D
Doggit
I'm sorry that you took my comments so litteraly Kankerot, and couldn't see past the point I was trying to make.
Economics.
- Thread starter EFLImpudence
- Start date
I'm sorry that you took my comments so litteraly Kankerot, and couldn't see past the point I was trying to make.
Sponsored Links
billionaires are good at making money for themselves.
If you want them to follow society's rules, you have to make them legally enforceable.
As the supporters of tax-dodging billionaires Richard Branson and Philip Green will tell you, they've done nothing illegal. Shirley Porter did, but she was able to flee the country and live in luxury with no risk of extradition.
D
Doggit
Oddly enough Branson and Green haven't done anything illegal; they've just eployed accountants that know how to use the rules to their best - and legal - advantage.
As to Shirly Porter.
While leader of Westminster City Council she oversaw the "Building Stable Communities" policy, later described as the "homes for votes" scandal and was consequently accused ofgerymandering. The policy was judged illegal by the district auditor, and a surcharge of £27m levied on her in 1996. This was later raised to £42 million with interest and costs. She eventually settled in 2004, paying a "full and final settlement" of £12.3 million.
I could sink to your level, and accuse you off peddling lies and half truths, but I won't demean myself.
As to Shirly Porter.
While leader of Westminster City Council she oversaw the "Building Stable Communities" policy, later described as the "homes for votes" scandal and was consequently accused ofgerymandering. The policy was judged illegal by the district auditor, and a surcharge of £27m levied on her in 1996. This was later raised to £42 million with interest and costs. She eventually settled in 2004, paying a "full and final settlement" of £12.3 million.
I could sink to your level, and accuse you off peddling lies and half truths, but I won't demean myself.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Which was?
What we need is the right incentives and motivations to get the right people to set policy who are not influenced by business or powerful interests.
Sponsored Links
Please clarify.
Are you claiming that something in my post was wrong?
What?
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
They have taken advantage of a system that they have encouraged or supported in its creation through donations. This is the problem with the defence its legal so its acceptable. Its legal for EU members to come over here and get benefits.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Some 35 of the richest 100 people in Britain have donated £19 million to the Tories.
You want business men in charge. They are in charge!
The same people you want to take back your country are the ones presiding over the flogging of public assets to foreigners.
You want business men in charge. They are in charge!
The same people you want to take back your country are the ones presiding over the flogging of public assets to foreigners.
D
Doggit
I know what you're saying, and you're still missing the point.
Mrs Shirley Porter (formerly Dame Shirley Porter, she was stripped of her title by the Queen) was the multibillionaire heiress to the Tesco fortune, and a prominent Conservative politician.
"Homes for votes scandal
Main article: Homes for votes scandal
The Conservatives were narrowly re-elected in Westminster in the 1986 local council elections. Fearing that they would eventually lose control unless there was a permanent change in the social composition of the borough, Porter instituted a secret policy known as 'Building Stable Communities'.[nb 2]
Eight wards were selected as 'key wards' – in public it was claimed that these wards were subject to particular 'stress factors' leading to a decline in the population of Westminster. In reality, secret documents showed that the wards most subject to these stress factors were rather different, and that the eight wards chosen had been the most marginal in the City Council elections of 1986. Three – Bayswater, Maida Vale and Millbank, had been narrowly won by Labour, a further three, St. James's, Victoria and Cavendish had been narrowly lost by them, in West End ward an Independent had split the two seats with the Conservatives while in Hamilton Terrace the Conservatives were threatened by the SDP.
An important part of this policy was the designation of much of Westminster's council housing for commercial sale, rather than re-letting when the properties became vacant. The designated housing was concentrated in those wards most likely to change hands to Labour in the elections. Much of this designated housing lay vacant for months or even years before it could be sold. To prevent its occupation by squatters or drug dealers, these flats were fitted with security doors provided by the company Sitex at a cost to local tax payers of £50 per week per door.
Other council services were subverted to ensure the re-election of the majority party in the 1990 elections. In services such as street cleaning, pavement repair and environmental improvements, marginal wards were given priority while safely Labour and safely Conservative parts of the City were neglected.
Another vital part of 'Building Stable Communities' was the removal of homeless voters and others who lived in hostels and were perceived less likely to vote Conservative, such as students and nurses, from the City of Westminster. While this initially proved successful, other Councils in London and the Home Counties soon became aware of homeless individuals and families from Westminster, many with complex mental health and addiction problems, being relocated to their area.
As the City Council found it more and more difficult to move homeless people outside Westminster, increasingly the logic of the 'Building Stable Communities' programme required the concentration of homeless people within safe wards in the City. In 1989 over 100 homeless families were removed from hostels in marginal wards and placed in the Hermes and Chantry Point tower blocks in the safe Labour ward of Harrow Road. These blocks contained a dangerous form of asbestos, and should have either been cleaned up or demolished a decade before, but had remained in place due to funding disputes between the City Council and the by now abolished Greater London Council. Many of the flats had had their heating and sanitation systems destroyed by the council to prevent their use as drug dens, others had indeed been taken over by heroin users and still others had pigeons making nests out of asbestos, with the level in flats in Hermes and Chantry Points well above safe norms. One former homeless refuge was sold off at a discounted price to private developers and converted into private flats for young professional people at a cost to the ratepayer of £2.6 million.[26]
Labour councillors and members of the public referred this policy to the District Auditor to check on its legality, and as a result it was ordered to be halted in 1989 whilst investigations continued. In 1990, the Conservatives were re-elected in Westminster in a landslide election victory in which they won all but one of the wards targeted by Building Stable Communities.
