Gransnet forums


Nigel Farage on Marr show

(160 Posts)
Glenfinnan Sun 12-May-19 19:56:59

What do you make of the interview? Although not agreeing with Farage I did think he had a point about the type of questions asked rather than focusing on the current situation. I think Marr was badly prepared.

Whitewavemark2 Thu 16-May-19 17:34:29

Channel 4 news looking into Farage the spiv’s funding this evening

Urmstongran Thu 16-May-19 17:57:54

How’s your blood pressure GG13?

GrannyGravy13 Thu 16-May-19 18:09:43

Urmstongran yet another evening sitting in the sun with a glass of chilled white.

Fortunately we have a 3 generation holiday very soon so I shall be taking a well earned break from GN

Urmstongran Thu 16-May-19 18:13:09

Sounds perfect GG13!

Bridgeit Thu 16-May-19 22:16:29

Have a great holiday GG , but remember Gnet is not a job or a career , we can take a at break anytime .

Dinahmo Fri 17-May-19 00:37:45

Just back from a live transmission from Covent Garden hence the delay in responding.

Lemongrove - I was not instructing but merely suggesting. There is a difference.

GG13 - I have not suggested policing the thread - merely not responding to some of the rather silly remarks that are made by certain people because it's a waste of time.

If the cap fits.......... Actually the people that I had in mind haven't responded. So that's good.

varian Fri 17-May-19 09:57:16

Nigel Farage’s funding secrets revealed by Channel 4 - £450,000 from Arron Banks - but we still don't know where Banks gets his money

Nigel Farage’s funding secrets revealed

Iam64 Sat 18-May-19 10:05:17

Good to see channel 4 news ahead of the game as ever. Will Farage's supporters believe this or chant "fake news" ?!

GracesGranMK3 Sat 18-May-19 11:19:21

I just wonder how even-handed the rest of the media will be Iam64 I doubt if some of them will even report the findings C4 has made.

GracesGranMK3 Sat 18-May-19 11:28:36

Three years ago those who want to leave the EU never hardly mentioned "leaving the EU on World Trade Organisation rules". Norway was talked about as was Switzerland. Iceland even made an appearance but never not doing a deal. Even the most extreme of the Leave spinners dismissed the idea of using WTO rules as absurd and not what they were suggesting.

So why are we being told it is what everyone wanted when they voted to leave. I simply don't believe it. Would everyone have voted for the absurd?

NF has been shown saying that this was not their aim. He was not talking about leaving on WTO rules at the time. If he has changed over this time why can't we all have that choice in an updated referendum? And why vote for him now. What will he decide "everyone" wanted next?

tw1nkle Sat 18-May-19 11:32:07

It’s like the emperor’s new clothes. I feel like I’m the only one who can see that NF is false, a charlatan, manipulator, etc, etc. I Just can’t understand why some people like & believe him.

Losing his temper on AM just shows his true character. Can’t bear to watch or listen to him anymore. x

Johno Sat 18-May-19 11:34:35

I am NOT a Farage fan. But I also believe the BBC is rotten to the core and have not paid the licence fee for many years. The BBC should be shut down or the whole TV licence fee con terminated asap.
Marr was typical of the crass BBC so-called journalism. I find it shocking that seemingly intelligent people continue to pay the licence fee. Save yourselves £150 and have a nice weekend away on it. Farage will end up on his backside.. just wait and see. He was right in regard to Marr but I dont like him anyway and I hope he soon falls flat.

Whitewavemark2 Sat 18-May-19 11:34:42

gg3 he won’t show his hand until he’s in power, then the true policies will be revealed.

What concerns me are the number of closet fascists there are in this country, as undoubtedly some voting for Farage will be, and I suspect that we would be shocked at the numbers of voters who are in fact fascist supporters.
They will deny it if course until the goal of a far right government is reached. They will charm with parochial speeches and weasel words, that is the way they have always worked.

Urmstongran Sat 18-May-19 11:36:17

I watched it on Channel 4 news, read about the donation in The Guardian and shock horror, it’s even been reported in the Daily Mail! You’d have to be living on a desert island not to know about it.

And yet I’m still pleased I used my postal vote to support the Brexit Party. The only true Leave party in my opinion. I’m sick and tired of these long drawn out ‘negotiations’ and I don’t care if Aaron Banks has passed Nigel Farage an envelope under the table, stuffed with enough money to buy a semi detached house (but not in London or the Cotswolds obviously!).

jura2 Sat 18-May-19 11:41:37

You don't care ... oh wow - and then go on and on about 'democracy' ...

Farage does not want any of his views on anything discussed, he doesn't want any of his campaign slogans and statements to be aired and he certainly does not want to be asked if he still stands by them, he doesn't want you to be reminded he wants to privatise the NHS, with his mates Banks, Bannon and Trump. He doesn't want you to be reminded what he stands for - because he knows that most leavers would not actually agree. I wonder how many leavers doe want the NHS privatised and run by Trump's 'Merica.

Nonnie Sat 18-May-19 12:12:51

I agree Twinkle I would never support such an immoral person and can only assume that those who do are as bad as him. If you vote for him you are encouraging him.

Read this this morning, I know its long but some don't like links. The trouble is that by the time he is investigated it will all be too late.

Jo Maugham: Brexit Party donations should be investigated by Electoral Commission
May 18, 2019
By Jolyon Maugham

Here’s what the law says a political party has to do with donations:

Permissible donors.

