This voting / democracy malarkey doesn't really work does it? One side wins, 4 years later the other side undoes what the first side did. 4 years later the first side undoes what the other side did. Both sides dispute the election results. Each side only wins because of the corrupt money backing them. Cut out the middleman and have a good hearted dictator or Monarch and give them 20 years to get something done. That Prince William seems like a decent bloke?
Are you sure the remainer ones that Bennett emulated are real? Bennett just did what those that started the story r.e. theBrexitParty did. The story originally was presented as "Look what the Brexit Party is allowing" as if they were doing something that the (squeaky clean) others don't do. The story now is "Look what they are all allowing" because it is pretty standard practice across the board.
Well so far we still have the NHS, the remnants of the welfare state, and universal education, all introduced by the Labour government that swept to power in 1945, so democracy isn’t entirely broken; though it does appear to be experiencing an existential crisis right now.
No, I’m not sure mate - that’s why I’m happy that the Electoral Commission is investigating the Brexit Party’s funding, so we can all be sure of where the money is coming from. Perhaps we’ll also learn more about the free money Farage trousered from Aaron Banks and didn’t declare (he’s admitted that btw)
Interesting you should say that.........I went along to one of these food banks with my granddaughter.We took some food down. You are right there were more in attendance than I was expecting. Then I saw two people who really should not have been taking part helping themselves to what was on offer in the queue. Both have reasonable jobs not the best paid granted....but they can afford a decent car 2 year old Ford SUV etc. So made me wonder are all the people in the queue that bad off ?? Gave me a bad taste in my mouth I have to say. All I could do to stop my Granddaughter challenging them......Or perhaps I should have let her.......??
3 amazing things introduced in the 1940s and picked away at for 70 years when they should have been improved beyond measure
Your text on the OP was re <£500, the first Bennett twit in that post was re >£500, Not IF, the EC will be investigating >£500 as per twit attachment. BP nothing to fear if all is above board as all parties across the spectrum playing under the same rules. Second questionable re ex UK donations from Iran, you really think that's kosher to be accepted without question? Bennett is a devious rat with dubious associations not at all environmentally sound, more spins than a corkscrew.
Not sure what you are on about there. Bennett's tweets are all about <£500 donations. Specifically £499 donations. Even the screenshot (from his own phone that he may or may not have even tried to process through the system) is £499. Don;t know where you are getting the >£500 angle from on that. And there are tweets appearing that suggest the EC has come up "empty handed" from their investigations. Not sure how credible the tweets are however.
Yes we will see what the EC can come up with, if anything. And we will see what the EU comes up with regarding Farage. I daresay that all EU politicians are squeaky clean as well and not trousering cash from funders!!!
thanks Ides, forgotten about him. Just read his Wikipedia page and yes, he does seem like a decent bloke
I don't care what job you do for a living, no-body deserves having a ****ty milkshake thrown over them in the street. Someone does that to me, and along with the red mist I'm going medieval on them. Then the police can look at the assault charge. I'm really shocked at how many people think its funny. Its a disgusting violation, nothing funny at all.
This the Bennett twit header from your OP. No <£500 definitely >£500 in the EC quote attached also from Bennett's twit 43 Hugh Bennett@HughRBennett 22h22 hours ago More Hi @ElectoralCommUK will you also be "attending" @peoplesvote_uk's office tomorrow for a "review of the systems it has in place to receive funds" in light of reports on its own website about its "ability to ensure donations received via its website are from a permissible source"? Followed by:- please log in to view this image
The story about "donations received via its website" is about the <£500 donations. The EC itself is talking about donations above £500. The tweets that triggered this and prompted Brown, and others, to chime in (followed by the EC deciding it would to) were the same as Bennett's where they were pointing to the fact that you can write any name and be from anywhere and donate <£500. So the narrative of the story is ignoring the actual detail here. We have "up in arms" statements devoted to attacking the <£500 (£499) part of it, and the EC detailing the rules as they are yet are going in to check on >£500 (because there is nothing they can do about <£500 donations.) Watch and read the news about it. They are all talking about the <£500 donations in their story about the EC going in to investigate. Now of course there is also the "foreign money" rule which could well be something BP fall foul of however we would then be led to believe that other parties do not receive money from overseas, when the reality is that they do, and a lot of it. Normally because someone has set up "UK based" organisations that they fund and then that UK organisation is the one that makes the donations. The CHuk one is a prime example of that. Even then the EC confirmed to buzzfeed (in the thread at the bottom further down I checked this with the Electoral Commission a few weeks ago and their response was that “Political parties can receive sums of money from foreign nationals if it’s under £500.” Soros funded organisations (yes him again) also do this and yes they are subject to the same rules because they are "non party campaigns" because they qualify, just as @bydonkeys do as "non party campaigns" because they actively campaign against voting a particular way and they actively promote voting for a party or parties. People's vote is the same, all of the "not people's vote but they actually are" groups that the EC ignored are as well because they actively campaign against Brexit and thus they are funded via "charidees" or "activist groups" that are themselves funded by Soros and others that are not UK based. These donations however are above the £500 threshold and thus cannot avoid the "UK based" rules nor anonymity. the whole setup across the board (including the Brexit Party) is the problem here in that the rules are there to be ignored by way of loopholes and the equivalent of creative accounting. This was where it all kicked up. This story is all about <£500 donations, implying it is a BP thing, ignoring they are all doing the same and then the media reports the EC going in to investigate based on this story that all the reman bigwigs and twitterati have jumped on:
It is funny though. It's funny because it's Farage He looked like he'd been shat on by a giant albatross
In keeping with the Southampton aspect of this board. For all the "North" assumptions..........The South East (London is separate) region in the EU elections was second highest in % of support for the Brexit Party in ComRes' latest poll beating the East Midlands (the leave hotbed.) Only the Eastern region (Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs) was higher. Eastern was 42%, South East was 39%. East Midlands (Notts, Leics, Derbs, Lincs) was 38%. The interesting thing is that there still lives on a bit of the "donkey in a red/blue rosette" syndrome. Labour still come first in the North East and North West and the Tory's highest vote is in the East Midlands.
Here is one of the tweets about EC saying they didn;t find anything. click on the tweet and look at the top left of this chap's header banner. One of our old friends there with a microphone:
