There was an interesting line the newspaper advert that London Underground put out today. It basically said that no one would be forced to lose there job....if they were flexible. In other words, we have the right to change your terms and conditions and if you don't like it, or if it isn't suitable for you, then bye bye.
I wonder if Michael Slater had anything to do with composing that line..??
I have two two problems with Bob, Tony Soprano, Crow. Number 1 he's a Champagne Socialist that's to say he earns £145k a year and lives in a Council House when he could well afford his own property thus depriving a deserving, hard working but lower paid family the right to a decent home. Second he plays the safety card all the time regardless of the real issue so when there really is a safety issue everyone will say "yeah right" he is like the boy who cries wolf.
As for Boris well I do think hes all piss and wind but I still prefer him to Ken Livingstone the most mendacious, corrupt and vindictive politician of my time.
If you don't like Ken Livingstone then that's entirely up to you.
I think most politicians are mendacious, goes with the job, but you go so far as to call him "corrupt" - that is a hell of a big allegation to make, what corruption are you alleging he was involved in?
I have two two problems with Bob, Tony Soprano, Crow. Number 1 he's a Champagne Socialist that's to say he earns £145k a year and lives in a Council House when he could well afford his own property thus depriving a deserving, hard working but lower paid family the right to a decent home. Second he plays the safety card all the time regardless of the real issue so when there really is a safety issue everyone will say "yeah right" he is like the boy who cries wolf.
As for Boris well I do think hes all piss and wind but I still prefer him to Ken Livingstone the most mendacious, corrupt and vindictive politician of my time.
If you don't like Ken Livingstone then that's entirely up to you.
I think most politicians are mendacious, goes with the job, but you go so far as to call him "corrupt" - that is a hell of a big allegation to make, what corruption are you alleging he was involved in?
Aside from actions synonymous with corruption, such as elevating his mates and cronies to positions they weren't qualified to hold, as well as abusing the power of the mayoral office for personal gain in various matters (such as giving platforms to rather repulsive individuals including holocaust-deniers in return for cushy backhanders and privileges), he also let Lee Jasper take the rap when millions of pounds of public money under his watch had gone missing. He even admitted last year that the opportunities for undetectable in the mayoral office were vast, presumably from first hand experience.
I'm not accusing Ken of anything, but it'd be naive to believe he didn't have plenty of fingers and toes in some dodgy pies. There's a reason why the Venezuelans and the radicals from the Middle East only cosied up to him when he actually had some power.
I don't know if he was corrupt or not. A lot of politicians are and were so always possible. I do know he was responsible for fares fair which was disgracefully thwarted by the Thatcher Government and I also know that he was responsible for the Thames barrier when the Government's option was to save Central London by flooding Kent if need be.
He also brought in the congestion charge - which Boris hasn't scrapped!
I have two two problems with Bob, Tony Soprano, Crow. Number 1 he's a Champagne Socialist that's to say he earns £145k a year and lives in a Council House when he could well afford his own property thus depriving a deserving, hard working but lower paid family the right to a decent home. Second he plays the safety card all the time regardless of the real issue so when there really is a safety issue everyone will say "yeah right" he is like the boy who cries wolf.
As for Boris well I do think hes all piss and wind but I still prefer him to Ken Livingstone the most mendacious, corrupt and vindictive politician of my time.
If you don't like Ken Livingstone then that's entirely up to you.
I think most politicians are mendacious, goes with the job, but you go so far as to call him "corrupt" - that is a hell of a big allegation to make, what corruption are you alleging he was involved in?
Aside from actions synonymous with corruption, such as elevating his mates and cronies to positions they weren't qualified to hold, as well as abusing the power of the mayoral office for personal gain in various matters (such as giving platforms to rather repulsive individuals including holocaust-deniers in return for cushy backhanders and privileges), he also let Lee Jasper take the rap when millions of pounds of public money under his watch had gone missing. He even admitted last year that the opportunities for undetectable in the mayoral office were vast, presumably from first hand experience.
