FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Sunak conflict of interest
Sunak conflict of interest
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I suspect the op has a political issue " Ya think! I see the usual “whataboutery” and “nothing to see here” posts. Conflicts of interest and corruption have become so normalised that you all just accept it now! This issue in and of itself is small beer, but it is symptomatic of a continued pattern of behaviour. I couldn’t care less what colour tie the PM or Ministers wear, it is not acceptable to me as a taxpayer and citizen to keep seeing Ministers enriching themselves, their families, friends, and cronies using the public purse. So when I see yet another example, I will post it. Defend all you want. Personally I think the pattern of behaviour is indefensible. | |||
"I suspect the op has a political issue Ya think! I see the usual “whataboutery” and “nothing to see here” posts. Conflicts of interest and corruption have become so normalised that you all just accept it now! This issue in and of itself is small beer, but it is symptomatic of a continued pattern of behaviour. I couldn’t care less what colour tie the PM or Ministers wear, it is not acceptable to me as a taxpayer and citizen to keep seeing Ministers enriching themselves, their families, friends, and cronies using the public purse. So when I see yet another example, I will post it. Defend all you want. Personally I think the pattern of behaviour is indefensible. " I'm still struggling to see where the conflict here. How does Murthy benefit? | |||
"I suspect the op has a political issue Ya think! I see the usual “whataboutery” and “nothing to see here” posts. Conflicts of interest and corruption have become so normalised that you all just accept it now! This issue in and of itself is small beer, but it is symptomatic of a continued pattern of behaviour. I couldn’t care less what colour tie the PM or Ministers wear, it is not acceptable to me as a taxpayer and citizen to keep seeing Ministers enriching themselves, their families, friends, and cronies using the public purse. So when I see yet another example, I will post it. Defend all you want. Personally I think the pattern of behaviour is indefensible. " I dont see what the issue is. Unless you don't want pms having any shares or savings or pensions or their spouses while in office. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies." And people saying “owns shares” as if this us just part of a general shares portfolio are missing the point. She us a major shareholder. | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies." Right, now I see it. Better stop building houses, opening schools and cancel private hospitals then. | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. And people saying “owns shares” as if this us just part of a general shares portfolio are missing the point. She us a major shareholder." Ironically the publicity gained for Koru Kids will more than likely "boost her holdings before she maybe offloads"... The parts between quotation marks, is me being controversial only  | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. Right, now I see it. Better stop building houses, opening schools and cancel private hospitals then. " If there are only 6 childcare agencies in the country I would agree it is non story, if there are more I think it could have been managed a little better | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. And people saying “owns shares” as if this us just part of a general shares portfolio are missing the point. She us a major shareholder." She owns less than 0.5%. Is that a major shareholder? | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. Right, now I see it. Better stop building houses, opening schools and cancel private hospitals then. If there are only 6 childcare agencies in the country I would agree it is non story, if there are more I think it could have been managed a little better" There are 6 registered agencies on the Govt website. I don't know how many there are in total or what it takes to be registered but let's face it, no one in their right mind is going to use and agency that isn't registered. | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. Right, now I see it. Better stop building houses, opening schools and cancel private hospitals then. If there are only 6 childcare agencies in the country I would agree it is non story, if there are more I think it could have been managed a little better There are 6 registered agencies on the Govt website. I don't know how many there are in total or what it takes to be registered but let's face it, no one in their right mind is going to use and agency that isn't registered." I think that is the crux of the anger from some. If people are going to use an agency to find childminders and the PM's wife has shares in 1 of 6 of the chosen agencies, she can benefit from the policy. It is the world we live in that every stroke of the pen or nod of the head is scrutinised in the hope of finding wrong doing. If there are more than 6 agencies in the country it might have been prudent to sell the shares ahead of the budget to prevent this type of negativity. | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. Right, now I see it. Better stop building houses, opening schools and cancel private hospitals then. If there are only 6 childcare agencies in the country I would agree it is non story, if there are more I think it could have been managed a little better There are 6 registered agencies on the Govt website. I don't know how many there are in total or what it takes to be registered but let's face it, no one in their right mind is going to use and agency that isn't registered. I think that is the crux of the anger from some. If people are going to use an agency to find childminders and the PM's wife has shares in 1 of 6 of the chosen agencies, she can benefit from the policy. It is the world we live in that every stroke of the pen or nod of the head is scrutinised in the hope of finding wrong doing. If there are more than 6 agencies in the country it might have been prudent to sell the shares ahead of the budget to prevent this type of negativity." I'd like to know more before casting judgement. As much as I know right now, this really is a non-story. | |||
| |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. Right, now I see it. