No Tory election charges, so thats going to annoy some people

breaking news is that tories not to face charges over election irregularities.
how labour must be fuming.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-election-spending-rules-latest-no-charges-cps-conservatives-candidates-electoral-law-crown-a7727711.html
there has not been an announcement about thanet yet

your link is busted

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/10/general-election-2017-tory-mps-expenses-one-show-politics-live

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4490062/Tory-MPs-discover-face-election-expenses-charge.html

I've amended the title Andy.

Pity you don't "mend" Andy, he's broke !!

this will cause a weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth in certain places

Lord Foul wrote:this will cause a weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth in certain places

...plus, I suspect, not a few Friday prayers that Inspector Knacker will not now turn his enthusiastic attention to certain suspected, er, "administrative errors", over postal voting problems in certain Midlands constitiuencies during previous elections.

true Moley, very true

Lord Foul wrote:true Moley, very true

Ah, but I am the very font of wisdom and truth, my old friend.......

nicko wrote:Pity you don't "mend" Andy,   he's broke !!

But nothing that an injection of operational brain cells wouldn't cure....

We don't need people jumping in to attack posters...do we?

That's a big complaint on here and we need to address it please. It works both ways.

Its called ganging up Eds. Its what the rwers here are renowned for.
Folk aren't stupid. They know the CPS have been told to drop the enquiries as it would be be a colossal embarrassment for the govwrnment.
There are still dark parts of Government who run the country.
I bet even Tommy will agree.

Not only the RWs Andy - that's a total fabrication.

I don't want to discuss other posters anyway, just want people to remain respectful of each other. That's all.

Lord Foul wrote:your link is busted

it's the bbc news live link

eddie wrote:I've amended the title Andy.

yet you dont amend his often abusive thread titles.

Lord Foul wrote:this will cause a weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth in certain places

as my original title suggested, guess thats why it was changed.

eddie wrote:We don't need people jumping in to attack posters...do we?

That's a big complaint on here and we need to address it please. It works both ways.

you are seriously having a laugh aren't you. andwew and wolfies posts are nothing but attacks on others who post here.

Angry Andy wrote:Its called ganging up Eds. Its what the rwers here are renowned for.
Folk aren't stupid. They know the CPS have been told to drop the enquiries as it would be be a colossal embarrassment for the govwrnment.
There are still dark parts of Government who run the country.
I bet even Tommy will agree.

yes I understand that you are very teary because yet another thing you were so convinced about has been shown to be rubbish.

however the tory, labour and lib dem election expenses have all been fined for irregularities, but not criminal acts. Odd you were not desperate for labour to be charged, or the lib dems.
Wasn't labour fined a huge amount?

You need to comfort Sassy Andy, she will be most upset.

nicko wrote:You need to comfort Sassy Andy,  she will be most upset.

Just had a peek. And yes, she is incandescent with rage.

It's all a wicked Tory plot, you know.......

The Devil, You Know wrote:

eddie wrote:I've amended the title Andy.

yet you dont amend his often abusive thread titles.

Sorry there's been a mix up. I was telling Andy because I'd thought he was the original poster - I glanced at the OP quickly.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

eddie wrote:We don't need people jumping in to attack posters...do we?

That's a big complaint on here and we need to address it please. It works both ways.

you are seriously having a laugh aren't you. andwew and wolfies posts are nothing but attacks on others who post here.

And that is exactly what's going to happen. The insults and jumping into threads had died down after rhe last two days so I'm merely pointing out the first one I've seen.

Why are you always moaning?

Incandescent I'm not, sad I am, that folk who are supposed to be 'decent' can cheer the fact that MPs get away with illegal activity. That is truly pathetic.

Shame this gentlemen left the Conservatives and joined UKIP, he would have got away with it if he still had them to pull the strings for him.

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ukips-first-mp-trial-14-counts-electoral-fraud/08/05/


How far down have the morals of some fallen.

Why do we never hear sassy complain about labour mp's and others, when it is them suspected of wrongdoing...!?

eddie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you are seriously having a laugh aren't you. andwew and wolfies posts are nothing but attacks on others who post here.

And that is exactly what's going to happen. The insults and jumping into threads had died down after rhe last two days so I'm merely pointing out the first one I've seen.

Why are you always moaning?

all my moans have been about the same thing, the inconsistencies in moderation, now why can he have a thread called bastard may, but mine called no charge was changed.

sassy wrote:

Incandescent I'm not, sad I am, that folk who are supposed to be 'decent' can cheer the fact that MPs get away with illegal activity.   That is truly pathetic.

