New Diesel & Petrol Ban

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I don't think that's the point. What riles is that those very same politicians while in opposition blasted the Tories for exactly what they are doing themselves and they made a huge fuss about being the party to clean up politics, stop corruption and be honest and transparent. They clearly think the general public are both blind and thick.

Sanctimonious hypocrites.

No, just NO. No they categorically did not. You're absolutely wrong on this one (and you do probably know it). Don't conflate taking gifts with "corruption". It's a totally different discussion. If simple gifts were actually what you were worried about, you'd've been up in arms many, many years ago about Tory gifts.

Labour railed against ACTUAL corruption. Provable wrongdoing. Actual, provable, rule breaking and law breaking.

Just a single example, when a "donor" gave a Tory Minister a bung for the express purpose of that Minister intervening in Planning Application and getting the donor off the hook with pending tax changes. That's just a single example of ACTUAL CORRUPTION of which there are many open and visible examples with Tory, but not a single example with Labour.

This discussion and finger-pointing only appears to be only going in ONE DIRECTION with people who are acting as if they are part of the Thought Police - "Oh they've accepted gifts, so there must be corruption going on".

It's absurd.
 
Incredibly naive to suppose that the fact Starmer, or any other current cabinet minister was in opposition precludes any wrongdoing.
For how long would you say it was apparent that the Tories were probably going to lose?
I would argue certainly since Truss, and arguably well before.
Perfectly sensible for anyone seeking the ear of a future government to start grooming them early on.
As others have said very difficult to prove any corruption, unless those involved are very stupid. And to be clear I am not suggesting the passing of brown envelopes in return for some specific legislation for example.
But do you seriously believe that when people from a gambling organisation, for instance, "entertain" politicians, they do not take the opportunity to put across their point of view, or at the very least to ensure that they have banked a favourable impression of their business?
Why else would they be doing it?
Whether it was within the rules is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Here is a man who has repeatedly promised us a new beginning and an end to sleazy behaviour.
Anyone with a IQ in double figures ought to have been able to see how his acceptance of thousands of pounds in freebies since becoming PM would look in the light of these promises, within the rules or not.
So he is either too thick to have worked it out, or too arrogant to care.
Neither qualities I would like to see in someone in his position.
I have to conclude that you are either touchingly naive, or perhaps you have your own bias at work?

Oh dear oh dear.

I thought we'd already covered the part where the gifts in question were over the period of 4 years and prior to the election... and yet you still say "since becoming PM".

It's absurd to level any accusations of wrongdoing. I understand that you believe the donors want something in return. The acid test is whether they actually do or not. Until the point it becomes apparent that wrongdoing is taking place I'd suggest the good old adage of innocent until proven guilty applies.

Can I ask you whether you wrote anything in a forum or on social medias condemning anybody at all in the Tory camp for their actual provable wrongdoing? Or is that a subject you'd rather steer clear of??

Colour me naive all you want if it makes you feel superior, but personally, I'll be guided by the facts and evidence rather than some crooked twist of assumptions and projections. You know, like the facts I presented earlier that refuted your previous claims.

It also is not naive to "suppose" Opposition MPs have no direct say in policy. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Finally, there are many other motives for providing gifts. Take Lord Alli, for example. He is a Labour Party member and Peer. What motivation could he possibly have for gifting clothes to a potential PM?? Well, if you remember the previous Labour leader, he was a scruffy guy who came in for a lot of criticism for the way he presented himself. If Alli simply wanted Labour to win (and he is after all a Labour Party member, so it is absolutely safe to say that he did) then I would propose that ensuring the candidate for PM didn't come under similar fire as the previous leader is as simple as it gets.

It really is all about the critical analysis of the *facts* thaty are in front of you. What it isn't about is the *opinion* of a totally bent right wing media, which is where all of this criticism of GIFTS is coming from, which up until now has not been an issue. Go figure.

The perfect example of the bent right wing media actually appeared today - when they criticised the handing back of a Pacific archipelago to Mauritius.
The bent media utterly failed to report any of the pertinent facts and instead led with outrageously fanciful spin.
They didn't say that the entire legislative endeavour was begun under Truss. It was staffed entirely by Tory Ministers such as Jenrick. The entire paper was written and passed under scrutiny prior to the election. It just wasn't enacted.
The bent right wing press also failed to report that USA was involved in the process and decision making and instead led with the "opinion" that USA were unhappy.
The bent right wing press then also name-dropped Falkland Island legislators as being unhappy and nervous that this might embolden Argentina. When in fact they had already concluded publicly that this was not an issue.
The bent press also failed to describe how the archipelago originally came under British Rule - ILLEGALLY.

