Current Affairs

[towny44]

Would you be bothered if Starmer took an undeclared bung?

Probably not, but since he has as much chance of becoming PM as I do, then I doubt he will warrant anyone seeking to offer him one.

As you never miss an opportunity to have a little dig at Starmer, I have to say that I find it difficult to believe that you’d manage to contain your self if he did anything wrong/ illegal /unethical!

Gill, if lobbying is to be allowed, then there will always be a risk that freebies could be construed as being a bribe for some future benefit. If you want to guarantee that this potential bribery cannot affect govt decisions then all lobbying should be outlawed. If you also feel that political donations might be used to affect govt decisions, then maybe these should also be outlawed, and the taxpayer should fund all political party spending.
As for Starmer, I really don't want to speculate on a very unlikely occurrence.

[towny44]

Would you be bothered if Starmer took an undeclared bung?

Johnsons lackies would be apoplectic and screaming at the top of their voices

I know, They be on about it from now until judgement day!!

What I don't get is the laissez-faire attitude to financial transparency and basic honesty.

I can't make up my mind if it's seen as ok for Johnson to be above the rules because he's 'Boris', or whether the free pass applies to this government or the whole Conservative Party. Or if corruption is nothing to be worried about in any setting, eg the judiciary, the police or local government.

As I was trusted to handle other peoples money, I have high personal standards when it comes to finance, so the whole 'corruption doesn't matter' attitude that has been displayed baffles me.

It's interesting you should bring up banking ethics Gill, I used to go quizzing with a bank employee who was transferred onto the team trying to resolve the PPI scandal. He had some interesting views on how they were being trained to slow down claims and prevaricate as long as possible. So much for banking ethics.

[Mervyn and Trish]

There are good and bad in most sectors and there were certainly some corrupt bastards in banking responsible for a lot worse than who paid for expensive wallpaper! I am quite happy to believe Gill was one of the good ones.

However, in politics I suspect if one applied the maxim of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" it would go very quiet very quickly.

That doesn't mean I accept corruption. It does mean that I detest hypocrisy and opportunism.

[Stephen]

Boris was not a happy bunny today.

[Manoverboard]

Bank Staff may in general terms be honest and well meaning but I can think of at least three high rollers in the Banking sector who caused economic meltdowns.

As an aside I recall that the last rolls of wallpaper that I purchased in the 90s were nearly £30 per roll but when matched that bathroom looked like a turquoise aquarium

[Gill W]

Probably not, but since he has as much chance of becoming PM as I do, then I doubt he will warrant anyone seeking to offer him one.

As you never miss an opportunity to have a little dig at Starmer, I have to say that I find it difficult to believe that you’d manage to contain your self if he did anything wrong/ illegal /unethical!

Gill, if lobbying is to be allowed, then there will always be a risk that freebies could be construed as being a bribe for some future benefit. If you want to guarantee that this potential bribery cannot affect govt decisions then all lobbying should be outlawed. If you also feel that political donations might be used to affect govt decisions, then maybe these should also be outlawed, and the taxpayer should fund all political party spending.
As for Starmer, I really don't want to speculate on a very unlikely occurrence.

As long as these things are done openly and with transparency and within the rules, I don't see any problem.

[screwy]

It’s quite funny that Labour are on their High Horse regarding Sleaze,Fraud etc. Have they forgotten about the 6 Lab Mp’s jailed over the expenses scandal.
Sir know it all can’t have, He’s the one who prosecuted them.

[Gill W]

Johnsons lackies would be apoplectic and screaming at the top of their voices

I know, They be on about it from now until judgement day!!

What I don't get is the laissez-faire attitude to financial transparency and basic honesty.

I can't make up my mind if it's seen as ok for Johnson to be above the rules because he's 'Boris', or whether the free pass applies to this government or the whole Conservative Party. Or if corruption is nothing to be worried about in any setting, eg the judiciary, the police or local government.

As I was trusted to handle other peoples money, I have high personal standards when it comes to finance, so the whole 'corruption doesn't matter' attitude that has been displayed baffles me.

It's interesting you should bring up banking ethics Gill, I used to go quizzing with a bank employee who was transferred onto the team trying to resolve the PPI scandal. He had some interesting views on how they were being trained to slow down claims and prevaricate as long as possible. So much for banking ethics.

Not sure what you are saying here. Please explain what you are saying about individual people who worked for banks

[screwy]

Think he may be saying not everyone is honest.

[Onelife]

The Beeb should come out say, ‘ we got the texts from X ‘ and let X defend it. As a tax payer funded organisation they shouldn’t be able to hide behind not giving away their sources, they must be accountable to the Govt and public.

Sorry to disagree with you both. Defending their sources is a fundamental part of a free press. The BBC are no different from any other news organisation in that respect.

