New Diesel & Petrol Ban

[MikeJhn]

I'm Armed Forces. I understand explicitly why the Public Sector are not permitted to accept gifts.

In the end you just have to ask yourself one single and simple question - why is it that Starmer is taking a huge string of criticism, when this "gift" subject has not been raised once in the previous 10 years, (despite his gifts being dwarfed in value by most of the cabinet members of the previous government)?

I was with you up to the unsubstantiated point above, then you made the whole post a nonsense.

 

[Fergie 307]

I was with you up to the unsubstantiated point above, then you made the whole post a nonsense.

Yes, interesting that in the entire rambling post that follows he doesn't share the nature of his "explicit understanding of the reasons why those in the public sector should not accept gifts".
Nor does he offer any explanation as to why, whatever those reasons might be, they don't apply equally to Members of Parliament, who one could argue are the ultimate public sector employees.
On the face of it rather contradictory.

 

[Jameshow]

I'm led to believe that many of these gas storage cylinders were scrapped and the steel used in springer canal boats?
Not sure if this is true?

 

[Fergie 307]

Always wondered how they sealed the telescoping sections of them.
I assume they were lifted by the pressure of the gas, in which case, given the size and weight of the things, it must have been a fair bit of pressure.

 

[Spectric]

Always wondered how they sealed the telescoping sections of them.

I know they sat in water, or used water as the main seal and so the main container with the gas in it rose and fell as gas entered or was consumed. Think of the bell jar used in early tunnels under water.

 

[Fergie 307]

Thanks, that is interesting.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

A rather clever (but simple) feature of the design is that the domes are sealed by water, and rise only when filled with gas. This keeps out the air/oxygen which is needed for an explosion.

A gas leak could be dangerous, but the contents remain safe!

 

[woodieallen]

A rather clever (but simple) feature of the design is that the domes are sealed by water, and rise only when filled with gas. This keeps out the air/oxygen which is needed for an explosion.

A gas leak could be dangerous, but the contents remain safe!

 

[Fergie 307]

View attachment 189939

Ingenious.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I seriously doubt that.
In less than 2 weeks membership you seem to have produced rather a lot.

Touche, mate

I often having nothing wise to say, so say nothing. On the rare occasion that I do have strong factual and evidence-based material to relate, I do understand that I have a propensity to relate my broadly considered analysis, with an abundance of supporting detail, and with fairly strong conviction.

Hopefully this is received in the same good faith that it is intended.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I am content to wear the label of ignorance as you suggest, if necessary, but Sir Keir Starmer’s conduct is, as the old saying goes, "as bent as a nine bob note." Furthermore, he epitomises hypocrisy. He chastised Conservative MPs for engaging in the very behaviour he now mirrors. Notably, he condemned their discussions about retracting the winter fuel allowance, only to then proceed with the same course of action himself.

As a King's Counsel, Starmer is fully aware of the ethical standards expected, particularly concerning conflicts of interest. Regardless of the flawed regulations governing the receipt of gifts by politicians, he should recognise that accepting benefits of the magnitude and kind he has is, at best, questionable. While one could argue that he adhered to the rules, leadership demands more than just operating within the boundaries of inadequate regulations—it requires setting a higher standard, as many of history's most esteemed leaders have done.

The notion that there is no expectation in return for such largesse is naïve; of course, there is—even if it’s subtle. Otherwise, why would these gifts not be distributed to MPs across the political spectrum? Finally, Starmer's body language betrays him, revealing clear 'tells' that suggest he is internally conflicted about the matter, especially when faced with accountability.

Regards
Thicko

Clearly you just didn't understand my point, despite my best efforts.

Hypocrisy is not a "reasonable" or just label to pin on someone when they have not done the thing which they criticise other people for. It really is that simple.

Accepting gratuities unequivocally does not denote corruption.

Actual corruption denotes corruption. Such as "unlawfully helping a Tory Party donor avoid £45million of tax". Or "unlawful VIP lanes for Tory Party donors".

There is no equivalence.

You are missing a great deal of nuance in your very shallow and superficial "analysis" (possibly due to the thrust of the onslaught from the media and a reluctance to look any deeper). While you opine that there might be "expectation" or a quid pro quo, that is very definitely not the sole motivation for any one person or individual to donate. Implying that as a sole reason for donations and gratuities is just lazy, superficial and may even say more about the individual who implies that than it does about the individual accepting donations and gratuities. Either the way that an individual's brain is wired (nature: we're not all the same, and this is a good thing), and/or, the influences which they invite or accept to guide their thinking (nurture: the environment within which our thoughts and thought processes are developed, either wittingly or not).