But Hey-Ho, let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good anti-Labour spin. Just like the perfectly legal and above board "gifts" saga. Preposterous lies about "corruption" and taken in by many - hook, line and sinker.
 
On the other hand you could argue that if you have any interest in history then you might view it as essential reading, if only as an insight into how something as appalling as the holocaust could take place, or the mindset of the man responsible for the second world war.
For a keen historian of the period, sure. Otherwise, it's not like it is a secret what kind of mindset he had.

Edit to clarify:

My point is not that no-one should read Mein Kampf. Rather, it is that it would be wrong to say that someone who does not feel any need to read it is closed minded because we should be open minded to all different viewpoints and therefore to those in Mein Kampf. Those are two different propositions, and the second one is the equivalent to where this started, not the first.
 
Last edited:
For a keen historian of the period, sure. Otherwise, it's not like it is a secret what kind of mindset he had.
Your point is ??? Other than another put-down of someone with whose views you disagree ?
 
Oh dear oh dear.

I thought we'd already covered the part where the gifts in question were over the period of 4 years and prior to the election... and yet you still say "since becoming PM".

It's absurd to level any accusations of wrongdoing. I understand that you believe the donors want something in return. The acid test is whether they actually do or not. Until the point it becomes apparent that wrongdoing is taking place I'd suggest the good old adage of innocent until proven guilty applies.

Can I ask you whether you wrote anything in a forum or on social medias condemning anybody at all in the Tory camp for their actual provable wrongdoing? Or is that a subject you'd rather steer clear of??

Colour me naive all you want if it makes you feel superior, but personally, I'll be guided by the facts and evidence rather than some crooked twist of assumptions and projections. You know, like the facts I presented earlier that refuted your previous claims.

It also is not naive to "suppose" Opposition MPs have no direct say in policy. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Finally, there are many other motives for providing gifts. Take Lord Alli, for example. He is a Labour Party member and Peer. What motivation could he possibly have for gifting clothes to a potential PM?? Well, if you remember the previous Labour leader, he was a scruffy guy who came in for a lot of criticism for the way he presented himself. If Alli simply wanted Labour to win (and he is after all a Labour Party member, so it is absolutely safe to say that he did) then I would propose that ensuring the candidate for PM didn't come under similar fire as the previous leader is as simple as it gets.

It really is all about the critical analysis of the *facts* thaty are in front of you. What it isn't about is the *opinion* of a totally bent right wing media, which is where all of this criticism of GIFTS is coming from, which up until now has not been an issue. Go figure.

The perfect example of the bent right wing media actually appeared today - when they criticised the handing back of a Pacific archipelago to Mauritius.
The bent media utterly failed to report any of the pertinent facts and instead led with outrageously fanciful spin.
They didn't say that the entire legislative endeavour was begun under Truss. It was staffed entirely by Tory Ministers such as Jenrick. The entire paper was written and passed under scrutiny prior to the election. It just wasn't enacted.
The bent right wing press also failed to report that USA was involved in the process and decision making and instead led with the "opinion" that USA were unhappy.
The bent right wing press then also name-dropped Falkland Island legislators as being unhappy and nervous that this might embolden Argentina. When in fact they had already concluded publicly that this was not an issue.
The bent press also failed to describe how the archipelago originally came under British Rule - ILLEGALLY.

But Hey-Ho, let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good anti-Labour spin. Just like the perfectly legal and above board "gifts" saga. Preposterous lies about "corruption" and taken in by many - hook, line and sinker.
Well, according to The Guardian, not noted as a member of the "bent right wing press", although maybe in your opinion, he has accepted some £20k from Ali SINCE the election, and various other gratuities.
Interesting that they also report Ali having been given a pass for number 10 following the election.
If that is true then why might that be, is he a member of the government or civil service?
Or do his donations effectively buy him access?
Is it appropriate that any politician should be accepting gratuities from footballing bodies at a time when they are looking at regulation of the sport?
No doubt the tens of thousands in freebies he and others have received over the years will have no bearing at all on the outcome.

And please do not assume that others have the same tribal views as yourself.

I am opposed to this sort of behaviour from any and all politicians. As far as I am concerned they should not accept gifts, full stop.

An absolute ban is the only way to avoid ambiguity.
 
A gift versus a bride is dependant om your financial position, that is according to the law. So, giving a millionaire a bic ball point pen isn’t a bribe, giving a person who can’t afford a pen a Bic biro is a bribe. So, taking the analogy further, taking a person on a salary of £20K / annum to a 3 star Michelin star restaurant is a bribe, taking them to a Hungry horse isn’t.

