view.

Nobody but you would bog themselves down with half arsed moralising trying to defend a couple of politicians on the take, despite both you and indeed the politicians themselves knowing full well that this does not look good in any way shape or form, regardless of ANY mitigating circumstances.

You can take your pick from these three words because I'm finished with this subject now, hypocrisy, cynicism or contempt, and personally I think all three apply here to these honourable members..........
What they did seems pretty awful to me too, but I think Steve's gripe is that it could happen to anyone via false allegations.

The whole thing is a real pile imo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 10:05 PM
johnofgwent
Sep 18 2015, 09:51 PM

. . It's a crying shame you did not quote the three or four lines directly above that selection ...

I did not quote the 4 lines above because I was quoting from the actual report and the 4 lines above it in that were

"impact upon how Members' activities are seen and reported.[121] It also considers how the House might give a clearer picture of the role and expectations of a Member. It makes proposals to improve contact with the media in relation to standards matters, again with a view to increasing the knowledge and understanding of the general public of the work of Members. The new Committee, with the increase in lay members from 3 to 7, may wish to take up some of the ideas contained in that report and develop that work further."

Bit of a false insinuation about me there methinks
Ah. Oops.

In which case I retract that.

Still a shame that Straw seems to be getting found not guilty when in fact he did break the code.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 18 2015, 10:35 PM


Be careful what you wish for
Sorry to drag this up again, but it would appear that the Parliamentary Commissioner of Standards one Katherine Hudson was selected for the £108,000 a year job by a panel that has as one of it's members Malcolm Rifkind! So more back scratching from the cess pit! Details in the Guardian, Mail and Telegraph

And be careful what you wish for........ ;-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply