Dodgy Dave, Don't most people get sacked for back handers? Options

[Adrian Hollister]

In the news is Dodgy Dave who seems to be accepting back handers for access to him and his policies; so I think the government must declare all lobbying activities, any political funds associated and any personal funds that MP's may benefit from. This is something that I've asked Benyon about, but as usual I got the 'no real answer' letter back discussing the weather and how nice and thick parliamentary paper is .

I've also wondered why NWN never cover things like this? Dealing with corruption effects us all, so perhaps they are a little too caution to cover sensitive issues for those in 'power'.

So what do you lot think? Should we just allow the corruption to continue; or do we need reform?

[Andy Capp]

The Tories came in promising a new sort of politics, yet we seem to see the same practice from this lot too. I read somewhere on Sunday about expenses being kept secret as well

[GMR]

The Tories came in promising a new sort of politics, yet we seem to see the same practice from this lot too. I read somewhere on Sunday about expenses being kept secret as well

you will never ever get no mistakes or corruption. What is the issue is when it does pop up how the parties deal with it. In the case of the Tories they acted quickly and swiftly. Shouldn't we be giving them credit? Under labour's donation scandals they dithered and didn't act straight away.

[Squelchy]

you will never ever get no mistakes or corruption. What is the issue is when it does pop up how the parties deal with it. In the case of the Tories they acted quickly and swiftly. Shouldn't we be giving them credit? Under labour's donation scandals they dithered and didn't act straight away.

Actually they (Labour) had to do nothing. The Police received three complaints and that meant they (the Police) had to act. They then found no evidence of wrong-doing.

So far Dave has refused to give a list, then he agreed to give a list, then only a list of the 17 who had given the largest sums. He's still refusing to name those who only gave slightly lesser amounts. Although I expect it will be dragged out of him eventually. Remember, the press has been waiting for a chance to give them all a good kicking ever since the Leverson and Police enqiuries into press conduct started.

You cannot expect Murdoch to keep seeing his staff being arrested and carted off to chokey on a regular basis and do nothing. Two of his journos have already attempted suicide. Sure enough, here comes The Sunday Times (prop R.Murdoch) to start the hatchet work.

[Jayjay]

Actually they (Labour) had to do nothing. The Police received three complaints and that meant they (the Police) had to act. They then found no evidence of wrong-doing.

So far Dave has refused to give a list, then he agreed to give a list, then only a list of the 17 who had given the largest sums. He's still refusing to name those who only gave slightly lesser amounts. Although I expect it will be dragged out of him eventually. Remember, the press has been waiting for a chance to give them all a good kicking ever since the Leverson and Police enqiuries into press conduct started.

You cannot expect Murdoch to keep seeing his staff being arrested and carted off to chokey on a regular basis and do nothing. Two of his journos have already attempted suicide. Sure enough, here comes The Sunday Times (prop R.Murdoch) to start the hatchet work.

The Labour party was investigated by the Police, the Tories are being investigated by a Tory peer. How very cinvenient.

[GMR]

The Labour party was investigated by the Police, the Tories are being investigated by a Tory peer. How very cinvenient.

Because the Labour party broke the law (allegedly) but no law was broken in the case of the Tories. All parties investigate themselves if there is such a problem. Cameron dealt with the problem immediately and now is holding an investigation.

[Cognosco]

Because the Labour party broke the law (allegedly) but no law was broken in the case of the Tories. All parties investigate themselves if there is such a problem. Cameron dealt with the problem immediately and now is holding an investigation.

What's to investigate? Are you implying he did not know it was happening? Or are you implying he wants to invesitgate how it was exposed to the public?

[GMR]

What's to investigate?

The comments that were made against party policy; i.e. that is why he went.

Are you implying he did not know it was happening?

Who? Cameron? Not what his financial man had said (without authorisation and actually got it wrong; i.e. it was all bluster).

Or are you implying he wants to invesitgate how it was exposed to the public?

No; what was said - and wasn't true - that will be investigated. Anything that was said without permission or against party policy has to be investigated; this happens in all parties.