A man on circa £170K per. Annum receiving gifts in excess of £100K within 12 weeks of taking up the job is should be considered a bribe, the gifts far outweigh what the person reasonable living standard expectation would or could be. So, the salary is what the Prime Minister earns at the moment, and the gift value is what he has received. In private industry, you would be sacked for gross misconduct. It would be concluded your decision making was being unduly influenced by the gifts you were receiving. I know, I have sacked people for just such practices.

It doesn’t matter whether the poetical party is left, right or centre, the taking of any gift is totally unacceptable and should immediately render them unfit for office and they should be immediately sacked. Any half decent business these days has a zero tolerance / acceptance of any gift or gratuity for exactly this reason.
 
Nope,

and Nope.

It's really important to get the fact straight if they are to be the basis of one's viewpoint.

Firstly, you only know about this because he entered everything into the record of interests. All of it was within the rules. There is categorically no evidence or implication of wrongdoing or "corruption". No "investigative journalism" was performed, or even possible, because nothing at all that you have seen (secondhand, with spin attached) was outside of the public record. Digging has of course been going on, but nothing at all has been uncovered, otherwise we'd definitely all know about it (and I'd be first in line to condemn Starmer).

Corruption would be where, for instance:

An MP deliberately avoided entering gifts into the register.
Failed to respond about where gifts had been accepted when questioned. (And further doubled down by insisting that they no longer had access to that info because they'd lost their phone, changed their phone, etc and didn't retain messages,,,)
Accepted a gift on a direct promise of acting on the donor's financial interests, or worse, acting *illegally* in the direct financial interest of the donor,
etc...

None of what has happened with Starmer (and this connects with the second question nicely) has had any impropriety attached.

MPs accept gifts. Whether you like that or not is a different discussion altogether.

So we can categorically refute your claim of any corruption.

Secondly, the timescale in question was over the period of the last 4 years. WHEN LABOUR WERE IN OPPOSITION.
Two things can be deduced from this.
It reinforces the point that no corruption would even be possible. Labour were not in power and Starmer had no control over policy or funding decisions. I think we can safely doubly put the claim of corruption to bed.
Also your second claim about "doubling salary" or whatever you said, is rendered entirely untrue. It was over 4 years. Before entering government.


I suspect that the basis of your viewpoint is not founded upon the facts and evidence outlined above, but rather something else (and possibly pre-existing bias?).
Remind me again? No corruption and within the rules, just who exactly make these rules? And yes I am biased as I remember what they were like the last time round. I am not however biased against one party, I think they are all lying thieves.
 
It's absurd to level any accusations of wrongdoing. I understand that you believe the donors want something in return. The acid test is whether they actually do or not. Until the point it becomes apparent that wrongdoing is taking place I'd suggest the good old adage of innocent until proven guilty applies.
A gift versus a bride is dependant om your financial position, that is according to the law. So, giving a millionaire a bic ball point pen isn’t a bribe, giving a person who can’t afford a pen a Bic biro is a bribe. So, taking the analogy further, taking a person on a salary of £20K / annum to a 3 star Michelin star restaurant is a bribe, taking them to a Hungry horse isn’t.
The above statements are incorrect.

The relevant legislation is The Bribery Act 2010. There are two tests that need to be applied:

"In Case 1, the wrongfulness element is committed where the advantage is intended to induce (or be a reward for) improper performance of a relevant function or activity.

In Case 2, the wrongfulness element is committed where the person knows or believes that the acceptance of the advantage offered, promised or given in itself constitutes the improper performance of a relevant function or activity"

It's the intent of the gift that determines whether it is classed as a bribe as opposed to whether it actually results in one. The Bribery Act makes no distinction about the level of payment or benefit involved.

In the case of companies and other organisations put simply it is an offence to allow bribery to occur by omission in terms of controls and policies. Policies typically will require the recording of gifts and hospitality with oversight to ensure it is commensurate and appropriate. It's down to the organisation to decide if a de minimis limit for the acceptance and recording of gifts and hospitality should apply.

It doesn’t matter whether the poetical party is left, right or centre, the taking of any gift is totally unacceptable and should immediately render them unfit for office and they should be immediately sacked. Any half decent business these days has a zero tolerance / acceptance of any gift or gratuity for exactly this reason.

I'm not sure there's any evidence that Pam Ayres has ever accepted a bung 🤣 .... but being serious agree 100%

But Hey-Ho, let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good anti-Labour spin. Just like the perfectly legal and above board "gifts" saga. Preposterous lies about "corruption" and taken in by many - hook, line and sinker.

Hey-Ho let's go back to what @Lons actually said ... "What riles is that those very same politicians while in opposition blasted the Tories for exactly what they are doing themselves and they made a huge fuss about being the party to clean up politics, stop corruption and be honest and transparent."