Shame this gentlemen left the Conservatives and joined UKIP, he would have got away with it if he still had them to pull the strings for him.

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ukips-first-mp-trial-14-counts-electoral-fraud/08/05/


How far down have the morals of some fallen.

but you were not outraged by the labour election irregularities which they were fined a record amount for, or the lib dem ones, you have only been peeved about the tory ones.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/25/labour-fined-20000-for-undeclared-election-spending-including-for-ed-stone

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/lib-dems-fined-20000-for-undeclared-election-spending

I guess the CPS have burst your bubble again

The Devil, You Know wrote:

eddie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you are seriously having a laugh aren't you. andwew and wolfies posts are nothing but attacks on others who post here.

And that is exactly what's going to happen. The insults and jumping into threads had died down after rhe last two days so I'm merely pointing out the first one I've seen.

Why are you always moaning?

all my moans have been about the same thing, the inconsistencies in moderation, now why can he have a thread called bastard may, but mine called no charge was changed.

Well if you're concerned I was "picking on you" I have explained I thought it was his thread anyway - so blah point.

And head? You can always go where your speech is free.....except if you're the poster blackie.

eddie wrote:And head? You can always go where your speech is free.....except if you're the poster blackie.

and you could always be consistent in your oppression, sorry moderation. , but you aren't are you.

what speech of his isn't free, he has his very own section, unlike here where you just kicked him out.

eddie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
all my moans have been about the same thing, the inconsistencies in moderation, now why can he have a thread called bastard may, but mine called no charge was changed.

Well if you're concerned I was "picking on you" I have explained I thought it was his thread anyway - so blah point.

you don't seem to be able to see the point do you, but why doesn't that surprise me.

why is a thread called bastard may allowed, but one called no charge is changed?

sassy wrote:

Incandescent I'm not, sad I am, that folk who are supposed to be 'decent' can cheer the fact that MPs get away with illegal activity.   That is truly pathetic.

Shame this gentlemen left the Conservatives and joined UKIP, he would have got away with it if he still had them to pull the strings for him.

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ukips-first-mp-trial-14-counts-electoral-fraud/08/05/


How far down have the morals of some fallen.

Perhaps today's revelation that the female senior executive from the Electoral Commission who played such a prominent part in the investigation into the Tories has a history of placing blatant anti-Conservative Party posts on Facebook might well at least raise the possibility of political motivation having been in the minds of CPS lawyers.

"I can't understand what people were thinking - do they not remember the Tories before?" and "...cannot believe that (I) live under a Tory PM again! What is wrong with people?" and "...(I) doesn't want to live under a Tory government"... just three of her posts which any reasonable person might well be forgiven for questioning whether she was the right person to play a leading role into what is already being claimed by one candidate to have been a politically-motivated witch-hunt.

Unlike you, apparently, I condemn proven fraud committed by politicians of any political party...I certainly don't remember you adopting such an offended moral stance when an Electoral Court judge famously described the campaign by Labour Party activists in the Midlands to "...forge, steal and alter thousands of votes..." in local elections as "...would disgrace a banana republic."

And I will not even mention the theft and fraud committed by such "decent" Labour politicians as McShane,Morley, Devine, Illsley, Chatyor, Moran, Skinner....(OK, so I just did!) but I remember condemning, without equivocation, the expenses fraud committed by Tory and other politicians, notably Lord Hanningfield who joined some of the aforesaid Labour fraudsters as guests of Her Majesty...funnily enough I can't recall you being quite so forthcoming.

Yes indeed, how far down have the morals of some fallen...

You can't criticise the Labour Party, To some, they are whiter than white and do no wrong !! There are "bad apples" in all parties but some wont admit there are any in theirs

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

sassy wrote:

Incandescent I'm not, sad I am, that folk who are supposed to be 'decent' can cheer the fact that MPs get away with illegal activity.   That is truly pathetic.

Shame this gentlemen left the Conservatives and joined UKIP, he would have got away with it if he still had them to pull the strings for him.

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ukips-first-mp-trial-14-counts-electoral-fraud/08/05/


How far down have the morals of some fallen.

Perhaps today's revelation that the female senior executive from the Electoral Commission who played such a prominent part in the investigation into the Tories has a history of placing blatant anti-Conservative Party posts on Facebook might well at least raise the possibility of political motivation having been in the minds of CPS lawyers.

