The Tory way of governance

You are right dd. Chance and accident of birth, from the parents and family you were born into, their wealth or lack of it, to your intelligence, schooling and life opportunities, for most people is just down to luck.

Undoubtedly some people do survive and thrive despite dire family poverty, ill health and in some cases disabilities, but many don't have the ability or opportunities to escape their poverty.

A civilised society would not condemn them to lives as second class citizens who should be grateful for crumbs from the rich and priviledged man's table. Food banks are a reflection of a failing social construct.

What was the tabloid headline today.... "Terror nut a benefits cheat", or some such pond scum. Thus neatly smearing those on benefits and those with mental health problems.

The trouble is that most people just don't care. They have been brainwashed into thinking that people who use food banks, etc are feckless scroungers, who are responsible for their fate. The smuggos believe that everybody can work their way out of poverty. They just can't accept that luck plays a part and they have been lucky in life.

Well done, Scotland, again, showing the English the way.

www.thenational.scot/news/15181058.We_won_t_help_run_the_rape_clause_says_Rape_Crisis_centre/?ref=mr&lp=2

Well there you have it-some are using foodbanks, surviving on zero hours contracts or the minimum wage, whilst others are spending £800 on a meal for two a perfect example of The Tory Way of Governance

One orders very expensive wine. GInny42 Chateau de Show-Off

In fact, there is not much made of tax havens now. I wonder why not?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/23/the-guardian-view-on-uks-tax-havens-british-laws-or-your-own

Time the government decided whether it is on the side of the British people or those who use tax havens.

This is something which we should not want here, but the Tories do.

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/22/tax-haven-theresa-may-bad-news-britain-brexit

Personally, I think he was just showing off. At least I hope he was. I hope that's not normal for Hammond and his mates.

I suppose we have to be thankful that he wasn't claiming it on his expenses.

I wonder if whoever paid for it realised it would be that much, Ginny. It's probably set against the company tax bill, anyway.

The list also has an entry which reads: Philip Hammond Dinner for my wife and me £800.

What?????? How can two people possibly consume that much food and wine etc?

39% of Tory MPs supplement their pay by renting out property, including these two.

politicalscrapbook.net/2017/03/chancellor-and-foreign-secretary-join-tory-landlords-club/
I bet they don't rent to people on housing benefit.

www.theguardian.com/news/2017/mar/23/conservative-election-scandal-victory-2015-expenses

Very exciting when you don't know if you can pay next weeks rent

Damian Green thinks that having a zero hours contract, etc., is exciting.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-gig-economy-damian-green-speech-holiday-minimum-wage-sick-pay-hours-a7421071.html

Maybe all MPs, and particularly Damian Green and George Osborne, should be on zero hours contracts, have to sign in to parliament and only be paid minimun wage for the hours they are there.

And maybe magnitude Rigby. If someone has made some minor errors or if it not clear whose mistake, then they may decide not worth prosecuting.
They may judge that the election result has not been affected by spending an extra £50 in a non marginal seat for instance.
The DPP makes the call on whether a prosecution is worth pursuing.
(Just remembered the time several decades ago, when a DPP got picked up for a sex offence - kerb crawling maybe? Love to have been a fly on the wall when some anxious sergeant had to tell his senior officer "Excuse me Ma'm. I think you ought to know. We've got the DPP in the cells" !!! )

The Lib Dems were referred to the police in December 2016 - couldn't find anything about the outcome. Labour weren't referred but the EC did note their cooperation whereas the Conservatives had to be forced by the courts to hand certain files over - so maybe that's why there's a difference

I didn't know there were allegations of vote rigging , that is different,

I think the electoral commission has fined the Tory party has it not?
The police will potentially prosecute individuals.
A few years ago some men were sent to prison for "vote rigging" individual votes.
Trying to "fix" and election in any way is a criminal offence - and, in my eyes, a very serious one. It is an attack on our democracy.
Tory Party Head office file has been referred to the Met by the Electoral Commission and there could be prosecutions there, as well as prosecutions of individual MPs and their agents.
One of the ways that our democracy is superior to that in some countries (IMHO) is that there are strict limits to expenditure on election campaigns. Remember the rotten boroughs of the 19th C? These days candidates are not even supposed to buy their supporters a cup of coffee.

Seems there is guilty and a bit guilty

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/25/labour-fined-20000-for-undeclared-election-spending-including-for-ed-stone

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/lib-dems-fined-20000-for-undeclared-election-spending

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/16/conservatives-fined-70000-for-campaign-spending-failures

I have no problem with 'any' party being fined but I am surprised as to why only one party is being referred to the police and accused of fraud. How does that work?

Perhaps they will 'all' learn lessons .

Of course....if it goes to court, then those factors, for any crime, are taken into consideration for the actual sentence, but you are still either guilty or not guilty.
A greater fine may well be imposed for any 'deliberate' hindering of the inquiry.

I think dj is making a correct point. In the jurisdiction in which I work, there will be a charge of which the accused will be found guilty or not guilty. If it is a guilty verdict, we take into account any mitigating or aggravating factors before passing sentence. If the person cooperated fully with the investigation and told the full truth early on, the punishment may be less. If on the other hand, they prevaricated, lied, or destroyed evidence, the punishment may be greater - so context and circumstances are taken into account, not just the actual charge.

There is no such thing as doubly guilty, guilty of two crimes but not doubly guilty