New Diesel & Petrol Ban

[Jacob]

It's not the legality it's the political ineptitude in being seen to allow people/organisations to ingratiate themselves.
Not least because the people who matter most, namely the party membership, have been leaving/thrown-out in droves and taken their membership fee funding with them.
Under Corbyn membership numbers and party finances reached a peak, and he still remains as having been the most popular Labour party leader this century. It's been downhill ever since.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Why do we not allow police and the judiciary to accept gifts?

Because they're inherently less trustworthy than politicians?

Or because the practice carries inherent moral hazard?

I would say that if the police cannot be trusted to accept gifts then neither can politicians.

Yes, it may very well be within the "rules" as they stand now but those rules were made a very long time ago for people who viewed public service as a vocation (Churchill, Eden, Heath, Wilson) not a path to personal wealth.

While many MPs still may view public service as a vocation, we have seen numerous egregious examples in the very recent past of MPs for whom public service was a route to riches.

Therefore I would suggest, going forward, MPs should be held to the same standard as the police & judiciary.

Or at the *very* least, the same as the civil service.

View attachment 189667

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

And it isn't anything to do with "trustworthiness". Nothing at all, and in fact the Police and the Judiciary are, if anything "more trustworthy" than Joe Bloggs.. And I can substantiate that with hard evidence.

Persons within those roles and with those responsibilities have undergone wide reaching Security Checks. For instance - I have what is known as a "Developed Vetting". My background, personal life, family, finances, associations with foreigners and organisations, etc, have been scrutinised in detail to substantiate whether I am actually trustworthy enough to hold a high level Security Clearance to be able to be given "frequent and unsupervised access to Top Secret material"... I undergo yearly Security Appraisals as well as the 7-to-10 year full and detailed scrutinisation. I am also required to inform the Service if any of my material circumstances change - such details as any significant money received from any source, or associations with foreign nationals.

So I can substantiate that a professional agency has scrutinised me closely and have taken the active judgement that I am trustworthy.

So to completely refute your words, with conviction, this is nothing to do with "trustworthiness", nothing at all. You are categorically wrong to imply this.


The real reason is that it is a matter of "optics".

Although I have been actively stamped up as trustworthy, it is a matter of whether something might "appear" to be an inducement to provide more favourable behaviour. It's silly, really, but I guess this is where we are when the general public swallow the "silliness" of the bent biased press. The silly and sometimes stupid and gullible general public who are incapable of thinking or of analysis.

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)?


People with a propensity to use their own brain and powers of analysis, with complete dispassion, instead of being guided by bias or led by biased (bad) actors, would conclude the only credible answer to that question:

Deliberate fabricated bad press.



That said, I'm out - I can no longer bear to engage with the gibberish and biased hogwash that people are precipitating on this story, because it is nothing short of absurd.

 

[Lons]

I honestly am lost for words here

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

 

[Blackswanwood]

I honestly am lost for words here - it's completely bizarre when someone continues to argue from a matter of opinion which is completely at odds with observable reality.

Obviously I'm bereft that my opinion has caused you such an upset

Observable reality demands and requires that if something is done completely within the letter of the rules and the law, then it is also "right and proper".

Conflating YOUR opinion of what you believe to be "right and proper" is not relevant to the FACT that no corruption has taken place, which means CATEGORICALLY and completely indisputably Starmer has not been in any way been hypocritical.

If your red mist would allow you to read what I've said you'll see I've not said any rules have been broken. If you look at some of the wider discussion on here you"ll also see that while Starmer may not have been my ideal choice(which didn't exist) I'm not anti-Starmer. That doesn't change the fact that my opinion is that he's been hypocritical or naive in promising to clean up politics and then being found to be accepting sizeable personal gifts. Rules and laws don't have to be broken for someone to be hypocritical.

The real story here *ought to be* the power of the bent media to basically fabricate a biased opinion piece and imply (for the hard of thinking and stupid, this means that they are being taken into a lie) that there is something untoward going on - and deliberately conflating right and proper behaviour (FACT, not OPINION) with the evidenced and factual corruption that was taking place routinely under the previous government.

I agree in part - the media have gone looking for a story. I bet they didn't expect it would be so easy to find it. Ironically the previous lot are still ahead if we were running a league table of sleaziness but the old adage of two wrongs not making a right applies. I also think this is a massive distraction from more important issues.

It is such a shame that thicko and biased and thicko-biased people are taken in by this and cannot see through the deliberate lies and fallacies. It's pitiful.

As you like rules you may want to take a look at the forum rules and what they say about keeping it civil and respectful.

Nothing at all, and in fact the Police and the Judiciary are, if anything "more trustworthy" than Joe Bloggs

That's quite a sweeping statement. Possibly Stephen Lawrence's mother and the parents of Sarah Everard don't share your confidence?

Anyway, I hope you get over your disbelief that someone has a different opinion to you.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Obviously I'm bereft that my opinion has caused you such an upset

If your red mist would allow you to read what I've said you'll see I've not said any rules have been broken. If you look at some of the wider discussion on here you"ll also see that while Starmer may not have been my ideal choice(which didn't exist) I'm not anti-Starmer. That doesn't change the fact that my opinion is that he's been hypocritical or naive in promising to clean up politics and then being found to be accepting sizeable personal gifts. Rules and laws don't have to be broken for someone to be hypocritical.

I agree in part - the media have gone looking for a story. I bet they didn't expect it would be so easy to find it. Ironically the previous lot are still ahead if we were running a league table of sleaziness but the old adage of two wrongs not making a right applies. I also think this is a massive distraction from more important issues.

As you like rules you may want to take a look at the forum rules and what they say about keeping it civil and respectful.

That's quite a sweeping statement. Possibly Stephen Lawrence's mother and the parents of Sarah Everard don't share your confidence?

Anyway, I hope you get over your disbelief that someone has a different opinion to you.

I'm not upset, and there is no red mist. Dispassionate critique is where I'm at. And I'm pretty content that I'm being civil and have not directly made comments about individuals... If that is not clear then I will apologise profusely if required.

A wise person once said to me that "the standard that you walk past is the standard that you accept". The standard that I am challenging is the continued implication that there was any "wrongdoing" by Starmer. It's all a fabrication and anyone who wants to challenge the gifts really should separate that discussion from being a criticism about Starmer or any other politician for that matter. Not once have I criticised any other politician for their acceptance of gifts, because there is far more nuance to that conversation - and it is a separate discussion from one that is critical of Starmer without reason.

Your "opinion" about being hypocritical isn't an opinion, though, because it is demonstrably untrue. See above. No wrongdoing. Starmer criticised wrongdoing. He categorically did not criticise accepting of gifts. He has not committed wrongdoing. Therefore no hypocrisy can exist in observable reality. Ergo, what you claim as an opinion is fallacious and cannot in any conscience be accepted as an opinion. My "disbelief" that you have an "opinion" is nothing other than a strong conviction that within observable reality what you call an opinion is disproven and therefore can no longer be upheld as an opinion.

Yet again you have conflated things - I never implied anything that can be interpreted such that two "wrongs" make a right - because in observable reality, a second "wrong" has not been committed. Categorically so, and you seem to acknowledge that in your "media gone looking for a story", although I don't believe you fully acknowledged the observable reality - that the media story being pushed incessantly is a fabrication of wrongdoing with no grounding in reality. Sure, gifts were accepted, but gifts have been accepted by all and sundry for many, many years, and not once in the past 10 years has the press that is incessantly pushing this fabrication ever claimed before that gifts are somehow wrong or corrupt. It is, in fact, the other way around.

Have you no awareness of the massively funded Tufton Street right-wing Lobby Groups that are thinly veiled as "think tanks"? The ones that refuse to inform us who funds them to the tune of £Billions, yet have had the direct ear of right wing political parties for a long, long time now and get platformed on mainstream TV - particularly the BBC.

Labour attempted to table debate on the issue of gratuities during the last parliament, but it didn't get past go.

Like you, I have no ideal choice, but what I can offer you is the dis-spelling of a fabrication and mealy mouthed implication by press that are also funded, largely, by individuals with an "interest" in seeing Starmer criticised in the attempt to harness political power over our government. <- This is what proper thoughtful analysis looks like and not being led by a biased press. As for yourself, and anyone else here, I categorically did not label them - what you choose to do with my analysis is up to you. I've provided concrete reasons why your previous opinion is not really an opinion in reality. I've also suggested that no hypocrisy can exist when party one has not committed any wrongdoing after they've criticised party two after committing a wrongdoing. It's a plain fact and evidenced as such.

