Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36107512)

As you can see above, the usual suspects have no interest in the actual facts. ;)

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36107549)

Ah, bless, "usual suspects" ... is that it?

Originally Posted by jfman

I’ve not read much of the detail (as others have noted it won’t change my mind that it’s absolutely corrupt)

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36107549)

Care to comment on why a tax payer provided fund is repairing a private road owned by a multi-millionaire?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36107546)

Well I’m sure if you had visibility of all the applications and weighed up all the evidence you’d have come to a decision………and of course welcomed that decision to have been assessed on social media, and if ridiculed, you would have battled that with all the internet memes at your disposal……you are excellent at that.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36107554)

Have you lost your ability to read now, the information is all there when you regain it.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36107605)

I appreciate the concern over my eyesight but I can read and have read the documents. It is clear that the landowner has not maintained his roadway for a number of years, resulting in the current state of disrepair. Asking the tax payer to pay for repairs to his (private) road seems inappropriate given the source of the funds and his wealth.

I mean when the Mail is against it and even the Mail Readers comments are, then your know the Tories are in trouble here - best rated comment on that page linked earlier:



Let's face it, Daily Mail readers normally to the right of Atilla The Hun

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36107611)

I wonder whether you have really read it, as you’re still missing a salient point: it isn’t his. It belongs to the estate company, which is a fairly common state of affairs after the inheritance tax changes of the 20th century.

So yes, it’s still a private road and yes, if it’s that badly potholed then its owner may have been culpable (but see my comments earlier - liability for maintenance is not necessarily with the landowner. The leaseholder (the museum in this case) may have some responsibility).

Ultimately you may not feel any different about it but I think if we’re going to have an opinion on something it’s as well to try to ensure it’s an informed one.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36107590)

You are such a sweetie - never let a reasonable question get in the way of your bitterness, acrimony, and animosity; you been over-indulging the Buckie again?

Happy Hogmanay, and big hugs - Lang may your lum reek -x-

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36107622)

However, this is just another tiresome case of wealthy people trying not pay their dues. The main issue here is the epic PR fail. It will go on the pile of other Tory sleaze & corruption stories ..

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36107624)

Thank you for the sentiment if a little Scottish heavy, I’m not Scottish. Wishing you happy and prosperous New Year.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36107595)

Quote:
Boris Johnson to be cleared of breaking rules over Downing St flat refurbishment

Geidt inquiry will ‘criticise’ prime minister’s conduct, say senior officials

Boris Johnson is set to be cleared of breaking the ministerial code by an internal Whitehall inquiry into a loan to redecorate his Downing Street residence but his conduct will be criticised, according to senior officials.

Lord Christopher Geidt, the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, has exchanged a series of letters in recent weeks with the prime minister over further revelations about a £58,000 donation from Lord David Brownlow to refurbish Johnson’s Number 11 Downing Street flat.

Although Geidt previously cleared Johnson of breaking the ministerial code over allegations of soliciting a donation from Brownlow, a recent Electoral Commission investigation revealed WhatsApp messages between Brownlow and Johnson.

Geidt has since re-examined his initial investigation to see whether he was misled by Johnson when the prime minister said he did not solicit a donation from Brownlow. Government insiders said Geidt had now seen all the relevant WhatsApp messages...

One senior official said: “Geidt makes clear the situation is a total mess. But at the same time the fundamental conclusion is that the PM did not deceive and did not break the ministerial code.”

Downing Street declined to comment.

The Cabinet Office, where Geidt’s office is based, said: “We don’t comment on speculation.”

https://www.ft.com/content/d47eaada-...6-d61e0a30a891

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36107699)

Interesting that you didn’t comment on this, Andrew - you must have bitten your lip when you posted it!

Just the parties to sort out now, and that’s the nasty, vindictive smears sorted out, for this time at least.

I wonder if people will ever start to draw the conclusion that it is these allegations spread by the Labour Party that are the real lies, not the PM.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36107702)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36107704)

The average person on the Clapham omnibus is more concerned about the economy and their personal circumstances, I think you will find.