"I can't understand what people were thinking - do they not remember the Tories before?" and "...cannot believe that (I) live under a Tory PM again! What is wrong with people?" and "...(I) doesn't want to live under a Tory government"...  just three of her posts which any reasonable person might well be forgiven for questioning whether she was the right person to play a leading role into what is already being claimed by one candidate to have been a politically-motivated witch-hunt.

Unlike you, apparently, I condemn proven fraud committed by politicians of any political party...I certainly don't remember you adopting such an offended moral stance when an Electoral Court judge famously described the campaign by Labour Party activists in the Midlands to "...forge, steal and alter thousands of votes..." in local elections as "...would disgrace a banana republic."

And I will not even mention the theft and fraud committed by such "decent" Labour politicians as McShane,Morley, Devine, Illsley, Chatyor, Moran, Skinner....(OK, so I just did!) but I remember condemning, without equivocation, the expenses fraud committed by Tory and other politicians, notably Lord Hanningfield who joined some of the aforesaid Labour fraudsters as guests of Her Majesty...funnily enough I can't recall you being quite so forthcoming.

Yes indeed, how far down have the morals of some fallen...

You really are getting ahead of yourself in judging me. I was furious that Tony Blair wasn't hauled into court after being questioned twice by Police over the questions fiasco. I was and still am furious that he wasn't charged with war crimes over Iraq. I recognise some of the people you have mentioned and if they got off after collision with the police then I condemn them as well. In future it may be a good idea to seek my views on all these instead of just wading in on judging me. I want politics to be clean of corruption and and that includes whatever party the represent. OK?

And finally Fred. As no charges were ever brought against any of the people you mentioned then they are all innocent with no case to answer? Correct?



So, does this make YOU angry?

Theresa May accepted money from the company caught up in The Canary‘s HSBC/Conservative Party ‘dirty money’ donations scandal. The cash from the company IPGL helped her election as Conservative Party leader, and ultimately Prime Minister. But it’s not the only scandal emerging around HSBC and May.
Theresa May

In July 2016, May took [pdf p272] £20,000 from IPGL – the company at the centre of the dirty money scandal. It was to “support [her] campaign for leadership of the Conservative Party”.

As The Canary reported on 28 April, the scandal centres around a private investment firm called IPGL, run by former Conservative Party Treasurer Michael Spencer. In October 2008, HSBC made [pdf] a £214.2m loan to IPGL. But at the time, IPGL was in financial difficulties, with one of its subsidiary companies (a betting firm called City Index) reporting [paywall] £43m losses. So Spencer had to put in £70m of his personal £1bn fortune to bail out the failing company.
Millions in donations

But despite these losses, IPGL was donating between £500,000 and £1.1m a year to the Tories from 2007 to 2011 (see pdfs for 2007 [p4], 2008 [p5], 2009 [p6], 2010 [p6], and 2011 [p6]). And it specifically gave [pdf p6] £1.03m to the Conservatives’ 2010 election campaign.

The Canary went to HSBC’s annual general meeting on 28 April. Fionn Travers-Smith of Move Your Money from the event explained why this story is so important (video provided by a campaign group):



But the PM is facing yet another political problem with HSBC. Because as whistleblower Nicholas Wilson has detailed, May could have a potential conflict of interest regarding her husband and the bank.
Conflict of interest?

May’s husband Philip works for US investment firm Capital Group. The company closely advises HSBC, just recently helping it establish its first branch in Hong Kong. So when it was announced that HSBC had been selected to advise Saudi Arabia on the sale of its state oil company Aramco, Wilson looked into this.

And he found that, in April 2017, Theresa May had gone to Saudi Arabia and had a meeting with Aramco Chairman Khalid Al-Falih. But also, only one British businessman attended any of May’s meetings in Saudi Arabia. He was Sir Xavier Rolet, the CEO of the London Stock Exchange. Wilson told The Canary:

It seems obvious to me that the PM is simply lobbying in secret on behalf of her husband, Phillip. But also for HSBC and the London Stock Exchange. And, of course, the Tory Party. Serious questions need to be asked.

“Deeply worrying”

SNP MP Roger Mullins told Joel Benjamin of Debt Resistance UK that Tory dirty money:

is a very serious and deeply worrying case, suggesting that a major bank and a business customer have been involved in activities serious enough to warrant criminal investigation… There must be an investigation into this and before the general election of 2017.

He has since written to the Electoral Commission about his concerns:




A “scandal”

Labour MP John Mann also echoed Mullins’ sentiment. He said that it was “the biggest party donor scandal ever”. And he told The Canary:

This is a very major regulatory issue and needs assessing for potential criminal behaviour. It’s political games being played in the hope of a weaker approach to bankers’ fraud and greedy bonuses.

May said in her first speech as PM that she would “govern not in the interests of the privileged few”. But the Tory dirty money scandal, and May’s potential conflict of interest over Saudi Arabia, HSBC, and her husband, is a prime example of the Conservatives ignoring that pledge. Because as Unlock Democracy’s Alexandra Runswick told The Canary, stories like these “undermine democracy”, as “political parties are beholden to big donors”. And no party is so beholden as the Conservatives.

HSBC, Michael Spencer, and the Conservative Party declined to comment. The Canary contacted Capital Group for comment, but none was received at the time of publication.

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/05/03/theresa-may-now-implicated-canarys-tory-dirty-money-scandal-video/

The Devil, You Know wrote:

eddie wrote:
We don't need people jumping in to attack posters...do we?

That's a big complaint on here and we need to address it please. It works both ways.

you are seriously having a laugh aren't you. andwew and wolfies posts are nothing but attacks on others who post here.

Pot... Kettle.. Black.

You, DYKface, remain the leading troll and antagonist on NewsFix..
By a clear country mile...

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

sassy wrote:

Incandescent I'm not, sad I am, that folk who are supposed to be 'decent' can cheer the fact that MPs get away with illegal activity.   That is truly pathetic.

Shame this gentlemen left the Conservatives and joined UKIP, he would have got away with it if he still had them to pull the strings for him.

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ukips-first-mp-trial-14-counts-electoral-fraud/08/05/


How far down have the morals of some fallen.

Perhaps today's revelation that the female senior executive from the Electoral Commission who played such a prominent part in the investigation into the Tories has a history of placing blatant anti-Conservative Party posts on Facebook might well at least raise the possibility of political motivation having been in the minds of CPS lawyers.

"I can't understand what people were thinking - do they not remember the Tories before?" and "...cannot believe that (I) live under a Tory PM again! What is wrong with people?" and "...(I) doesn't want to live under a Tory government"...  just three of her posts which any reasonable person might well be forgiven for questioning whether she was the right person to play a leading role into what is already being claimed by one candidate to have been a politically-motivated witch-hunt.

Unlike you, apparently, I condemn proven fraud committed by politicians of any political party...I certainly don't remember you adopting such an offended moral stance when an Electoral Court judge famously described the campaign by Labour Party activists in the Midlands to "...forge, steal and alter thousands of votes..." in local elections as "...would disgrace a banana republic."

And I will not even mention the theft and fraud committed by such "decent" Labour politicians as McShane,Morley, Devine, Illsley, Chatyor, Moran, Skinner....(OK, so I just did!) but I remember condemning, without equivocation, the expenses fraud committed by Tory and other politicians, notably Lord Hanningfield who joined some of the aforesaid Labour fraudsters as guests of Her Majesty...funnily enough I can't recall you being quite so forthcoming.

Yes indeed, how far down have the morals of some fallen...

unfortunately for some they seem to believe an allegation is the same as a conviction. As you say all who break the law should be charged and have their day in court, and if found guilty, if a public servant should have the maximum sentence passed no matter who they are. These people are the ones we are supposed to look up to to create our laws, they should not be breaking them.
I think within the rules should be removed as a defence and the rules tightened up.
As you say teh one leading this witch hunt does seem to have some bias.
Labour and the lib dems were fined for pretty much exactly the same things.

sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Perhaps today's revelation that the female senior executive from the Electoral Commission who played such a prominent part in the investigation into the Tories has a history of placing blatant anti-Conservative Party posts on Facebook might well at least raise the possibility of political motivation having been in the minds of CPS lawyers.

"I can't understand what people were thinking - do they not remember the Tories before?" and "...cannot believe that (I) live under a Tory PM again! What is wrong with people?" and "...(I) doesn't want to live under a Tory government"...  just three of her posts which any reasonable person might well be forgiven for questioning whether she was the right person to play a leading role into what is already being claimed by one candidate to have been a politically-motivated witch-hunt.

Unlike you, apparently, I condemn proven fraud committed by politicians of any political party...I certainly don't remember you adopting such an offended moral stance when an Electoral Court judge famously described the campaign by Labour Party activists in the Midlands to "...forge, steal and alter thousands of votes..." in local elections as "...would disgrace a banana republic."

