Jump to content

Tory Lies, Corruption and Hypocrisy- Add Them Here


HTG

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Suspect Device said:

 

 

Not true, I think?

Jolyon only had one small victory out of the 3 claims.

Overall, a massive loss once again for fox killing Jolyon and the GLP.

Maybe you should read Guido Fawkes on this.

I don’t have the will to read the full judgement but I wouldn’t trust anything from Jolyon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Not true, I think?

Jolyon only had one small victory out of the 3 claims.

Overall, a massive loss once again for fox killing Jolyon and the GLP.

Maybe you should read Guido Fawkes on this.

I don’t have the will to read the full judgement but I wouldn’t trust anything from Jolyon.

Ok then. 

Read the reactionary bollocks as requested and against my better judgement. 

Even they're not saying it's untrue. 

The best defence that the Tory mouthpiece can muster is that other accusations failed. 

Essentially claiming that it's ok to act illegally so long as you don't do any other illegal things. 

"I'm innocent. The jury said i was not guilty of attempted muder and GBH. I was only found guilty of ABH so that's ok" 

"Essentially it was the process, not the appointments themselves, which breached equality law." 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Not true, I think?

Jolyon only had one small victory out of the 3 claims.

Overall, a massive loss once again for fox killing Jolyon and the GLP.

Maybe you should read Guido Fawkes on this.

I don’t have the will to read the full judgement but I wouldn’t trust anything from Jolyon.

Don't know about that. From what I read of the judgement it seems to be that Hancock broke the public sector equality duty when he appointed Dido Harding as head of the new quango. Even that organ of the right, the Daily Mail, online headline is "Matt Hancock broke the law when he gave Tory peer Baroness Dido Harding and ex-Sainsbury colleague Mike Coupe senior posts in Covid response, High Court finds".

Not exactly a stellar result in the High Court for the Government but I suppose we'll get the usual 'don't look here, look at the shiny shiny over there, nothing to see here move on.....' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Don't know about that. From what I read of the judgement it seems to be that Hancock broke the public sector equality duty when he appointed Dido Harding as head of the new quango. Even that organ of the right, the Daily Mail, online headline is "Matt Hancock broke the law when he gave Tory peer Baroness Dido Harding and ex-Sainsbury colleague Mike Coupe senior posts in Covid response, High Court finds".

Not exactly a stellar result in the High Court for the Government but I suppose we'll get the usual 'don't look here, look at the shiny shiny over there, nothing to see here move on.....' 

I think, at least, you’d admit that Jolyon has over-egged his so- called glorious victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, coprolite said:

Which bit of the above tweet or the linked website announcement constitutes "over-egging"? 

Feel free to quote. 

I take it you’d want him to take a similar case against the choice of Kate Bingham as the organiser of the vaccine programme? Maybe we should have gone through equality and diversity procedures?

This man spends his life taking, in the main, vexatious cases against the government. He never got over Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

I take it you’d want him to take a similar case against the choice of Kate Bingham as the organiser of the vaccine programme? Maybe we should have gone through equality and diversity procedures?

This man spends his life taking, in the main, vexatious cases against the government. He never got over Brexit.

One of the things about judicial review is that the judge won’t take it on if it’s “vexatious”.

And yes, the government should have gone through “diversity procedures” because that is the law. That’s the law they broke. Or one of them, I mean, that’s the law they broke this time.

I fail to see how the character of the person prosecuting the case impacts on the merits or otherwise of the facts and judgement.

Would you prefer the government to not be held to account?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, coprolite said:

One of the things about judicial review is that the judge won’t take it on if it’s “vexatious”.

And yes, the government should have gone through “diversity procedures” because that is the law. That’s the law they broke. Or one of them, I mean, that’s the law they broke this time.

I fail to see how the character of the person prosecuting the case impacts on the merits or otherwise of the facts and judgement.

Would you prefer the government to not be held to account?

I suspect that viewpoint is quite widely held by the right-wingers around the forum... 

The party of law and order my backside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can add 'Levelling Up' to the list....left deliberately with a target date of 2030, so that they don't have to account for it properly at the GE instead saying it is an ongoing process, all the while knowing that they don't have the cash to fund it, as they will be unrolling tax cuts just in time for the said GE. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

The judge

para126- ‘the claim brought by the GLP fails in its entirety’.

Fairly damning, I would have thought?

I can quote as well, how about this from the Guardian coverage?  "Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Swift concluded that Hancock had not complied with “the public sector equality duty” in relation to the appointments." 

I don't really give a rat's backside about the GLP case failing. Why is that relevant to the High Court ruling in respect of the original case brought by the Runnymede Trust? In that case the Court found - 

" The former UK health secretary Matt Hancock did not comply with a public sector equality duty when he appointed the Conservative peer Dido Harding as head of a new public health quango..."

The desperation of some folk to absolve Hancock of any culpability is getting weird now.  I know that some folk seem ok with the Government doing whatever it wants, but ignoring the rules/law is a sign of a form of government usually frowned on by folk keen on a kind of democracy with the odd nod in the direction of the rule of law. Not seemingly a high priority with the current shower in Westminster, I admit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/feb/20/golden-visa-lawyers-call-for-uk-to-rethink-blanket-ban

Surprisingly enough, those with their nose in the golden trough say that stopping the golden visa scheme is a bad idea. They say it has brought in £17bn of investment the last 10 years. So, £1.7bn a year, sounds a lot but given the NI increase about to be imposed is to raise £12bn a year, maybe if you want to keep the golden visa scheme, increase the money rich people have to invest by at least 10 fold.

But then I think, does £17bn of investment actually end up as £17bn in money given to the govt as money that can be used for the good of the country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...