I've definitely suggested, also, as I have from the very start here if you want to go back and check, that the gifts issue is a separate discussion from the unfounded criticism of Starmer. We can have that gifts discussion at leisure. But we cannot, in the world of observable reality, if we are being honest and true, and using our powers of analysis instead of any pre-existing bias or loyalty or simple unthinking and unquestioning follow-the-crowd mentality, we cannot associate that gifts discussion with criticism of someone who is plainly a target of the right wing press and where there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing.

All the best. Peace. Out.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I'm not upset, and there is no red mist. Dispassionate critique is where I'm at. And I'm pretty content that I'm being civil and have not directly made comments about individuals... If that is not clear then I will apologise profusely if required.

Well you have described people who don't share your point of view in rather derogatory terms ... "It is such a shame that thicko and biased and thicko-biased people are taken in by this ..."

A wise person once said to me that "the standard that you walk past is the standard that you accept". The standard that I am challenging is the continued implication that there was any "wrongdoing" by Starmer. It's all a fabrication and anyone who wants to challenge the gifts really should separate that discussion from being a criticism about Starmer or any other politician for that matter. Not once have I criticised any other politician for their acceptance of gifts, because there is far more nuance to that conversation - and it is a separate discussion from one that is critical of Starmer without reason.

I've not accused you of criticising any other politicians. There may be two issues at play - operating within the rules and hypocrisy but there's no reason they should not be discussed in the same thread. I'm pretty sure this is still a woodworking forum and not the Oxford Union

Your "opinion" about being hypocritical isn't an opinion, though, because it is demonstrably untrue. See above. No wrongdoing. Starmer criticised wrongdoing. He categorically did not criticise accepting of gifts. He has not committed wrongdoing. Therefore no hypocrisy can exist in observable reality. Ergo, what you claim as an opinion is fallacious and cannot in any conscience be accepted as an opinion. My "disbelief" that you have an "opinion" is nothing other than a strong conviction that within observable reality what you call an opinion is disproven and therefore can no longer be upheld as an opinion.

I've checked the dictionary and it is an opinion. The beauty of an opinion - we can all have them and they can be different. I respect the fact that you have a different opinion to me.

I also checked on the meaning of "hypocritical" which is "saying that you have particular moral beliefs but behaving in a way that shows these are not sincere". That reaffirms my view that it's hypocritical to say you are going to restore trust and then be seen to have accepted this level of gifts. I'm not suggesting he should burn in **** or even resign.

Yet again you have conflated things - I never implied anything that can be interpreted such that two "wrongs" make a right - because in observable reality, a second "wrong" has not been committed. Categorically so, and you seem to acknowledge that in your "media gone looking for a story", although I don't believe you fully acknowledged the observable reality - that the media story being pushed incessantly is a fabrication of wrongdoing with no grounding in reality. Sure, gifts were accepted, but gifts have been accepted by all and sundry for many, many years, and not once in the past 10 years has the press that is incessantly pushing this fabrication ever claimed before that gifts are somehow wrong or corrupt. It is, in fact, the other way around.

I'm pretty sure that the press were all over Boris and his wallpaper? I just put that forward as an example - I think it was wholly inappropriate and am of the opinion (sorry, another one!) that Boris lied.

Have you no awareness of the massively funded Tufton Street right-wing Lobby Groups that are thinly veiled as "think tanks"? The ones that refuse to inform us who funds them to the tune of £Billions, yet have had the direct ear of right wing political parties for a long, long time now and get platformed on mainstream TV - particularly the BBC.

I agree that the press may not be even handed (and even that more has been made of this than was needed) but as someone with no strong political allegiance it seems the Tories and Labourer both ready to claim they are being hard done to by the left or right wing media. The BBC just seem to get the worst of the blame from both sides in my opinion. (Yes, another one!)

Labour attempted to table debate on the issue of gratuities during the last parliament, but it didn't get past go

Well that just firms up my view that he should have known better.

Like you, I have no ideal choice, but what I can offer you is the dis-spelling of a fabrication and mealy mouthed implication by press that are also funded, largely, by individuals with an "interest" in seeing Starmer criticised in the attempt to harness political power over our government. <- This is what proper thoughtful analysis looks like and not being led by a biased press. As for yourself, and anyone else here, I categorically did not label them - what you choose to do with my analysis is up to you. I've provided concrete reasons why your previous opinion is not really an opinion in reality. I've also suggested that no hypocrisy can exist when party one has not committed any wrongdoing after they've criticised party two after committing a wrongdoing. It's a plain fact and evidenced as such.