Porter stood down as Leader of the Council in 1991, and served in the ceremonial position of Lord Mayor of Westminster in 1991-2. She resigned from the council in 1993, and retired to live in Israel with her husband.
Court cases and surcharge[edit]
In May 1996, after legal investigation work, the District Auditor finally concluded that the 'Building Stable Communities' policy had been illegal, and ordered Porter and five others to pay the cost of the illegal policy, which were calculated as £31.6 million.[27] This judgement was upheld by the High Court in 1997 with liability reduced solely to Porter and her Deputy Leader, David Weeks. After the judgement, the scandal and its effects were discussed in Parliament on 14 May 1996.[28]
In 1998, BBC2 screened a documentary, Looking for Shirley, which profiled Westminster City Council's efforts to recover the surcharge and Porter's efforts to move her estimated £70m assets into offshore accounts and overseas investments.[29][30]
The Court of Appeal overturned the judgement in 1999, but the House of Lords reinstated it in 2001 (see Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357[31]). Including interest, the surcharge now stood at £43.3 million.[32] In Israel, Porter transferred substantial parts of her great wealth to other members of her family and into secret trusts in an effort to avoid the charge, and subsequently claimed assets of only £300,000.[33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Porter#Homes_for_votes_scandal
"Homes for votes scandal
Main article: Homes for votes scandal
The Conservatives were narrowly re-elected in Westminster in the 1986 local council elections. Fearing that they would eventually lose control unless there was a permanent change in the social composition of the borough, Porter instituted a secret policy known as 'Building Stable Communities'.[nb 2]
Eight wards were selected as 'key wards' – in public it was claimed that these wards were subject to particular 'stress factors' leading to a decline in the population of Westminster. In reality, secret documents showed that the wards most subject to these stress factors were rather different, and that the eight wards chosen had been the most marginal in the City Council elections of 1986. Three – Bayswater, Maida Vale and Millbank, had been narrowly won by Labour, a further three, St. James's, Victoria and Cavendish had been narrowly lost by them, in West End ward an Independent had split the two seats with the Conservatives while in Hamilton Terrace the Conservatives were threatened by the SDP.
An important part of this policy was the designation of much of Westminster's council housing for commercial sale, rather than re-letting when the properties became vacant. The designated housing was concentrated in those wards most likely to change hands to Labour in the elections. Much of this designated housing lay vacant for months or even years before it could be sold. To prevent its occupation by squatters or drug dealers, these flats were fitted with security doors provided by the company Sitex at a cost to local tax payers of £50 per week per door.
Other council services were subverted to ensure the re-election of the majority party in the 1990 elections. In services such as street cleaning, pavement repair and environmental improvements, marginal wards were given priority while safely Labour and safely Conservative parts of the City were neglected.
Another vital part of 'Building Stable Communities' was the removal of homeless voters and others who lived in hostels and were perceived less likely to vote Conservative, such as students and nurses, from the City of Westminster. While this initially proved successful, other Councils in London and the Home Counties soon became aware of homeless individuals and families from Westminster, many with complex mental health and addiction problems, being relocated to their area.
As the City Council found it more and more difficult to move homeless people outside Westminster, increasingly the logic of the 'Building Stable Communities' programme required the concentration of homeless people within safe wards in the City. In 1989 over 100 homeless families were removed from hostels in marginal wards and placed in the Hermes and Chantry Point tower blocks in the safe Labour ward of Harrow Road. These blocks contained a dangerous form of asbestos, and should have either been cleaned up or demolished a decade before, but had remained in place due to funding disputes between the City Council and the by now abolished Greater London Council. Many of the flats had had their heating and sanitation systems destroyed by the council to prevent their use as drug dens, others had indeed been taken over by heroin users and still others had pigeons making nests out of asbestos, with the level in flats in Hermes and Chantry Points well above safe norms. One former homeless refuge was sold off at a discounted price to private developers and converted into private flats for young professional people at a cost to the ratepayer of £2.6 million.[26]
Labour councillors and members of the public referred this policy to the District Auditor to check on its legality, and as a result it was ordered to be halted in 1989 whilst investigations continued. In 1990, the Conservatives were re-elected in Westminster in a landslide election victory in which they won all but one of the wards targeted by Building Stable Communities.
Porter stood down as Leader of the Council in 1991, and served in the ceremonial position of Lord Mayor of Westminster in 1991-2. She resigned from the council in 1993, and retired to live in Israel with her husband.