(1) A donation received by a registered party must not be accepted by the party if –

(a) the person by whom the donation would be made is not, at the time of its receipt by the party, a permissible donor; or

(b) the party is (whether because the donation is given anonymously or by reason of any deception or concealment or otherwise) unable to ascertain the identity of that person.

If a donor is not “permissible” – or if you don’t know who the donor is – you can’t accept the donation. Permissible donors – very broadly – are individuals on the electoral register or others carrying on business in the United Kingdom.

But there’s a loophole. The law also says you can “disregard” a donation so long as it is not for more than £500.

These points are important because of what we know about how the Brexit Party has set out to raise money.

You can see here that the maximum amount the Brexit Party’s website invites you to donate is £500. And although the website seems to contemplate you might donate more than £500, neither I nor a colleague could work out how to donate more than £500 by PayPal (the main tool they use to collect donations) using the link.

On top of this, it is striking that (as this piece explains) the Brexit Party seems deliberately to have chosen to receive minimal information about its donors – merely asking for a donor’s PayPal account or bank card details.

Meanwhile, it is disputed whether the Brexit Party’s website actually received the amount of traffic needed to produce £1,500,000 from 60,000 people in the first nine days of its existence.

And all of this raises very real questions.

Why would you cap donations at £500? Why would you choose not to collect hugely valuable data on who your donors are? And what is the explanation for the huge sums of money apparently flowing into the coffers of the Brexit Party with minimal web traffic?

It’s not easy to answer these questions. But one explanation – a plausible one – is that the set-up is designed to enable donors to atomise, break up, large donations into sums of £500 or less and for the Brexit Party not to be confronted with the inconvenient evidence about its donors.

So how does the law operate in that situation?

If you are a political party which receives a donation of £500,000, for example, your legal obligations are to check whether the donor is permissible and if they are not, or if you don’t know who the donor is, to refuse the donation.

And that obligation doesn’t seem to me to change if you receive that donation in the form of a thousand and one payments of £499.50.

The primary object of the law – to be found in sections 50, 54 and 56 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 – is to prevent the receipt of impermissible donations. And the way Parliament has sought to achieve this is by placing the onus on the political party that receives the donation to make sure it is permissible.

It seems to me there is a strong argument that a political party can only “disregard” the source of donations of £500 or less only if it has the information necessary to show that the disregard applies. This information would include, in particular, (1) that a payment of £500 or less is not part of a larger donation and (2) if it is, that it knows who the donor is. This information might be rather difficult for the Brexit Party to gather if it had, as is suggested, deliberately chosen to receive only limited information.

The law is in sections 56 and 58 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. If you can’t verify the identity you have to return the donation to the donor, PayPal or the Electoral Commission. If you don’t, your Treasurer is guilty of an offence. And a magistrates court can on the application of the Electoral Commission order the forfeiture of the donation.

It is also an offence to facilitate, whether by “concealment or disguise or otherwise” the making of donations by impermissible donors.

But here’s the thing.

People donate, and political parties ask for donations, and political parties spend those donations because they know that spending influences the political process. And if a court later finds someone guilty of an offence in connection with spending unlawful donations, that doesn’t undo the influence those unlawful donations have today.

This point is especially compelling where an election will influence an irreversible event: here, Brexit. To protect the will of Parliament that wealthy foreigners should not be able to influence our political process, it is necessary to act now.

There seem to me to be very good reasons to investigate – and we must hope the Electoral Commission does so promptly.

Jolyon Maugham is a barrister and Director of the Good Law Project. He is an investor in Scram Media.

varian Sat 18-May-19 13:26:42

It is time for electoral reform - not just to replace the undemocratic FPTP with a PR system, but we also need many other safeguards against our democracy being highjacked.

The Electoral Commission needs more powers to cope with the digital age. It should be able to act fast as soon as malpractice is suspected. It needs more teeth.

Nonnie Sat 18-May-19 16:07:53

varian by the time the EC looks into NF it will be too late to do anything about it! First he lied about the £450K then when he was proven a liar he said it was his own business. Maybe he thinks that because Brexit Party isn't a party he doesn't have to follow the rules?

varian Sat 18-May-19 16:11:54

He broke the rules which applied go him as an MEP but clearly thinks that normal rules don't apply to him. Sadly it seems to make no difference to his fans.

Nonnie Sat 18-May-19 16:44:55

varian I've just had one of them on Twitter tell me that bendy bananas, a drunk and unelected leaders are the reason for leaving! How do you counter that. He also said that just because NF told one lie he is not immoral. How many things make one immoral?

Bridgeit Sat 18-May-19 18:14:22

Nonnie did you purposely use the term ‘but here’s the thing’?
Are you actually NF undercover as Nonnie? 😄

Nonnie Sun 19-May-19 10:36:08

NO!! Bridgeit that whole thing was a quote! I wish he would come and talk to this little old lady in front of a camera!

boat Thu 30-May-19 04:30:57


I agree with you.

Hitler crept up on Germany in the 30's, That is what Farage is doing now.

I don't think that either of them were/are aware of what they were/are setting off at first. But Nigel must know of the historical record.

I don't think I am being over the top in saying, "Nigel, do you really want to be responsible for the death of millions"?

That is where this is heading.

I voted remain mostly because there has been no world war in Europe since I was two years six months old, largely due to the European Union.

Farage supporters, please think about what you have signed up for.

Firecracker123 Thu 30-May-19 06:12:46

Are you for real, complete twaddle.

Ginny42 Thu 30-May-19 06:23:32

Firecracker123, please take the time to read this article and tell me whether this is what you admire about NF. Did you even know about his links with these organisations?

This is not twaddle, it's for real.