And I will not even mention the theft and fraud committed by such "decent" Labour politicians as McShane,Morley, Devine, Illsley, Chatyor, Moran, Skinner....(OK, so I just did!) but I remember condemning, without equivocation, the expenses fraud committed by Tory and other politicians, notably Lord Hanningfield who joined some of the aforesaid Labour fraudsters as guests of Her Majesty...funnily enough I can't recall you being quite so forthcoming.

Yes indeed, how far down have the morals of some fallen...

You really are getting ahead of yourself in judging me. I was furious that Tony Blair wasn't hauled into court after being questioned twice by Police over the questions fiasco. I was and still am furious that he wasn't charged with war crimes over Iraq. I recognise some of the people you have mentioned and if they got off after collision with the police then I condemn them as well. In future it may be a good idea to seek my views on all these instead of just wading in on judging me. I want politics to be clean of corruption and and that includes whatever party the represent. OK?

And finally Fred. As no charges were ever brought against any of the people you mentioned then they are all innocent with no case to answer? Correct?



So, does this make YOU angry?

Theresa May accepted money from the company caught up in The Canary‘s HSBC/Conservative Party ‘dirty money’ donations scandal. The cash from the company IPGL helped her election as Conservative Party leader, and ultimately Prime Minister. But it’s not the only scandal emerging around HSBC and May.
Theresa May

In July 2016, May took [pdf p272] £20,000 from IPGL – the company at the centre of the dirty money scandal. It was to “support [her] campaign for leadership of the Conservative Party”.

As The Canary reported on 28 April, the scandal centres around a private investment firm called IPGL, run by former Conservative Party Treasurer Michael Spencer. In October 2008, HSBC made [pdf] a £214.2m loan to IPGL. But at the time, IPGL was in financial difficulties, with one of its subsidiary companies (a betting firm called City Index) reporting [paywall] £43m losses. So Spencer had to put in £70m of his personal £1bn fortune to bail out the failing company.
Millions in donations

But despite these losses, IPGL was donating between £500,000 and £1.1m a year to the Tories from 2007 to 2011 (see pdfs for 2007 [p4], 2008 [p5], 2009 [p6], 2010 [p6], and 2011 [p6]). And it specifically gave [pdf p6] £1.03m to the Conservatives’ 2010 election campaign.

The Canary went to HSBC’s annual general meeting on 28 April. Fionn Travers-Smith of Move Your Money from the event explained why this story is so important (video provided by a campaign group):



But the PM is facing yet another political problem with HSBC. Because as whistleblower Nicholas Wilson has detailed, May could have a potential conflict of interest regarding her husband and the bank.
Conflict of interest?

May’s husband Philip works for US investment firm Capital Group. The company closely advises HSBC, just recently helping it establish its first branch in Hong Kong. So when it was announced that HSBC had been selected to advise Saudi Arabia on the sale of its state oil company Aramco, Wilson looked into this.

And he found that, in April 2017, Theresa May had gone to Saudi Arabia and had a meeting with Aramco Chairman Khalid Al-Falih. But also, only one British businessman attended any of May’s meetings in Saudi Arabia. He was Sir Xavier Rolet, the CEO of the London Stock Exchange. Wilson told The Canary:

It seems obvious to me that the PM is simply lobbying in secret on behalf of her husband, Phillip. But also for HSBC and the London Stock Exchange. And, of course, the Tory Party. Serious questions need to be asked.

“Deeply worrying”

SNP MP Roger Mullins told Joel Benjamin of Debt Resistance UK that Tory dirty money:

is a very serious and deeply worrying case, suggesting that a major bank and a business customer have been involved in activities serious enough to warrant criminal investigation… There must be an investigation into this and before the general election of 2017.

He has since written to the Electoral Commission about his concerns:




A “scandal”

Labour MP John Mann also echoed Mullins’ sentiment. He said that it was “the biggest party donor scandal ever”. And he told The Canary:

This is a very major regulatory issue and needs assessing for potential criminal behaviour. It’s political games being played in the hope of a weaker approach to bankers’ fraud and greedy bonuses.

May said in her first speech as PM that she would “govern not in the interests of the privileged few”. But the Tory dirty money scandal, and May’s potential conflict of interest over Saudi Arabia, HSBC, and her husband, is a prime example of the Conservatives ignoring that pledge. Because as Unlock Democracy’s Alexandra Runswick told The Canary, stories like these “undermine democracy”, as “political parties are beholden to big donors”. And no party is so beholden as the Conservatives.

HSBC, Michael Spencer, and the Conservative Party declined to comment. The Canary contacted Capital Group for comment, but none was received at the time of publication.