Both slightly more breadth of perspective and slightly more depth of understanding would reveal:

An individual who shares a similar end goal to a Political Party is more likely to donate to said Political Party or an individual within that Party.

For Billionaire Businessmen, such as Frank Hester (of "Dianne Abbot makes me want to hate all black women and should be shot" and £20million donation to Tory fame) would prefer to see workers rights entirely removed in order to increase their wealth. They therefore donate to the Political Party that is the one who is aligned to those aims. Not for the DIRECT benefits (although this DIRECT benefit is far more likely a motivator to the kind of individual who is "right wing" - because "right wing" is related to being a selfish view), but *in the main* for the INDIRECT benefits which legislation brought forward by an aligned Political Party would be likely to bring.

Likewise with a UK press environment which is almost entirely right-biased and "anti-left" due to being almost entirely owned by super-rich right-wing individuals such as Rupert Murdoch (of anti-Union fame) and Viscount Rothermere (Jonathan Harmsworth). Of course they will champion both the right wing cause and the anti-left wing cause.

This so-called "story" is the success of those media organisations to "shape the narrative", in this instance it is "anti-left". Sadly, due to imbalance of coverage and of unwillingness of individuals to invest personal effort, the "narrative" gets repeated and precipitated parrot-style.

Again, I keep asking this of anyone who dishonestly (and it is now a matter of dishonesty, such is the volume of evidence presented here and elsewhere and the disconnectedness between actual evidenced corruption and implied accepting donations implies corruption) maligns Starmer as a "hypocrite" (despite him never having committed any of the things that he criticised others for), where was the outrage over the past 10 years, either in the press, or from those people as individuals, of the issue of gratuities and gifts to any politician of any flavour whatsoever?

And I keep asking that question, because it is dead certain to remain unanswered. Unanswered because there has been no such outrage in the past 10 years. Unanswered because an honest answer is likely to imply a certain amount of both partisanship and of hypocrisy.

Please accept that I did not personally label any individual as a thicko. I actively invite everyone to question and to be a proactive thinker. I actually don't subscribe to the notion of there being thickos in the world. It is far more a matter of motivation, or lack thereof.

 

[Jacob]

Could you rephrase your question in just a few words? Say twenty perhaps? It's difficult to locate in your meandering text.
Bribery implies buying a particular favour.
Gratuities could imply cultivating the possibility of favours yet to come, rather than being merely grateful expressions of admiration.
It depends who is giving them and why.
Starmer wouldn't know either way he is a bit slow witted.
He needs money - he's lost/purged a massive number of party members and their fees, which under Corbyn made the party even better funded than the tories, and without dodgy contributions from dubious sources.

 

[Jake]

Starmer wouldn't know either way he is a bit slow witted.

That's just ludicrous, especially from a disciple of Corbyn.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Starmer is not dim witted - although one may argue he is misguided.

That he is at odds with a personal opinion does not render him wrong and you (or me) right. The same set of circumstances and events can generate different opinions. There is a probability that he is right and you are wrong - however unpleasant a prospect that may seem!

Personal view - the gifts and freebies were not an explicit bribe to deliver a specific outcome, but they are a way of cultivating a relationship and exerting influence.

Reality - most forum contributors have never met Sir Kier. Make a phone call, write a letter and the likely outcome is a non-committal carefully worded response from his private office. (at best).

Reality - a major donor to party funds, Sir Kier personally, or prestige event supporter, can expect a positive reception if they contact Sir Kier. A major donor has no direct power but considerable influence - consulted, changing priorities, legislative detail etc.

Labour claimed they would be transparent and free from the "sleaze" associated with their predecessors. Accepting clothes, free personal accommodation and premium event tickets is entirely capable of misinterpretation.

Sir Kier is not dim witted. He is either a fool, incompetent for ignoring that which most of the public hold dear (honesty. integrity etc), or potentially corrupt. Perhaps only time will tell!.

 

[Jacob]

That's just ludicrous, especially from a disciple of Corbyn.

Corbyn had nothing to hide, but yes he wasn't quick on his feet. Worst ever was when he was being screwed by Andrew Neil with a really aggressive attack over antisemitism in the party, before everybody had twigged it was all lies. Starmer is still lying about it!
Poor old Jezza just couldn't take the heat.
Starmer not that quick in interviews either, blatantly dodging questions and waffling shiftily.
This video is hilarious. Not clear what he is being accused of, if anything, but he obviously feels he has something to hide.