Starmer has made much of his intent to lead on cleaning up politics and restoring trust. Lots has not made this a party political point as to do so would incorrectly suggest that two wrongs make a right. We can argue until the cows come home whether it's corrupt and I can see the argument that no rules have been broken. However, it's a lot harder to argue that the spirit of the rules has been maintained. It's a good job for Starmer that hypocrisy (or lacking empathy?) isn't a crime.

If you have FB:

Great that HIGNFY is back.
 
I thought the real issue in the past was politicians failing to declare what they were being gifted and financial advantages they were covertly given.
I don't disagree with that but if they were whiter than white which was very much a part of their campaign then why many of the gifts were not correctly declared, the cynic in me says covered up.. Expensive clothes declared as office support is just one example.
The main benefactor of several hundred thousand pounds is a hard nosed businessman and I seriously doubt anyone with even half a brain seriously believes that there aren't some reciprocal actions.

I'm not blasting the Labour government because they're accepting gifts, the Tories were clearly doing exactly that and it was disgraceful. I am blasting them for building their campaign on a "we are different and will clean up politics" only to find that was a blatant lie. You don't have to look far for clear footage of Starmer, Reeves and Rayner especially shouting at the Tories and calling them out. I agreed but it didn't take them long to forget all that.

I repeat, sanctimonious hypocrites.
 
No, just NO. No they categorically did not. You're absolutely wrong on this one (and you do probably know it). Don't conflate taking gifts with "corruption". It's a totally different discussion. If simple gifts were actually what you were worried about, you'd've been up in arms many, many years ago about Tory gifts.

Labour railed against ACTUAL corruption. Provable wrongdoing. Actual, provable, rule breaking and law breaking.
Precisely the point I made. They screamed at the Tories for ALEDGED misdoings at the time. I have vivid memories of Rayner spitting and pointing for similar actions she's now guilty of herself.
They built their campaign on honesty, transparency and trust, portraying themselves as completely opposite to the Tories but that was blatantly untrue.

I certainly was annoyed with the Tory sleaze and imo ALL politicians should have a complete ban on accepting gifts of any kind, they are sufficiently rewarded to buy their own. Listening to Starmer, almost with tars in his eyes say "if I don't accept tickets I can't take my boy to a football match" was stomach churning. no less than watching Boris last night dodge the apology questions. Starmer is a multi millionaire with a salary the majority of working people would die for, no problem with that but the arrogant silly person can afford his own tickets or to rent a box at Arsenal.

You are rather naive it seems. ;)
 
The idea that Ali gave Starmer loads of dosh so he wouldn't look scruffy like Corbyn was one of the most laughable I have seen in a very long time.

One only has to look at the chart posted earlier. Funny how labour gratuities fall like a stone after the Tories big win under Boris, then start to ramp up again when it starts to be apparent that the Tories days are numbered.

Tory gratuities still high, but I suspect that may be to do with the leadership contest, and donors supporting their preferred choice of candidate. Once that is over I suspect you will see them slump, just as Labour's did when Boris was on a roll.

The pattern is interesting, and can certainly be interpreted as the money following those who have, or are about to have, the greatest power.
Which does rather imply that the donors are expecting to see some return on their investment, however subtly.

We are not talking about Mrs Mighins giving her local MP a jar of her home made jam because he seems like a nice young man.

We are talking about millionaire businessmen who have a very active interest in a broad range of government policy, whether it be around employment law, tax, rates etc etc.

As one of my colleagues is fond of saying, "what would Mr Spock think?"
 
For me, first it's more about who gave the treats, which begs the question of why they thought Starmer deserved them, second about Starmer's complete lack of political nous in accepting them in the first place, let alone lack of moral compass and creepy sanctimonious reactions.
No bribery as such but definitely cultivating influence.
I doubt any of them would have done the same for Corbyn, as he was a real threat to the establishment.




Hilarious: he says "We're gonna draught some principles" ! Did he not have any already?
 
Last edited:
Not often I agree wholeheartedly with Jacob, but he has had Starmer dead right for a long time.
He is a political used car salesman, will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear to make a sale. Once he's trousered your money and you've driven off the forecourt he doesn't give a s**t.
On to the next sucker.
 
For me, first it's more about who gave the treats, which begs the question of why they thought Starmer deserved them, second about Starmer's complete lack of political nous in accepting them in the first place, let alone lack of moral compass and creepy sanctimonious reactions.
No bribery as such but definitely cultivating influence.
I doubt any of them would have done the same for Corbyn, as he was a real threat to the establishment.




Hilarious: he says "We're gonna draught some principles" ! Did he not have any already?

Starmer's a threat to us all IMHO. Not just the establishment.
 
Back
Top