Current Affairs

[Manoverboard]

.... but it deffo helps if they have a working knowledge / a background of the real world

[Kendhni]

Stop carping Ken or we may be forced to throw you under the Republic's bus.

Is that more of your 'wisdom' (for want of an antonym).

Not wisdom, but I guess it is foolish of me to expect a justification for your anti UK, Boris, Govt etc, stance on many of your posts.

You're funny

[Stephen]

These are elected politicians. Business is a different world, although HMRC would be interested in your dealings.

Government bribery is corruption and nothing less. This is not a matter of party politics.

Government is just a smaller version of big business, and if efficient ought to run in a similar way. Freebies to senior officials are very little different, it depends on the recipient as to whether it makes him more likely to make a corrupt decision.

Nope. Definitely not the same. A business uses it own money. Public officials use public money. That means yours and mine and most other people’s.

Government is nothing like big business and should never be treated as such.

Apart from the banks

[Gill W]

On the subject of banks , I'm just calling in to give my perspective on the situation, as I worked in the financial world.

Politicians come under the category of Politically Exposed Persons, who, due to their position pose a higher threat of bribery or corruption. Therefore, enhanced due diligence is needed when dealing with this type of individual.

As politicians are subject to enhanced scrutiny, its in their own interest to keep scrupulous financial records, so that questions about the source of funds can be answered. Johnson, or someone close to him should have an audit trail for this money. If it was a loan, there should be a loan agreement, giving details of the repayment schedule. It's really simple - if he's got nothing to hide, put the information in the public domain. All this deflection and bluster going on makes it look like he's got something to hide.

Also, there's the question of has he broken the ministerial code by not declaring the 'loan'. They are saying he's going to do the declaration in due course, but it givens the impression that he's been forced into it due to publicity.

If this all had landed on my desk, I would have thought that there is a distinct whiff of fish about it, and, I would have had a personal responsibility to report it, so that someone could do a full investigation.

[Gill W]

.... This is not a matter of party politics.

I believe that it is and that the allegations of wrong doing are fake news ... just saying

I suppose that it is a matter of party politics - Namely Conservative party politics. It looks like these leaks may be coming from someone in the Tory party or someone close to the Tory party. If so, Johnson and the leakers can't both be telling the truth. so one of them must be lying.

[barney]

On the subject of banks , I'm just calling in to give my perspective on the situation, as I worked in the financial world.

Politicians come under the category of Politically Exposed Persons, who, due to their position pose a higher threat of bribery or corruption. Therefore, enhanced due diligence is needed when dealing with this type of individual.

As politicians are subject to enhanced scrutiny, its in their own interest to keep scrupulous financial records, so that questions about the source of funds can be answered. Johnson, or someone close to him should have an audit trail for this money. If it was a loan, there should be a loan agreement, giving details of the repayment schedule. It's really simple - if he's got nothing to hide, put the information in the public domain. All this deflection and bluster going on makes it look like he's got something to hide.

Also, there's the question of has he broken the ministerial code by not declaring the 'loan'. They are saying he's going to do the declaration in due course, but it givens the impression that he's been forced into it due to publicity.

If this all had landed on my desk, I would have thought that there is a distinct whiff of fish about it, and, I would have had a personal responsibility to report it, so that someone could do a full investigation.

I’ll give my perspective on this, being involved in the observation business for over twenty years.

There’s this inconvenient thing called evidence.
Had I taken these accusations to my super, he or she would have possibly said along the lines of show me the evidence.

An accusation can lead to further enquiries but ultimately, he said, she said counts for nothing.

Unfortunately, I think this current PM seems pretty much Teflon where accusations are concerned and certainly doesn’t appear to harm his popularity.
One thing that a certain class in this country loves is a knee jerk.

Personally, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over this or anything else.
He’ll be gone within a couple of years and certainly before the next GE.

[barney]

.... This is not a matter of party politics.

I believe that it is and that the allegations of wrong doing are fake news ... just saying

I suppose that it is a matter of party politics - Namely Conservative party politics. It looks like these leaks may be coming from someone in the Tory party or someone close to the Tory party. If so, Johnson and the leakers can't both be telling the truth. so one of them must be lying.

Why is anyone actually surprised that politicians and their cronies lie.
They always have, only they don’t see it as that.
It’s nothing new.
As long as they don’t intentionally mislead the House of Commons, pretty much anything else is fair game.

[Gill W]

I’ll give my perspective on this, being involved in the observation business for over twenty years.

There’s this inconvenient thing called evidence.
Had I taken these accusations to my super, he or she would have possibly said along the lines of show me the evidence.

An accusation can lead to further enquiries but ultimately, he said, she said counts for nothing.

Unfortunately, I think this current PM seems pretty much Teflon where accusations are concerned and certainly doesn’t appear to harm his popularity.
One thing that a certain class in this country loves is a knee jerk.

Personally, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over this or anything else.
He’ll be gone within a couple of years and certainly before the next GE.

I didn't need evidence.

If something felt off, based on what I knew of the customer and their financial situation, my responsibility was to report my suspicion (obviously explaining why I was suspicious) to the Money Laundering Reporting Officer. Then an investigation would be carried out.

We got feedback on our reports. I'd normally make one or two reports a month, and normally I'd get a report back saying that no further action was being taken, and thanking me for my vigilance. However, one case ended up going to court and somebody was found guilty of money laundering. It wasn't just money laundering we were looking for - we also had to be vigilant for funds being used for terrorism, bribery, corruption, in short any criminal activity.

It was a criminal offence not to report a suspicion.

[Gill W]

I believe that it is and that the allegations of wrong doing are fake news ... just saying

I suppose that it is a matter of party politics - Namely Conservative party politics. It looks like these leaks may be coming from someone in the Tory party or someone close to the Tory party. If so, Johnson and the leakers can't both be telling the truth. so one of them must be lying.

Why is anyone actually surprised that politicians and their cronies lie.
They always have, only they don’t see it as that.
It’s nothing new.
As long as they don’t intentionally mislead the House of Commons, pretty much anything else is fair game.

Including corruption? or bribery?

[Kendhni]

On the subject of banks , I'm just calling in to give my perspective on the situation, as I worked in the financial world.

Politicians come under the category of Politically Exposed Persons, who, due to their position pose a higher threat of bribery or corruption. Therefore, enhanced due diligence is needed when dealing with this type of individual.

As politicians are subject to enhanced scrutiny, its in their own interest to keep scrupulous financial records, so that questions about the source of funds can be answered. Johnson, or someone close to him should have an audit trail for this money. If it was a loan, there should be a loan agreement, giving details of the repayment schedule. It's really simple - if he's got nothing to hide, put the information in the public domain. All this deflection and bluster going on makes it look like he's got something to hide.

Also, there's the question of has he broken the ministerial code by not declaring the 'loan'. They are saying he's going to do the declaration in due course, but it givens the impression that he's been forced into it due to publicity.

If this all had landed on my desk, I would have thought that there is a distinct whiff of fish about it, and, I would have had a personal responsibility to report it, so that someone could do a full investigation.

I would hope that that is what is going on rather than the claims of whistleblowing. Any PM should know better especially someone with Johnsons experience - but then he has history (allegedly) of only doing things when forced to do so.

Part of the problem is that we have a civil service absolutely chock-o-block with dead wood and cronies (as it always has been) whose whole purpose in life is to build their own little empire of paper pushers which, in turn, only exists to provide paper work for others to do. All this deadwood is an easy place to 'lose' an awful lot of information and have processes that deliberately obfuscate and frustrate anyone from gaining legitimate access to information.

[Kendhni]

I didn't need evidence.

If something felt off, based on what I knew of the customer and their financial situation, my responsibility was to report my suspicion (obviously explaining why I was suspicious) to the Money Laundering Reporting Officer. Then an investigation would be carried out.

We got feedback on our reports. I'd normally make one or two reports a month, and normally I'd get a report back saying that no further action was being taken, and thanking me for my vigilance. However, one case ended up going to court and somebody was found guilty of money laundering. It wasn't just money laundering we were looking for - we also had to be vigilant for funds being used for terrorism, bribery, corruption, in short any criminal activity.

It was a criminal offence not to report a suspicion.

That sounds like the same sort of levels of security that we work in (even if there is an accidental breach). If we have any sort of suspicion it is not up to us to verify it, but it is up to us to push it up the line for further consideration. We don't get any feedback though (apart from maybe hearing that someone has left the company). Like yourself we, as individuals, can also be held accountable for not reporting something including dismissal and criminal proceedings.

[Gill W]

I didn't need evidence.

If something felt off, based on what I knew of the customer and their financial situation, my responsibility was to report my suspicion (obviously explaining why I was suspicious) to the Money Laundering Reporting Officer. Then an investigation would be carried out.

We got feedback on our reports. I'd normally make one or two reports a month, and normally I'd get a report back saying that no further action was being taken, and thanking me for my vigilance. However, one case ended up going to court and somebody was found guilty of money laundering. It wasn't just money laundering we were looking for - we also had to be vigilant for funds being used for terrorism, bribery, corruption, in short any criminal activity.

It was a criminal offence not to report a suspicion.

That sounds like the same sort of levels of security that we work in (even if there is an accidental breach). If we have any sort of suspicion it is not up to us to verify it, but it is up to us to push it up the line for further consideration. We don't get any feedback though (apart from maybe hearing that someone has left the company). Like yourself we, as individuals, can also be held accountable for not reporting something including dismissal and criminal proceedings.

Yes, it's usually the staff who uncover these things. Over 40 years, I uncovered three cases of what looked like fraudulent actively by colleagues. I reported to my line manager, with the supporting information, so that an investigation could be made. In all of these cases, the colleagues were dismissed in days, as it was so obvious. I don't think any were prosecuted by us, although we heard that one was taken to court for stealing at a subsequent employer.

[screwy]

While working in HMP, I discovered,on separate occasions,2 female members of staff were having ‘ relationships with Prisoners. I Informed the security governor,who both times told me it was up to security to deal with it,not me.! I told him if it wasn’t for me security would never have found out. I never put myself out again.

[Kendhni]

While working in HMP, I discovered,on separate occasions,2 female members of staff were having ‘ relationships with Prisoners. I Informed the security governor,who both times told me it was up to security to deal with it,not me.! I told him if it wasn’t for me security would never have found out. I never put myself out again.

I think that in the last 10 or so years times have changed. It is almost as if whistle blowing is encouraged and individuals have been empowered - that is both good and bad. A company is not allowed to be seen taking any negative action against any form of whistle blowing.

[johnds]

Costs could be as much as £200K - that definitely needs an explanation.

On the basis that Boris has (in the end ?) paid for the work himself why are you entitled to know what he spent the money on

There appears to be no evidence that any public money, other than the allowed 30k has been spent

Time would be better spent helping India and ensuring that their problems don't arrive on our doorstep.

[barney]

Costs could be as much as £200K - that definitely needs an explanation.

On the basis that Boris has (in the end ?) paid for the work himself why are you entitled to know what he spent the money on

There appears to be no evidence that any public money, other than the allowed 30k has been spent

Time would be better spent helping India and ensuring that their problems don't arrive on our doorstep.

Not if you’re an anti democrat John.

Some couldn’t accept the Brexit result and some couldn’t accept that Johnson won an overwhelming majority.

Some just can’t accept a result that didn’t go their way.

[Gill W]

Costs could be as much as £200K - that definitely needs an explanation.

On the basis that Boris has (in the end ?) paid for the work himself why are you entitled to know what he spent the money on

There appears to be no evidence that any public money, other than the allowed 30k has been spent

Time would be better spent helping India and ensuring that their problems don't arrive on our doorstep.

The spending of public money isn’t the issue here.

The problem is that he appears to have had a donation / loan from a donor, and didn’t declare it, as required under electoral law.

The donor didn’t do this out of the kindness of his heart - he wanted an advantage of some sort, and, at the worst, a secret donation could be described as corruption - a secret payment to a politician to gain favour.

Johnson says he’s now repaid the ‘loan’ and will declare it in ‘due course’. But do we really think that Johnson would have done the right thing if this hadn’t come into the public domain?

It matters because politicians have to be above reproach in relation to their finances and we have the right to know that our elected representatives are not corrupt.

He could make this right by releasing the audit trail for the money. If it’s all above board, he’s got nothing to fear. But all the obfuscation and denial makes it look like he’s got something to hide.

[Ray Scully]

Costs could be as much as £200K - that definitely needs an explanation.

On the basis that Boris has (in the end ?) paid for the work himself why are you entitled to know what he spent the money on

There appears to be no evidence that any public money, other than the allowed 30k has been spent

Time would be better spent helping India and ensuring that their problems don't arrive on our doorstep.

Not if you’re an anti democrat John.

Some couldn’t accept the Brexit result and some couldn’t accept that Johnson won an overwhelming majority.

Some just can’t accept a result that didn’t go their way.

Well as a person on a fixed income I can understand the predicament our prime minister could be in, with what is a low salary given the expense of living up to the position of PM and not taking into account, if true, the maintenance he is paying to cover his predilection for extra curricular. activities

[Kendhni]

Costs could be as much as £200K - that definitely needs an explanation.

On the basis that Boris has (in the end ?) paid for the work himself why are you entitled to know what he spent the money on

There appears to be no evidence that any public money, other than the allowed 30k has been spent

Time would be better spent helping India and ensuring that their problems don't arrive on our doorstep.

I think Gill has done a good job of answering the question.
Not sure what India has to do with this - in the UK it appears Johnson is happy to 'let the bodies pile high’ so that it does not affect his 'capitalism and greed' - but I have no idea on his foreign policy in this matter.

[towny44]

Costs could be as much as £200K - that definitely needs an explanation.

On the basis that Boris has (in the end ?) paid for the work himself why are you entitled to know what he spent the money on

There appears to be no evidence that any public money, other than the allowed 30k has been spent

Time would be better spent helping India and ensuring that their problems don't arrive on our doorstep.

The spending of public money isn’t the issue here.