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/05/03/theresa-may-now-implicated-canarys-tory-dirty-money-scandal-video/

McShane,Morley, Devine, Illsley, Chatyor, Moran, they all went to prison with the exception of moran who claimed she was too poorly to put in chokey.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you are seriously having a laugh aren't you. andwew and wolfies posts are nothing but attacks on others who post here.

Pot...  Kettle..  Black.

You, DYKface, remain the leading troll and antagonist on NewsFix..
By a clear country mile...

perhaps you will point out the posts that fit your description?
I can argue a point which is something you seem to object to, you just hurl abuse at people.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

eddie wrote:And head? You can always go where your speech is free.....except if you're the poster blackie.

and you could always be consistent in your oppression, sorry moderation. , but you aren't are you.

what speech of his isn't free, he has his very own section, unlike here where you just kicked him out.

Seeing as this place is so beneath you and you have so many "problems" with the way it's run - why do you keep coming back?

You and Andy - both the biggest whingers here - have more in common than you realise.

Still, you're both handling it with tremendous bravery. Well done. Have a sticker.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

eddie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
all my moans have been about the same thing, the inconsistencies in moderation, now why can he have a thread called bastard may, but mine called no charge was changed.

Well if you're concerned I was "picking on you" I have explained I thought it was his thread anyway - so blah point.

you don't seem to be able to see the point do you, but why doesn't that surprise me.

why is a thread called bastard may allowed, but one called no charge is changed?

Don't know don't care. Go and tell your mum that I'm being mean.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

sassy wrote:


You really are getting ahead of yourself in judging me. I was furious that Tony Blair wasn't hauled into court after being questioned twice by Police over the questions fiasco. I was and still am furious that he wasn't charged with war crimes over Iraq. I recognise some of the people you have mentioned and if they got off after collision with the police then I condemn them as well. In future it may be a good idea to seek my views on all these instead of just wading in on judging me. I want politics to be clean of corruption and and that includes whatever party the represent. OK?

And finally Fred. As no charges were ever brought against any of the people you mentioned then they are all innocent with no case to answer? Correct?



So, does this make YOU angry?

Theresa May accepted money from the company caught up in The Canary‘s HSBC/Conservative Party ‘dirty money’ donations scandal. The cash from the company IPGL helped her election as Conservative Party leader, and ultimately Prime Minister. But it’s not the only scandal emerging around HSBC and May.
Theresa May

In July 2016, May took [pdf p272] £20,000 from IPGL – the company at the centre of the dirty money scandal. It was to “support [her] campaign for leadership of the Conservative Party”.

As The Canary reported on 28 April, the scandal centres around a private investment firm called IPGL, run by former Conservative Party Treasurer Michael Spencer. In October 2008, HSBC made [pdf] a £214.2m loan to IPGL. But at the time, IPGL was in financial difficulties, with one of its subsidiary companies (a betting firm called City Index) reporting [paywall] £43m losses. So Spencer had to put in £70m of his personal £1bn fortune to bail out the failing company.
Millions in donations

But despite these losses, IPGL was donating between £500,000 and £1.1m a year to the Tories from 2007 to 2011 (see pdfs for 2007 [p4], 2008 [p5], 2009 [p6], 2010 [p6], and 2011 [p6]). And it specifically gave [pdf p6] £1.03m to the Conservatives’ 2010 election campaign.

The Canary went to HSBC’s annual general meeting on 28 April. Fionn Travers-Smith of Move Your Money from the event explained why this story is so important (video provided by a campaign group):



But the PM is facing yet another political problem with HSBC. Because as whistleblower Nicholas Wilson has detailed, May could have a potential conflict of interest regarding her husband and the bank.
Conflict of interest?

May’s husband Philip works for US investment firm Capital Group. The company closely advises HSBC, just recently helping it establish its first branch in Hong Kong. So when it was announced that HSBC had been selected to advise Saudi Arabia on the sale of its state oil company Aramco, Wilson looked into this.

And he found that, in April 2017, Theresa May had gone to Saudi Arabia and had a meeting with Aramco Chairman Khalid Al-Falih. But also, only one British businessman attended any of May’s meetings in Saudi Arabia. He was Sir Xavier Rolet, the CEO of the London Stock Exchange. Wilson told The Canary:

It seems obvious to me that the PM is simply lobbying in secret on behalf of her husband, Phillip. But also for HSBC and the London Stock Exchange. And, of course, the Tory Party. Serious questions need to be asked.

