Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Shadow Minister Arrested


Recommended Posts

Wrong politician

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Davis_(...ish_politician)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Davies

David Davies MP for Monmouth is not the same as David Davis MP for Haltemprice and Howden and former Tory leadership challenger.

:lol:

The Black Police Association recently invited David Davis to give a speach at their AGM..... only they actually invited David Davies, right-wing firebrand who gave the whole BPA a collosal bollocking for being an intrinsically racist organisation who should bloody well get on with it instead of their fantasy whinging about ****** kepping them down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 831
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There was no warrant according to the Speaker.

The Speaker was previously under investigation for expenses scam, such things as his wife charging taxis and

having them wait outsdide the supermarket while she went shopping were added to expenses.

Lol someone just coughed "bullsh1t" when the Speaker said he wanted to help members on both sides of the house.

Edited by Nicholas Cage
Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically the Speaker blamed the police.

Oh well, that's ok then. At last now we can sleep at night secure in the knowledge that democracy is safe.

Why has he not tendered his resignation at once? Does he have no morals?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange How a certain Gordon Brown, Our Dear Leader, Prime Minister, Moses, Genius and Intellectual Giant, (Pass the Sick Bag) goes missing whenever the proverbial hits the fan. Now we all know Gordon Brown is just a bit strange, well lets not mince words... he's fxcking weird. This might explain why.

Guido Fawkes today... Excellent!!!

The Madness of King Gordon: Let's Get Clinical

In August Guido ran a thread bluntly entitled Is Brown Bonkers? Among some predictable comments were several fairly clinical and detailed observations: is it autism, or Aspergers ? No, replied one correspondent, Brown has Antisocial Personality Disorder, this being the appropriate technical diagnosis because he lies so systematically. Autistics / Aspergers sufferers are incapable of maintaining a lie.

I have recently come across some research that suggests another way of looking at Brown’s 'mis-speaking', pointing back to his being autistic.

Put some sand in an empty smarties tube and ask a child to guess what’s inside. Get them to open it and then ask them what they’d guessed. Older children - typically aged 4 and over - will admit they guessed smarties: but younger kids will say ‘sand’. As will autistics.

There are even more complex experiments which test for intention. Again, autistics will tend retrospectively to re-write history to align their account of past intentions with outcomes: they will claim an actual outcome is what they intended, even though it can be shown by cleverly designed experiment that they intended something else.

This is closely linked to the well-known horror autistics have of being seen to be in the wrong. Remind us of anyone ?

I suggest as a working hypothesis that Brown’s lies are best understood as an autistic re-writing of history – specifically, the history of his past predictions and intentions. He was expecting smarties, but he’s landed us with a handful of dust – and he’s telling us it was going to be dust all along.

Of course neither autism nor any other physiological condition is a moral failing per se. As it happens Brown has several moral failings as well, and I see no contradiction in leveling them against him.

But the real sin is that of the craven Labour MPs who knowingly inflicted him upon us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just saw that clip again of Gordon 'Financial Dimwit' Brown, the one where he's boasting about obtaining leaks, hypocrite. And while we're on the subject of hypocrites, did anyone know Yvette Cooper enjoyed a world-class education at Oxford, Harvard and the London School of Economics. I thought that kind of education was against her beliefs?

No - its against her beliefs for OTHER PEOPLE to have that sort of education. Just like Diane Abbot was against that sort of education for OTHER PEOPLE'S kids. Just like Polly Toynbee advocates comprehensive education for all and then sends her kids (at least one of them anyway) to Westminster - she actually demonstrated that she doesn't want OTHER PEOPLE to have that sort of education (she also maintains what I hear is a rather grand villa in Tuscany, whilst writing about the unfairness of the allocation of wealth and housing in this country. Are you seeing a pattern emerging here? This labour party is run by champagne socialist hypocrites who actually believe that they know best how OTHER PEOPLE should live their lives but think they are above all that they can do as they please. They also regard grass roots activists as cannon fodder to keep them in the positions to which they believe they have rightly become accustomed. Words cannot describe the contempt in which I hold these people, and I cannot believe that about 30% (whihc is their core vote I beleive) of people are stupid enough to fall for their lies in the face of blatant hypocrisy and vote for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically the Speaker blamed the police.

now lets wait for the police to leak what conversations really took place.

Seems to me the Serjeant-at-Arms was at fault for signing the consent for a search.

But the Speaker was at fault for down-grading the post earlier this year and appointing someone who obviously doesn't have a clue.

The Queen is the only one who showed sense by declining to meet the new Serjeant-at-Arms as the Palace is displeased with the downgrading of the post (and rightly so, it transpires.)

Queen declined to meet Commons official who authorised Damian Green police raid

Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange How a certain Gordon Brown, Our Dear Leader, Prime Minister, Moses, Genius and Intellectual Giant, (Pass the Sick Bag) goes missing whenever the proverbial hits the fan. Now we all know Gordon Brown is just a bit strange, well lets not mince words... he's fxcking weird. This might explain why.

Guido Fawkes today... Excellent!!!

The Madness of King Gordon: Let's Get Clinical

In August Guido ran a thread bluntly entitled Is Brown Bonkers? Among some predictable comments were several fairly clinical and detailed observations: is it autism, or Aspergers ? No, replied one correspondent, Brown has Antisocial Personality Disorder, this being the appropriate technical diagnosis because he lies so systematically. Autistics / Aspergers sufferers are incapable of maintaining a lie.

Have a look at this video. Particularly from 2mins on. Brown seems to be a completely different man when giving this more "private" address to the business big wigs. This is Brown in full "globalisation" mode where he seems very confident and relaxed. This is Brown in his comfort zone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There was no warrant according to the Speaker.

That is bloody incredible. Essentially this proves misconduct... I can't believe for one moment that the officers involved can say "Oh, I didn't think we'd need one" - it is beyond farce... they know they'd need a warrant when searching the belongings of the scumbag nobody... as, otherwise, all the evidence they uncover can't be used in court. Maybe this means that Green has a case for wrongful arrest too...

The whole charade gets weirder and weirder... I'd love to believe that there is some malevolent behaviour - but all I see is wild incompetence that utterly undermines the police and counter-terrorism. It looks as if the police went out of their way to score the most spectacular own-goal they could. Someone must have decided to do this - and they must have had a motivation...

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is bloody incredible. Essentially this proves misconduct... I can't believe for one moment that the officers involved can say "Oh, I didn't think we'd need one" - it is beyond farce... they know they'd need a warrant when searching the belongings of the scumbag nobody... as, otherwise, all the evidence they uncover can't be used in court. Maybe this means that Green has a case for wrongful arrest too...

The whole charade gets weirder and weirder... I'd love to believe that there is some malevolent behaviour - but all I see is wild incompetence that utterly undermines the police and counter-terrorism. It looks as if the police went out of their way to score the most spectacular own-goal they could. Someone must have decided to do this - and they must have had a motivation...

If the post of Serjeant-at-Arms had not been downgraded to purely ceremonial (well, near enough) by the Speaker, and had not been given to some ex employee of the Department of Employment who obviously has no knowledge of histtory, specifically the history and conventions of Parliament, but instead had stayed with the "public-school ex military officer types" that the Speaker abhors, I'm pretty sure the police would have been shown the door smartish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone else told me this the other day. Apparently there are teams of 'posters' which post good things about the political parties on forums like this.

Really now, is this true?

Back in the early 90's when I was on the road a lot and used to listen to talk radio on various stations, there were a lot of calls that started "I used to vote Labour but now I have realised what they are like". <_< You only had to listen to the caller for a few seconds to be certain that they had never voted Labour in their life.

I was never sure if it was hundreds of dim witted Tories with the same idea or a few determined supporters making all the calls. Of course it was also impossible to determine whether or not the calls were part of an organised campaign. I do know that Tory central office encouraged members to call phone ins to 'redress the balance' as, back in those days, the anti Tory/government calls outnumbered the pro calls about 10 to 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...cross post....

..it sounded like a well rehearsed statement with much input to take the sting out of the situation.... as the police were called in by the senior civil servant at the Home Office, Permanent Secretary Sir David Normington....is he the one sitting on the appointment board for the new London Police Commissioner .....? ......if so he should resign from that board immediately as staying would be a complete conflict of interest....and is this the reason the Home Office have not been investigated by the Police for hiring 'illegals' with false papers....?......we need clarification like now....!....who is protecting the Home Office from a Police Investigation... <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
Capital punishment is State sanctioned murder, don't try and frilly it up as something respectable. It demeans the country that practices it and certainly in the case of the United States, doesn't do much to deter crime.

Back on topic, why did the police have to arrest Damian Green, surely asking for a witness statement should be sufficient?

There are rules that require the police to act within a certain time scale once they have established that an individual is likely to be charged with an offence. If they miss these deadlines the case can be thrown out of court at any subsequent hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, judicial execution is not state murder.

Furthermore, you and I ARE the state. We are REPRESENTED by government. As a society we may (or may not, as is presently the case) allow the judicial punishment for pre-meditated murder to be execution of the offender. In so doing we ALL partake in the offender's execution (which is why in times gone by hangings were always public - not for gloating but to reinforce the collective guilt, that the blood of the hanged man was on the hands of ALL the people). Likewise, the blood of an innocent man wrongly executed is borne by every member of society. It is a collective compact that restrains the worst excesses that humankind is capable of and offers justice to the murdered victim's family thus heading off vigilante retribution. In other words, it is a legal resort sanctioned by the collective, and not an individual and independent resort as is murder.

And I, too, apologise for going off-topic again. I shall not say another word on the subject. Sorry.

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I have seen on this forum.

The reason for public executions is 'as a lesson to the rest of us'. It has absolutely nothing to do with collective responsibility. Public executions go way back to the days when those watching had no say in the process and in recent more 'democratic' times executions have been behind closed doors.

They were also in public because our illustrious rulers realised that, sadly, we liked to watch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't understand bias and agenda in today's media - but it's not as clear cut as it was 10/15 years ago and certainly not as simple as one-party-aligned under the incumbent editor/owner.

This is what happens when politics here becomes like that in the United States. Those with power and influence are 'comfortable' supporting either main party as there is little between them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are rules that require the police to act within a certain time scale once they have established that an individual is likely to be charged with an offence. If they miss these deadlines the case can be thrown out of court at any subsequent hearing.

Rubbish.

If the police have enough evidence to charge an individual, PACE requires that they immediately charge that person. Immediately. No questions or searches as the evidence is there to charge. That's not a timescale, it's an order.

In this case, nobody has been charged, so why you bring this up is beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rubbish.

If the police have enough evidence to charge an individual, PACE requires that they immediately charge that person. Immediately. No questions or searches as the evidence is there to charge. That's not a timescale, it's an order.

In this case, nobody has been charged, so why you bring this up is beyond me.

And what are the rules regarding arresting a suspect? Without an arrest and caution anything said by the suspect may not be accepted in court. And what about the differing rules that apply to searches depending upon whether or not an arrest has been made?

'Enough evidence to charge' is subjective and charges are often laid a considerable time after an arrest. Who would determine which extra piece of evidence suddenly added sufficiently to the case to be described as enough?

Edit to add that I bought it up because someone asked.

Edited by Nickolarge
Link to post
Share on other sites
And what are the rules regarding arresting a suspect? Without an arrest and caution anything said by the suspect may not be accepted in court. And what about the differing rules that apply to searches depending upon whether or not an arrest has been made?

'Enough evidence to charge' is subjective and charges are often laid a considerable time after an arrest. Who would determine which extra piece of evidence suddenly added sufficiently to the case to be described as enough?

Again the bolded part is rubbish. A court will accept any statement made, provided the person has been cautioned was provided with the protection given in PACE and the police didn't use any form of oppression. No arrest is necessary.

With regard to the subjectiveness of charging, this is usually true. You however suggested that the police had 'timescales'. They don't and once the police are able to charge they must. Failure to do so is a serious breach which courts look unkindly upon if there is any suggestion that the police failed to do this. There is lengthy case history on the matter and the burden is on the police.

As to searching, police can search anywhere with a warrant. The judge issuing the warrant will want to see evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And what are the rules regarding arresting a suspect? Without an arrest and caution anything said by the suspect may not be accepted in court. And what about the differing rules that apply to searches depending upon whether or not an arrest has been made?

'Enough evidence to charge' is subjective and charges are often laid a considerable time after an arrest. Who would determine which extra piece of evidence suddenly added sufficiently to the case to be described as enough?

Edit to add that I bought it up because someone asked.

...so why has nobody at the Home Office been arrested for employing 'illegals' with false credentials.....at the very least they should be sacked for incompetence.....?...... <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police are not taking this lying down, heads are going to roll on this soon. Jacqui Smith yet again in the middle of another shitstorm.

Heres some questions being asked today by journalists

This is getting better - on 26th November the Serjeant was informed that the police wished consent to enter and search the Parliamentray Offices of an MP who would be identified to her on 27th November when the police would return with a consent to search form. The Serjeant told the police that she would seek legal advice in the interim and when the police returned she signed the form , giving consent and the police assumed that she had taken advice.

Question 1: Did the Serjeant take advice and if so from whom and what was that advice

Question 2: We are asked to believe that Jill Pay a recently appointed and relatively inexperienced Serjeant DID NOT in the intervening 24 hours refer to either to the Speaker or the Clerk of the House for guidance who would then have to speak to No 10? That defies belief !!!!!!.

Question 3 : Who ultimately authorised the search.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.