The problem is that he appears to have had a donation / loan from a donor, and didn’t declare it, as required under electoral law.
He still has plenty of time to declare it, its the Labour party who seem to be demanding its done immediately, until of course its them that want to prevaricate.

The donor didn’t do this out of the kindness of his heart - he wanted an advantage of some sort, and, at the worst, a secret donation could be described as corruption - a secret payment to a politician to gain favour.
Johnson says he’s now repaid the ‘loan’ and will declare it in ‘due course’. But do we really think that Johnson would have done the right thing if this hadn’t come into the public domain?
On that basis all dontations to political parties should be banned, better not let the unions hear you say that.

It matters because politicians have to be above reproach in relation to their finances and we have the right to know that our elected representatives are not corrupt.
Possibly, but only the very naïve actually believe that.

He could make this right by releasing the audit trail for the money. If it’s all above board, he’s got nothing to fear. But all the obfuscation and denial makes it look like he’s got something to hide.

Boris will just continue to be Boris, and wait for the media to get bored or another headline taker comes along.
Did he accept a bung, quite possibly, are the majority of the electorate really bothered, I think not.

[barney]

Unfortunately that is so true John.

The governing class generally don’t care and the average voter also doesn’t care that they don’t care.

With an ineffective opposition there is little that can be done.

Come the next election, probably Johnson will have moved on and many who are currently complaining will once again vote Tory.
I’m personally amazed how many Tory voters can’t stand Johnson but will continue to support the party.

[Gill W]

On the basis that Boris has (in the end ?) paid for the work himself why are you entitled to know what he spent the money on

There appears to be no evidence that any public money, other than the allowed 30k has been spent

Time would be better spent helping India and ensuring that their problems don't arrive on our doorstep.

The spending of public money isn’t the issue here.

The problem is that he appears to have had a donation / loan from a donor, and didn’t declare it, as required under electoral law.
He still has plenty of time to declare it, its the Labour party who seem to be demanding its done immediately, until of course its them that want to prevaricate.

The donor didn’t do this out of the kindness of his heart - he wanted an advantage of some sort, and, at the worst, a secret donation could be described as corruption - a secret payment to a politician to gain favour.
Johnson says he’s now repaid the ‘loan’ and will declare it in ‘due course’. But do we really think that Johnson would have done the right thing if this hadn’t come into the public domain?
On that basis all dontations to political parties should be banned, better not let the unions hear you say that.

It matters because politicians have to be above reproach in relation to their finances and we have the right to know that our elected representatives are not corrupt.
Possibly, but only the very naïve actually believe that.

He could make this right by releasing the audit trail for the money. If it’s all above board, he’s got nothing to fear. But all the obfuscation and denial makes it look like he’s got something to hide.

Boris will just continue to be Boris, and wait for the media to get bored or another headline taker comes along.
Did he accept a bung, quite possibly, are the majority of the electorate really bothered, I think not.

Would you be bothered if Starmer took an undeclared bung?

[towny44]

The spending of public money isn’t the issue here.

The problem is that he appears to have had a donation / loan from a donor, and didn’t declare it, as required under electoral law.
He still has plenty of time to declare it, its the Labour party who seem to be demanding its done immediately, until of course its them that want to prevaricate.

The donor didn’t do this out of the kindness of his heart - he wanted an advantage of some sort, and, at the worst, a secret donation could be described as corruption - a secret payment to a politician to gain favour.
Johnson says he’s now repaid the ‘loan’ and will declare it in ‘due course’. But do we really think that Johnson would have done the right thing if this hadn’t come into the public domain?
On that basis all dontations to political parties should be banned, better not let the unions hear you say that.

It matters because politicians have to be above reproach in relation to their finances and we have the right to know that our elected representatives are not corrupt.
Possibly, but only the very naïve actually believe that.

He could make this right by releasing the audit trail for the money. If it’s all above board, he’s got nothing to fear. But all the obfuscation and denial makes it look like he’s got something to hide.

Boris will just continue to be Boris, and wait for the media to get bored or another headline taker comes along.
Did he accept a bung, quite possibly, are the majority of the electorate really bothered, I think not.

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.

[johnds]

The problem is that he appears to have had a donation / loan from a donor, and didn’t declare it, as required under electoral law.

Evidence?

The donor didn’t do this out of the kindness of his heart - he wanted an advantage of some sort, and, at the worst, a secret donation could be described as corruption - a secret payment to a politician to gain favour.

Again you know this without evidence?

Johnson says he’s now repaid the ‘loan’

Has he ? Can't find that on the BBC which says A No 10 spokesman has refused to say whether Mr Johnson initially received a loan to cover the costs.

Please don't confuse rumour with evidence

[Kendhni]

Would you be bothered if Starmer took an undeclared bung?

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