You are of course right Sir Merv, however, there are those like me who think that the Freedom of Press has a right, but also a responsibility to report in a manner that reflects an unbiased perspective…this to my mind isn’t always the case with the BBC who are becoming more of a sensationalist reporting service rather than a trusted source of reliable reporting.

[Gill W]

Bank Staff may in general terms be honest and well meaning but I can think of at least three high rollers in the Banking sector who caused economic meltdowns.

In 2008 we had the problem that people couldn't see the difference between bank staff who worked in their local branch and the 'fat cat' city bankers!

I hold a grudge against a senior person in the bank I worked for as being instrumental in the meltdown.

But generally speaking, as in most organisations, people are honest and want to help their customers.

I think that sales staff were put under pressure by their managers and this resulted in bad sales practice. As a non sales person, I certainly blew the whistle on some inappropriate sales - now days, people are regulated to within an inch of their lives, so I think they have cleaned up their act now.

[Manoverboard]

Sorry to disagree with you both. Defending their sources is a fundamental part of a free press. The BBC are no different from any other news organisation in that respect.

You are of course right Sir Merv, however, there are those like me who think that the Freedom of Press has a right, but also a responsibility to report in a manner that reflects an unbiased perspective…this to my mind isn’t always the case with the BBC who are becoming more of a sensationalist reporting service rather than a trusted source of reliable reporting.

They used to deal in facts, we believed, but now they can make anything up just to sell their story. If they were heavily fined or banned for lying then they would have more credibility ... just saying.

[Mervyn and Trish]

The difficulty for the BBC is that is exists in a world where readers of the Guardian and the Telegraph both believe those publications to be unbiased.

Having seen the murky world of the media from both sides, both within it and as a press officer dealing with it, I have serious doubts about many journalists. But on balance in general I'd believe the BBC before any newspaper. Certainly before I'd believe any politician or special adviser!

[towny44]

As you never miss an opportunity to have a little dig at Starmer, I have to say that I find it difficult to believe that you’d manage to contain your self if he did anything wrong/ illegal /unethical!

Gill, if lobbying is to be allowed, then there will always be a risk that freebies could be construed as being a bribe for some future benefit. If you want to guarantee that this potential bribery cannot affect govt decisions then all lobbying should be outlawed. If you also feel that political donations might be used to affect govt decisions, then maybe these should also be outlawed, and the taxpayer should fund all political party spending.
As for Starmer, I really don't want to speculate on a very unlikely occurrence.

As long as these things are done openly and with transparency and within the rules, I don't see any problem.

But even the current rules will not tell joe public that the donor has not subsequently benefited from the freebie he provided, and I guess that several hundred years of practise will have enabled most MPs to learn sufficient obfuscation to avoid detection.

[towny44]

I know, They be on about it from now until judgement day!!

What I don't get is the laissez-faire attitude to financial transparency and basic honesty.

I can't make up my mind if it's seen as ok for Johnson to be above the rules because he's 'Boris', or whether the free pass applies to this government or the whole Conservative Party. Or if corruption is nothing to be worried about in any setting, eg the judiciary, the police or local government.

As I was trusted to handle other peoples money, I have high personal standards when it comes to finance, so the whole 'corruption doesn't matter' attitude that has been displayed baffles me.

It's interesting you should bring up banking ethics Gill, I used to go quizzing with a bank employee who was transferred onto the team trying to resolve the PPI scandal. He had some interesting views on how they were being trained to slow down claims and prevaricate as long as possible. So much for banking ethics.

Not sure what you are saying here. Please explain what you are saying about individual people who worked for banks

My quiz colleague was ashamed that he was being paid to slow down or prevent compensation being paid, and I doubt his was the only bank doing that.

[barney]

Gill, if lobbying is to be allowed, then there will always be a risk that freebies could be construed as being a bribe for some future benefit. If you want to guarantee that this potential bribery cannot affect govt decisions then all lobbying should be outlawed. If you also feel that political donations might be used to affect govt decisions, then maybe these should also be outlawed, and the taxpayer should fund all political party spending.
As for Starmer, I really don't want to speculate on a very unlikely occurrence.

As long as these things are done openly and with transparency and within the rules, I don't see any problem.

But even the current rules will not tell joe public that the donor has not subsequently benefited from the freebie he provided, and I guess that several hundred years of practise will have enabled most MPs to learn sufficient obfuscation to avoid detection.

Any person or institution who donates will expect some kind of return.
That's the way the world works.
My own Party takes hundreds of thousands from the Unions and in return, they expect to have some say over policy.
If they didn't, they wouldn't.

[Kendhni]

The difficulty for the BBC is that is exists in a world where readers of the Guardian and the Telegraph both believe those publications to be unbiased.

Having seen the murky world of the media from both sides, both within it and as a press officer dealing with it, I have serious doubts about many journalists. But on balance in general I'd believe the BBC before any newspaper. Certainly before I'd believe any politician or special adviser!