“Deeply worrying”

SNP MP Roger Mullins told Joel Benjamin of Debt Resistance UK that Tory dirty money:

is a very serious and deeply worrying case, suggesting that a major bank and a business customer have been involved in activities serious enough to warrant criminal investigation… There must be an investigation into this and before the general election of 2017.

He has since written to the Electoral Commission about his concerns:




A “scandal”

Labour MP John Mann also echoed Mullins’ sentiment. He said that it was “the biggest party donor scandal ever”. And he told The Canary:

This is a very major regulatory issue and needs assessing for potential criminal behaviour. It’s political games being played in the hope of a weaker approach to bankers’ fraud and greedy bonuses.

May said in her first speech as PM that she would “govern not in the interests of the privileged few”. But the Tory dirty money scandal, and May’s potential conflict of interest over Saudi Arabia, HSBC, and her husband, is a prime example of the Conservatives ignoring that pledge. Because as Unlock Democracy’s Alexandra Runswick told The Canary, stories like these “undermine democracy”, as “political parties are beholden to big donors”. And no party is so beholden as the Conservatives.

HSBC, Michael Spencer, and the Conservative Party declined to comment. The Canary contacted Capital Group for comment, but none was received at the time of publication.

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/05/03/theresa-may-now-implicated-canarys-tory-dirty-money-scandal-video/

McShane,Morley, Devine, Illsley, Chatyor, Moran, they all went to prison with the exception of moran who claimed she was too poorly to put in chokey.

Since "any of the people that I mentioned..." were all sent to prison, with the exception of Margaret Moran who was a neighbouring constituency MP of mine and managed to avoid appearing in the dock only because she successfully pleaded ill health, I fail to understand your contention that "no charges were ever brought against them" and that "they had no case to answer"- particularly since you later appear to agree with me that they had served time as guests of Her Majesty!

If you are referring to the Electoral Court and the Judge's recorded "banana republic" comment, the reason why none of the Labour activists were "charged" was because the Electoral Court is not a criminal court and cannot, therefore charge anyone with anything.

It is, however, part of the UK judicial system and its judges are empowered to rule on matters of electoral maladministration.

His words could hardly have been construed by anyone as being an exoneration of the Labour Party activists who "forged, stole and altered thousands of votes" in what was clearly an orchestrated campaign.

Meanwhile, whether May is guilty of any wrongdoing or not I simply do not have a clue.

But please do not expect me to accept, unchallenged and unanswered, claims made by The Canary magazine and it's owner Kerry-Anne Mendoza, when a simple scan of its editorial policy and content together with her own background and perfectly obvious political philosophy reveals that either of them can hardly be considered as being politically neutral, unbiased and objective.

And as to your other "authoritative sources" Labour's own Witchfinder General, MP John Mann, and Roger Mullen from the Tory-hating SNP.....please don't insult my intelligence.

When there is actual evidence rather than politically motivated allegations, and when there is actual proof rather than mere conjecture...then I will join you in condemning her actions.

Finally, when it comes to exactly who, here, is judging whom...you have been prejudging me ever since you concluded, wrongly, that I am member and active supporter of the Conservative Party.

eddie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
and you could always be consistent in your oppression, sorry moderation. , but you aren't are you.

what speech of his isn't free, he has his very own section, unlike here where you just kicked him out.

Seeing as this place is so beneath you and you have so many "problems" with the way it's run - why do you keep coming back?

You and Andy - both the biggest whingers here - have more in common than you realise.

Still, you're both handling it with tremendous bravery. Well done. Have a sticker.

I have one issue that you seem incapable of understanding, yet you prove my point time and time again.

You do seem rather intolerant

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
McShane,Morley, Devine, Illsley, Chatyor, Moran, they all went to prison with the exception of moran who claimed she was too poorly to put in chokey.

Since "any of the people that I mentioned..." were all sent to prison, with the exception of Margaret Moran who was a neighbouring constituency MP of mine and managed to avoid appearing in the dock only because she successfully pleaded ill health, I fail to understand your contention that "no charges were ever brought against them" and that "they had no case to answer"- particularly since you later appear to agree with me that they had served time as guests of Her Majesty!

If you are referring to the Electoral Court and the Judge's recorded "banana republic" comment, the reason why none of the Labour activists were "charged" was because the Electoral Court is not a criminal court and cannot, therefore charge anyone with anything.

It is, however, part of the UK judicial system and  its judges are empowered to rule on matters of electoral maladministration.