I'm not accusing Ken of anything, but it'd be naive to believe he didn't have plenty of fingers and toes in some dodgy pies. There's a reason why the Venezuelans and the radicals from the Middle East only cosied up to him when he actually had some power.
So, er, no actual evidence or allegations at all, just a belief that "It'd be naive to believe he didn't have plenty of fingers and toes in some dodgy pies," - I am surprised the CPS haven't charged him already with that overwhelming evidence.
He DID do a deal with the Venezuelans, it was announced publicly that in return for TFL advising the Venezuelans on upgrading their public transport that the Venezuelans would pay in kind by supplying a set amount of oil to the London public transport system. Not much corruption there from what I can see.
As for appointing his cronies to positions in his administration, well, that is what every political administration has done since time began. I should know since I myself am in line for plum a job because of my personal connections with a politician. That's how it works, they appoint people they know and can trust.
Do you really think that with the amount of hatred that the Tory press have for him that they would not have nailed him years ago if he had been up to something corrupt?
People can like or hate Ken Livingstone that's their prerogative but to accuse him of corruption - which clearly insinuates some kind of personal gain being made from his position - is something else altogether and not really on.
read above in the thread i already have but just for you :
* millions and millions given to "projects" with nil results as long as it had some bogus ethnic title. * Expenses upon expenses upon expenses paid for him and his kronies to far of Socialist wonder lands * Supporting non Labour Cllrs for election againt Labour Cllrs * Paying 6 Socialist action advisors for 8 years at £100k a pop. One an ex IRA and Red Action member. * Giving each of the above a £20,000 salary increase days after he lost the election
he said he broke no laws.As the so called Mayor of London he didnt put in any controls in place on spending OUR money a typical socialist lump of a dog turd.
If Labour had put in ANY other person to run against Boris last time they would have won., Even people in his own party know what he is.
His time has come, but when he was elected Mayor, I don't think the Labour party would have won with another candidate - as they had one and didn't! He was Mayor when we won the Olympic bid too. I'm just throwing some facts out there - I'm not his greatest fan - but only right as some people think it is perfectly reasonable to throw unsubstantiated mud!!!
In your first para you accuse him then start your second by saying you are not accusing him of anything!
In the first paragraph I merely listed factual and observable events and happenings that demonstrably occurred. I'm not going to accuse Ken of willingly working to defraud the public via abuse of office, only implying that to the casual observer on the face of it Ken was involved in some extremely underhand business. Ken has never defended these actions and no one has prosecuted him further than allegations, so unfortunately that leaves us in speculative limbo. I was only replying to a statement over whether Ken was probably involved in corrupt dealings.
It is also worth pointing out that not all corruption is necessarily criminal activity - despite the fact corruption in public office is uncovered on an almost daily basis in the UK, hardly anyone is actually brought to court and prosecuted for it (the MPs and Lord caught in the expenses scandal being the exception that proves the rule). He got given some pretty decent benefits and privileges from Venezuela for using his post as London mayor to their benefit, and had the added bonus of helping a political ally.
I understand - to the casual observer - I assume that means an observer who doesn't go to the trouble to understand the detail! I suspect that if you want to throw accusations of corruption about that it might be best to be a little more than a 'casual' observer. Mind you - that is just my casual observation!
In your first para you accuse him then start your second by saying you are not accusing him of anything!
In the first paragraph I merely listed factual and observable events and happenings that demonstrably occurred. I'm not going to accuse Ken of willingly working to defraud the public via abuse of office, only implying that to the casual observer on the face of it Ken was involved in some extremely underhand business. Ken has never defended these actions and no one has prosecuted him further than allegations, so unfortunately that leaves us in speculative limbo. I was only replying to a statement over whether Ken was probably involved in corrupt dealings.
It is also worth pointing out that not all corruption is necessarily criminal activity - despite the fact corruption in public office is uncovered on an almost daily basis in the UK, hardly anyone is actually brought to court and prosecuted for it (the MPs and Lord caught in the expenses scandal being the exception that proves the rule). He got given some pretty decent benefits and privileges from Venezuela for using his post as London mayor to their benefit, and had the added bonus of helping a political ally.