Court cases and surcharge[edit]
In May 1996, after legal investigation work, the District Auditor finally concluded that the 'Building Stable Communities' policy had been illegal, and ordered Porter and five others to pay the cost of the illegal policy, which were calculated as £31.6 million.[27] This judgement was upheld by the High Court in 1997 with liability reduced solely to Porter and her Deputy Leader, David Weeks. After the judgement, the scandal and its effects were discussed in Parliament on 14 May 1996.[28]
In 1998, BBC2 screened a documentary, Looking for Shirley, which profiled Westminster City Council's efforts to recover the surcharge and Porter's efforts to move her estimated £70m assets into offshore accounts and overseas investments.[29][30]
The Court of Appeal overturned the judgement in 1999, but the House of Lords reinstated it in 2001 (see Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357[31]). Including interest, the surcharge now stood at £43.3 million.[32] In Israel, Porter transferred substantial parts of her great wealth to other members of her family and into secret trusts in an effort to avoid the charge, and subsequently claimed assets of only £300,000.[33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Porter#Homes_for_votes_scandal
D
Doggit
It woudd seem that The article has several inconsistancies. The first part states that a settlement was reached, but when you read further, it points out that it would have cost as much to recover the money as would have been received, so we're both right, and also both wrong.
The House of Lords said she owed £43.3 million
She had fled the country and couldn't be imprisoned. She had hidden all her money and tried to put it out of reach of the British justice system.
Although she claimed to have given away all her wealth except £300,000 this appears to have been untrue.
She wanted to return to England and live in a luxurious London home (which she claimed wasn't hers) in addition to her luxurious overseas homes.
In the end the UK agreed to accept a smaller amount than was owed. Possibly with the thinking that it was better than nothing. She continues to live in luxury with all the trappings of great wealth.
Your quotation is very generous to her since it says she was "accused" and "judged illegal by the district auditor," making no mention of the case having gone all the way to the House of Lords. It does not mention that she fled the country and attempted to hide her enormous wealth.
I stand by my statement that "Shirley Porter did, but she was able to flee the country and live in luxury with no risk of extradition."
She had fled the country and couldn't be imprisoned. She had hidden all her money and tried to put it out of reach of the British justice system.
Although she claimed to have given away all her wealth except £300,000 this appears to have been untrue.
She wanted to return to England and live in a luxurious London home (which she claimed wasn't hers) in addition to her luxurious overseas homes.
In the end the UK agreed to accept a smaller amount than was owed. Possibly with the thinking that it was better than nothing. She continues to live in luxury with all the trappings of great wealth.
Your quotation is very generous to her since it says she was "accused" and "judged illegal by the district auditor," making no mention of the case having gone all the way to the House of Lords. It does not mention that she fled the country and attempted to hide her enormous wealth.
I stand by my statement that "Shirley Porter did, but she was able to flee the country and live in luxury with no risk of extradition."
In a 2001 judgement, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, described Dame Shirley and David Weeks, as guilty of a "...deliberate, blatant and dishonest misuse of public power. It was a misuse of power by both of them not for the purpose of financial gain but for that of electoral advantage. In that sense it was corrupt.[6][7]
Lord Scott said:
The corruption was not money corruption. No one took a bribe. No one sought or received money for political favours. But there are other forms of corruption, often less easily detectable and therefore more insidious. Gerrymandering, the manipulation of constituency boundaries for party political advantage, is a clear form of political corruption.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Weeks_(politician)
Lord Scott said:
The corruption was not money corruption. No one took a bribe. No one sought or received money for political favours. But there are other forms of corruption, often less easily detectable and therefore more insidious. Gerrymandering, the manipulation of constituency boundaries for party political advantage, is a clear form of political corruption.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Weeks_(politician)
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Ok so whats the point I am missing? I don't mind gaining new information.
D
Doggit
As I said earlier, the politicians we have are incapabale of running the country, because they have no commercial experience at best, and are incompetent at worst.
They should have had to work for somone for at least 10 years, and been in a management position for at least 2, if not more.
Because I said that we need people with business experience, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a lot of businessmen are corrupt, self serving, and untrustworthy. But the requirements for business experience should be considered when selecting an MP, otherwise it's like asking for people without any teaching experience, to teach the future generations of the country.
The House of Lords was a bit of an anachronism, but it had people that took their job seriously, and held the government to account, but when everyone decided that it was full of people with too much priavilge, we suddenly got loads of politicaly apointed people that had no experience, and supported their party regardless. Too much inexperience in one house, and too much nepotism in the other.
They should have had to work for somone for at least 10 years, and been in a management position for at least 2, if not more.
Because I said that we need people with business experience, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a lot of businessmen are corrupt, self serving, and untrustworthy. But the requirements for business experience should be considered when selecting an MP, otherwise it's like asking for people without any teaching experience, to teach the future generations of the country.
The House of Lords was a bit of an anachronism, but it had people that took their job seriously, and held the government to account, but when everyone decided that it was full of people with too much priavilge, we suddenly got loads of politicaly apointed people that had no experience, and supported their party regardless. Too much inexperience in one house, and too much nepotism in the other.
And business people are incapable of running the country, because they have no political experience at best, and are corrupt, self-seeking, money- and power-obsessed at worst.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