His words could hardly have been construed by anyone as being an exoneration of the Labour Party activists who "forged, stole and altered thousands of votes" in what was clearly an orchestrated campaign.

Meanwhile, whether May is guilty of any wrongdoing or not I simply do not have a clue.

But please do not expect me to accept, unchallenged and unanswered, claims made by The Canary magazine and it's owner Kerry-Anne Mendoza, when a simple scan of its editorial policy and content together with her own background and perfectly obvious political philosophy reveals that either of them can hardly be considered as being politically neutral, unbiased and objective.

And  as to your other "authoritative sources" Labour's own Witchfinder General, MP John Mann, and Roger Mullen from the Tory-hating SNP.....please don't insult my intelligence.

When there is actual evidence rather than politically motivated allegations, and when there is actual proof rather than mere conjecture...then I will join you in condemning her actions.

Finally, when it comes to exactly who, here, is judging whom...you have been prejudging me ever since you concluded, wrongly, that I am member and active supporter of the Conservative Party.

Interesting post and most of all to get the topic back on track.

My view concurs with you, that this is some poor attempt to delegitimize the Tories through desperation.

From what I have read below shows how such Far Left tactics will be ineffective


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-maniesto-policies-general-election_uk_59144448e4b030d4f1f00844?utm_hp_ref=uk

Ir would seem that criminality is OK by the left...as long as you lean left enough. we only have to look at the total absence from the left, of censure for the admissions of a certain poster here, who on another thread implies admission to acts of criminal damage etc.

Lord Foul wrote:Ir would seem that criminality is OK by the left...as long as you lean left enough. we only have to look at the total absence from the left, of censure for the admissions of a certain poster here, who on another thread implies admission to acts of criminal damage etc.

it was the same during the expenses scandal. Only tory troughing was bad whilst labours troughing was just working class heroes sticking it to the toffs.
during that particular scandal labour mp's had a 1 in 40 chance of ending up in the nick, a somewhat higher figure than even black chaps.

Isnt there a statistic somewhere that shows that a labour mp has more chance of being in prison than a member of the general public...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Isnt there a statistic somewhere that shows that a labour mp has more chance of being in prison than a member of the general public...!?

did you not read my previous post

Tommy Monk wrote:Isnt there a statistic somewhere that shows that a labour mp has more chance of being in prison than a member of the general public...!?

Personally I don't give a tinker's cuss what political party they belong to; expenses fraud is stealing taxpayers' money and I for one don't like being stung for 40 per cent tax and then seeing bloody MPs living the high life on it.

I'd be all in favour of locking the buggers in the Tower and throwing away the key.

I missed your post before, flap... i'm on a real shitty internet setup at the moment... is hard work reading threads and posting at the moment... long story...


And yes moley, i agree totally!!!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Isnt there a statistic somewhere that shows that a labour mp has more chance of being in prison than a member of the general public...!?

Personally I don't give a tinker's cuss what political party they belong to; expenses fraud is stealing taxpayers' money and I for one don't like being stung for 40 per cent tax and then seeing bloody MPs living the high life on it.

I'd be all in favour of locking the buggers in the Tower and throwing away the key.

I quite agree that the "it's within the rules" mob need someone to take a bloody axe to those rules.
firstly feathering your own nest should not be within any rules at the taxpayers expense.
Anyone using expenses to pay mortgages should be required to hand the profits over to the exchequer when they sell up.
those that own properties within 50 miles of london but rent them out so they can rent another property at the taxpayers expense should not receive a penny.
£15 a day is what most self employed can claim for food so MP's should get no more than that. any travel arrangements to and from Westminster from constituencies should be made at the cheapest available ticket price and any upgrades should be at their own expense. All expenses should require a receipt. Paying a spouse or family member to do a job should be paid at 75% of the going rate at most. Swopping spouses with other mp's in adjacent constituencies to get around the current barring of using spouses should also be outlawed or paid at no more than 75% of the going rate.
buying furniture for 2nd homes should be at their expense not ours.
I would also suggest that pay rises are capped at 1% below the national average, or 1% below that of nurse, which ever is the lower.
ministers should not have second jobs ( I don't think they do), but I am not so sure that should apply to all mp's.
And while we are at it no minister should be able to take a job with any industry he has had a portfolio for for at least 2 parliamentary terms after leaving office. the same goes for lobbying.

all this buggering about having 2nd homes in London shoud be stopped...
build a bloody MP's barracks somewhere close and let em live in that for the few days a year they actually spend working (if you can call it that)