• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Boris at it again and the contest to replace the lying c***

Pratt Hancock doing todays press conference.

Question Bingo?
Why was your stay at home advice/don't go out at Easter advice not adhered to by Mr Cummings?
Why did tweet your support of Mr Cummings and his breaking of your specific Public Health Advice?
As Health Secretary, do you think that if you can't see properly, whether or not it is wise to go out on a 30 minute drive?
 
Given you explicitly said Neil Ferguson should be sacked (and he didn't even leave his house)...what's the difference here?
 
That's the killer. And that is why Hancock is being sent out. If he fucks up that answer he becomes the patsy and that is then hoped to keep the mekon safe.
 
Reply re my complaint about Allan et al and their sharing the edited video which misrepresented Starmer.

Thank you for your email to the Commissioner, I have been asked to reply.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has considered this complaint and has asked me to explain why she has decided not to begin an inquiry.

The Commissioner may investigate alleged breaches of the eight rules of conduct found in Section V. paragraphs 11-18 of the House of Commons' Code of Conduct for Members. These are the only matters the Commissioner may investigate.

Further to this, the rules that govern the Commissioner's work are clear and she may not generally investigate complaints about the expression of an MP's views and opinions (this is explained in Chapter 4 paragraph 21 of the Guide to the Rules relating to conduct of Members <https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmcode/1882/188207.htm#_idTextAnchor058> ).

It is not for the Commissioner to decide whose opinions are most valid, accurate or tasteful. She may do so only where the MP's conduct would "cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally" (paragraph 17 of the Code). As you will appreciate, that sets a high bar; first the MP's actions must cause "significant" damage and, secondly, any such damage must impact more widely than on the reputation and integrity of the MP(s) involved.

The Commissioner has considered this matter carefully before making her decision. I appreciate that you may be disappointed by this decision but I hope the explanation above helps you to understand why the Commissioner will not be investigating this matter.

Yours sincerely

Diane Hedditch

Investigations and Complaints Officer
Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
 
Oh, ok then.

I'll crack on with saying that Michael Gove is a paedophile then and do it in as many public settings as I can. After all I'm sure that won't cause any significant damage.

How do you even define a nebulous term such as "significant" FFS, who writes this crap?
 
Oh, ok then.

I'll crack on with saying that Michael Gove is a paedophile then and do it in as many public settings as I can. After all I'm sure that won't cause any significant damage.

How do you even define a nebulous term such as "significant" FFS, who writes this crap?

So it's not until it has done damage that they can consider it as being worthy of looking at?
 
...
473320a38b75f965d5ca9670dcbba793.jpg
 
The Daily Star’s got a cut-out-and-keep Cummings mask tomorrow, to be worn if you want to get away with any old shit.

Congratulations to the government for ensuring that a SpAd is the UK’s official face of breaking the lockdown and generally being a lying arsewipe.
 
Plus the rest of the star front page takes the piss about driving blind with pics of Stevie Wonder.
 
Alex starts his liaison Committee meeting by thanking them for the invitation and for an invitation for subsequent meetings. Basically said that don't bank on him arranging another date. Once a year must be too much for him.

Already waffling.
 
So everytime it gets mentioned he is just armed with "time to move one" and suggest the person asking any question is "making a political point". Well, yes they are because that is exactly what it is
 
Yvette Cooper has just slapped him about completely.
 
Well the Boris patsy in charge is a cunt of the highest order
 
No wonder he hasn’t been to one of these before, he’s even fucking worse then I could have ever imagined him being.
 
What an absolute fucking cloon.

Awful.
 
Had to turn that off. Cannot listen to him spend 5 minutes sounding like a posh version of Adrian Chiles to answer a simple question
 
This is absolutely staggering. Convenient timing for this to be brushed under the carpet

The housing secretary unlawfully approved a property development of a billionaire tycoon who once donated to the Conservative Party.

Robert Jenrick has accepted that he showed “apparent bias” when he gave the green light for Richard Desmond to build 1,500 homes in the Isle of Dogs, east London. The timing of the decision meant that the mogul avoided a £40 million bill over the scheme.

Mr Jenrick agreed that planning approval should be quashed after the council initiated legal action against him alleging that the timing showed bias. Mr Jenrick rubber-stamped the scheme against the advice of the government’s planning inspector.

The leader of the local Conservative group resigned over the decision and has called for an investigation.

Mr Desmond, 68, sold off the Daily Express and Daily Star two years ago. He has an estimated wealth of £2 billion, according to The Sunday Times Rich List. His company behind the development, Northern & Shell, donated £10,000 to the Conservative Party in 2017 and £1 million to Ukip in 2015.

Mr Jenrick was asked to decide whether to approve the £1 billion plans for Westferry Printworks after Tower Hamlets, the local authority, failed to reach a decision before its legal deadline.

The government’s planning inspector advised Mr Jenrick against approving the scheme because he said it would damage views of Tower Bridge and did not provide “the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing”. Mr Jenrick argued that the inspector’s concerns were outweighed by the public benefits of the plans, including the overall provision of housing.

His decision in January was published the day before Tower Hamlets approved a new rate for its community infrastructure levy, which councils use to help fund infrastructure to support development in their areas. The new rate would have increased the developer’s financial liability by about £40 million, Tower Hamlets said.

The council initiated legal action against Mr Jenrick in March, alleging that the timing of the decision appeared to show bias. It asked the court to order the government to disclose all correspondence by Mr Jenrick and government officials on the decision, which it argued could show he was influenced by a desire to help the developer save money.

Faced with the prospect of handing over the correspondence, Mr Jenrick accepted that his decision letter was unlawful as it showed “apparent bias”. In pre-action correspondence, he confirmed that the decision letter was issued on January 14 so that it would be before the new infrastructure levy was adopted.

He conceded that the timing “would lead the fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility” that he was “biased” in favour of the developer, according to a High Court consent order. He agreed that the planning application should be redetermined by a different minister.

Andrew Wood, 51, a Tower Hamlets councillor who resigned as leader of the local Conservative group after Mr Jenrick’s decision, said: “The reasons for the minister’s decision and his correspondence with the developer should be put in the public domain and investigated by the appropriate authorities.”

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “While we reject the suggestion that there was any actual bias in the decision, we have agreed that the application will be redetermined.”

A spokeswoman for Mace Developments, appointed by Northern & Shell to deliver the project, said it was committed to the development “which has huge potential to contribute positively to the local community”.

 
Back
Top