I've definitely suggested, also, as I have from the very start here if you want to go back and check, that the gifts issue is a separate discussion from the unfounded criticism of Starmer. We can have that gifts discussion at leisure. But we cannot, in the world of observable reality, if we are being honest and true, and using our powers of analysis instead of any pre-existing bias or loyalty or simple unthinking and unquestioning follow-the-crowd mentality, we cannot associate that gifts discussion with criticism of someone who is plainly a target of the right wing press and where there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing

The only observable reality is that we see things differently.

 

[Fergie 307]

Hypnotic Chimera.
Firstly the idea that vetting guarantees someone's integrity is frankly laughable. Kim Philby was one of the most highly vetted people alive, being groomed to be the head of MI6.
He had been a KGB spy for over 30 years. There are many other examples.
Not any suggestion that you fall into this category, merely the observation that "This individual is vetted so I must be above reproach" is demonstrably nonsense.
You could argue that a high level security clearance is a pre requisite for anyone wanting to be a spy.
Secondly I would think those responsible for your vetting would take a pretty dim view of your participation here, especially if you are indeed DV.
The fact that you come on here and declare yourself as armed forces and declare your vetting status, and your unrestricted access to top secret material, would be frowned upon at the very least.
Have you declared it?

In fact this is a serious matter.
I would suggest the owners of the forum, who must know your true identity, should be forwarding the material you have posted here to the MOD for their attention.
Moderators ?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

we cannot associate that gifts discussion with criticism of someone who is plainly a target of the right wing press and where there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing.

 

[Fergie 307]

This really annoys me.

Anyone who is vetted will have signed numerous documents, the essence of which is "keep your mouth shut about what you do".

I cannot help but think of the employees of places like Bletchley Park who kept their wartime activities a secret for decades, and in many cases took them to their graves.

My own mother was in a similar position, with even my father being unaware of the things she had been involved in whilst ostensibly an employee of the Post Office.
These only came to light from material found in a safety deposit box after her death.

Hypnotic Chimera's statements tell me that he is either a Walter Mitty character, or if he does indeed have the security clearance he claims, then he probably shouldn't.

 

[NorthernSteve]

I honestly am lost for words here - it's completely bizarre when someone continues to argue from a matter of opinion which is completely at odds with observable reality.

Observable reality demands and requires that if something is done completely within the letter of the rules and the law, then it is also "right and proper".

Conflating YOUR opinion of what you believe to be "right and proper" is not relevant to the FACT that no corruption has taken place, which means CATEGORICALLY and completely indisputably Starmer has not been in any way been hypocritical.

The real story here *ought to be* the power of the bent media to basically fabricate a biased opinion piece and imply (for the hard of thinking and stupid, this means that they are being taken into a lie) that there is something untoward going on - and deliberately conflating right and proper behaviour (FACT, not OPINION) with the evidenced and factual corruption that was taking place routinely under the previous government.

It is such a shame that thicko and biased and thicko-biased people are taken in by this and cannot see through the deliberate lies and fallacies. It's pitiful.

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

 

[Jacob]

..... Finally, Starmer's body language betrays him, revealing clear 'tells' that suggest he is internally conflicted about the matter, especially when faced with accountability.....

Absolutely. Whenever he opens his mouth and starts dodging questions, he looks ill-at-ease, swivel-eyed and shifty.
He only got elected as party leader because he was an unknown with a suit. He wouldn't stand a chance now, except that he has weakened the party, bent the rules and dug himself in.

 

[Lons]

I cannot help but think of the employees of places like Bletchley Park who kept their wartime activities a secret for decades, and in many cases took them to their graves.

My own mother was in a similar position, with even my father being unaware of the things she had been involved in whilst ostensibly an employee of the Post Office.
These only came to light from material found in a safety deposit box after her death.

+1
The same with my father in law although we knew he had some involvement the full extent was unknown until documents including a commendation came to light after his death. These people were old school with principles. I'm highly suspicious of individuals who loudly boast of their achievements. Rather a lot of bluster and very litle substance.

 

[Lons]

Absolutely. Whenever he opens his mouth and starts dodging questions, he looks ill-at-ease, swivel-eyed and shifty.
He only got elected as party leader because he was an unknown with a suit. He wouldn't stand a chance now, except that he has weakened the party, bent the rules and dug himself in.

The man is very thin skinned so no wonder he's ill at ease. You need the thickness of an elephant skin and selective hearing to be a politician, and most of them have exactly that.