All you are doing is justifying the fact that you called a bloke corrupt who has never been convicted or charged with corruption in over 40 years in public life.
Using your logic someone who has never been convicted or even charged of, let's say, being a Paedophile might still be one because "no one has prosecuted him further than allegations, so unfortunately that leaves us in speculative limbo."
What you are doing is smearing a bloke with the label of being corrupt because you don't like him and you think he "might" be corrupt.
If Livingstone has personally benefited from his association with Venezuela - something you have no proof of - how is that any different from John Major going off to work for the Carlyle Group because of his close relationship with the Bush family? Does that make Major corrupt too? What nonsense.
I looked back at my posts and nowhere do I say Ken Livingstone is corrupt, only that he behaved in a way that would leave him open to accusations of corruption or, at least, using an elected office for political/personal gain. I also noted he never defended his actions and even in 2013 commented on how easy it was to use the office of London Mayor for personal gain. So no, I haven't smeared the man or accused the man of anything, only listed facts in a discussion over whether he was corrupt or not, and observed how such facts don't paint a pleasant image of the man.
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
This is what you said: As for Boris well I do think hes all piss and wind but I still prefer him to Ken Livingstone the most mendacious, corrupt and vindictive politician of my time.
That is an absolute direct allegation of corruption, no question about it.
As for the "evidence" you provide, as I said above all politicians give positions to their mates and associates, that goes on the world over, how do you think people get appointed to all the various QUANGOs and all the rest of the grace and favour jobs? They don't apply via jobsearch.com I can assure you.
Look at David Cameron, he appointed Andy Coulson as his Comms Director even though everyone knew Coulson was up to his neck in the NOTW phone-hacking stuff but still gave him the job because he was one of his Chipping Norton crowd - the same goes for every administration Labour or Tory, you win power and then reward those who helped you get there by giving them jobs in the administration.
Secondly, if "wasting public money" means someone is corrupt then again every politician in the world would be in it up to their eyeballs, including Boris Johnson for some of his failed policies, is it really corruption if you spend money on a failed policy or initiative? That's a very long bow to draw.
If you want to use the word "incompetent" or "negligent" about Livingstone then that would be different but to accuse someone of being "corrupt" is a different kettle of fish altogether.
This is what you said: As for Boris well I do think hes all piss and wind but I still prefer him to Ken Livingstone the most mendacious, corrupt and vindictive politician of my time.
That is an absolute direct allegation of corruption, no question about it.
I think you will find that was daveaddick that posted that, not me. Although to accuse someone of being corrupt is somewhat different to accusing them of having been involved in the act of corruption in, say, public office. One can be morally or ethically corrupt, for example, or have a corrupted character, so really that isn't a direct allegation of corruption at all, depending on intent.
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
This is what you said: As for Boris well I do think hes all piss and wind but I still prefer him to Ken Livingstone the most mendacious, corrupt and vindictive politician of my time.
This is what you said: As for Boris well I do think hes all piss and wind but I still prefer him to Ken Livingstone the most mendacious, corrupt and vindictive politician of my time.
That is an absolute direct allegation of corruption, no question about it.
I think you will find that was daveaddick that posted that, not me. Although to accuse someone of being corrupt is somewhat different to accusing them of having been involved in the act of corruption in, say, public office. One can be morally or ethically corrupt, for example, or have a corrupted character, so really that isn't a direct allegation of corruption at all, depending on intent.
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
This is what you said: As for Boris well I do think hes all piss and wind but I still prefer him to Ken Livingstone the most mendacious, corrupt and vindictive politician of my time.
No he didn't.
Nothing like checking your facts eh Ormiston?
I have apologized to the other poster for the error so why you feel the need to stick your nose in is beyond me.
Comments
I wonder if Michael Slater had anything to do with composing that line..??
I think most politicians are mendacious, goes with the job, but you go so far as to call him "corrupt" - that is a hell of a big allegation to make, what corruption are you alleging he was involved in?
I'm not accusing Ken of anything, but it'd be naive to believe he didn't have plenty of fingers and toes in some dodgy pies. There's a reason why the Venezuelans and the radicals from the Middle East only cosied up to him when he actually had some power.
He also brought in the congestion charge - which Boris hasn't scrapped!
He DID do a deal with the Venezuelans, it was announced publicly that in return for TFL advising the Venezuelans on upgrading their public transport that the Venezuelans would pay in kind by supplying a set amount of oil to the London public transport system. Not much corruption there from what I can see.
As for appointing his cronies to positions in his administration, well, that is what every political administration has done since time began. I should know since I myself am in line for plum a job because of my personal connections with a politician. That's how it works, they appoint people they know and can trust.
Do you really think that with the amount of hatred that the Tory press have for him that they would not have nailed him years ago if he had been up to something corrupt?
People can like or hate Ken Livingstone that's their prerogative but to accuse him of corruption - which clearly insinuates some kind of personal gain being made from his position - is something else altogether and not really on.
* millions and millions given to "projects" with nil results as long as it had some bogus ethnic title.
* Expenses upon expenses upon expenses paid for him and his kronies to far of Socialist wonder lands
* Supporting non Labour Cllrs for election againt Labour Cllrs
* Paying 6 Socialist action advisors for 8 years at £100k a pop. One an ex IRA and Red Action member.
* Giving each of the above a £20,000 salary increase days after he lost the election
he said he broke no laws.As the so called Mayor of London he didnt put in any controls in place on spending OUR money a typical socialist lump of a dog turd.
If Labour had put in ANY other person to run against Boris last time they would have won., Even people in his own party know what he is.
clear enough now
It is also worth pointing out that not all corruption is necessarily criminal activity - despite the fact corruption in public office is uncovered on an almost daily basis in the UK, hardly anyone is actually brought to court and prosecuted for it (the MPs and Lord caught in the expenses scandal being the exception that proves the rule). He got given some pretty decent benefits and privileges from Venezuela for using his post as London mayor to their benefit, and had the added bonus of helping a political ally.
Using your logic someone who has never been convicted or even charged of, let's say, being a Paedophile might still be one because "no one has prosecuted him further than allegations, so unfortunately that leaves us in speculative limbo."
What you are doing is smearing a bloke with the label of being corrupt because you don't like him and you think he "might" be corrupt.
If Livingstone has personally benefited from his association with Venezuela - something you have no proof of - how is that any different from John Major going off to work for the Carlyle Group because of his close relationship with the Bush family? Does that make Major corrupt too? What nonsense.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jan/20/london.politicalcolumnists
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100147088/ken-livingstone-six-new-lies-in-a-single-afternoon/
That is an absolute direct allegation of corruption, no question about it.
As for the "evidence" you provide, as I said above all politicians give positions to their mates and associates, that goes on the world over, how do you think people get appointed to all the various QUANGOs and all the rest of the grace and favour jobs? They don't apply via jobsearch.com I can assure you.
Look at David Cameron, he appointed Andy Coulson as his Comms Director even though everyone knew Coulson was up to his neck in the NOTW phone-hacking stuff but still gave him the job because he was one of his Chipping Norton crowd - the same goes for every administration Labour or Tory, you win power and then reward those who helped you get there by giving them jobs in the administration.
Secondly, if "wasting public money" means someone is corrupt then again every politician in the world would be in it up to their eyeballs, including Boris Johnson for some of his failed policies, is it really corruption if you spend money on a failed policy or initiative? That's a very long bow to draw.
If you want to use the word "incompetent" or "negligent" about Livingstone then that would be different but to accuse someone of being "corrupt" is a different kettle of fish altogether.
Nothing like checking your facts eh Ormiston?
Death by buggery.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.
Football and politics. The colour is red.