Didn't they do an analysis of complaints and found that the number of complaints of left bias and right bias were similar which probably means they are pretty close at being unbiased.

I would also trust the BBC over many other sources especially adult comics like the Mail and Express (Viz is probably more accurate than them) or any politician that starts with the phrase 'Let me be clear about this ...' (a guarantee that what they are about to say is a crock of the brown stuff).

[Kendhni]

In 2008 we had the problem that people couldn't see the difference between bank staff who worked in their local branch and the 'fat cat' city bankers!

That's Joe Public for you - some were even too dumb to tell the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile.

[Onelife]

The difficulty for the BBC is that is exists in a world where readers of the Guardian and the Telegraph both believe those publications to be unbiased.

Having seen the murky world of the media from both sides, both within it and as a press officer dealing with it, I have serious doubts about many journalists. But on balance in general I'd believe the BBC before any newspaper. Certainly before I'd believe any politician or special adviser!

Didn't they do an analysis of complaints and found that the number of complaints of left bias and right bias were similar which probably means they are pretty close at being unbiased.

I would also trust the BBC over many other sources especially adult comics like the Mail and Express (Viz is probably more accurate than them) or any politician that starts with the phrase 'Let me be clear about this ...' (a guarantee that what they are about to say is a crock of the brown stuff).

Presuming the BBC did the analysis would that be considered bias or unbiased analysis? Good result for the Beep whichever way you look at it

[Gill W]

It's interesting you should bring up banking ethics Gill, I used to go quizzing with a bank employee who was transferred onto the team trying to resolve the PPI scandal. He had some interesting views on how they were being trained to slow down claims and prevaricate as long as possible. So much for banking ethics.

Not sure what you are saying here. Please explain what you are saying about individual people who worked for banks

My quiz colleague was ashamed that he was being paid to slow down or prevent compensation being paid, and I doubt his was the only bank doing that.

So, to clarify, you were talking about the ethics of the banks as organisations, not the individual people who work for them.

I'm sure most of the individuals felt the same as your friend.

If I had been in your friend's position I would definitely have questioned the instructions, and if I was forced to comply I would have made my displeasure known.

[towny44]

Not sure what you are saying here. Please explain what you are saying about individual people who worked for banks

My quiz colleague was ashamed that he was being paid to slow down or prevent compensation being paid, and I doubt his was the only bank doing that.

So, to clarify, you were talking about the ethics of the banks as organisations, not the individual people who work for them.

I'm sure most of the individuals felt the same as your friend.

If I had been in your friend's position I would definitely have questioned the instructions, and if I was forced to comply I would have made my displeasure known.

And you like some of his colleagues might have seen your career prospects stall.

[Frank Manning]

The difficulty for the BBC is that is exists in a world where readers of the Guardian and the Telegraph both believe those publications to be unbiased.

Having seen the murky world of the media from both sides, both within it and as a press officer dealing with it, I have serious doubts about many journalists. But on balance in general I'd believe the BBC before any newspaper. Certainly before I'd believe any politician or special adviser!

Didn't they do an analysis of complaints and found that the number of complaints of left bias and right bias were similar which probably means they are pretty close at being unbiased.

I would also trust the BBC over many other sources especially adult comics like the Mail and Express (Viz is probably more accurate than them) or any politician that starts with the phrase 'Let me be clear about this ...' (a guarantee that what they are about to say is a crock of the brown stuff).

Presuming the BBC did the analysis would that be considered bias or unbiased analysis? Good result for the Beep whichever way you look at it

Good to see some people sticking up for the Beeb.

[Gill W]

My quiz colleague was ashamed that he was being paid to slow down or prevent compensation being paid, and I doubt his was the only bank doing that.

So, to clarify, you were talking about the ethics of the banks as organisations, not the individual people who work for them.

I'm sure most of the individuals felt the same as your friend.

If I had been in your friend's position I would definitely have questioned the instructions, and if I was forced to comply I would have made my displeasure known.

And you like some of his colleagues might have seen your career prospects stall.

I wasn’t bothered about that. I got to management level and didn’t like it much, so I went back to being a worker. As I had nothing to lose, there wasn’t anything to stop me speaking up.

[Onelife]

If the electoral commission find Boris in breach of the ministerial code forcing his resignation, should he be entitled to compensation for his lavish out of pocket expenses?

[Kendhni]

If the electoral commission find Boris in breach of the ministerial code forcing his resignation, should he be entitled to compensation for his lavish out of pocket expenses?

I doubt if he will be personally out of pocket by more than the nodding duck toy siting on his desk.

Personally I think this is a highly orchestrated and pre-planned Boris witch hunt. Johnson was put in place for one purpose - to take the blame for brexit (definitely not for his competence or integrity). COVID has sort of got in the way of that so our gutless politicians still need their scapegoat. However now that we see the light at the end of the COVID tunnel Johnson has served his purpose and I suspect the Tory party grandee are working to have him replaced as quickly as possible.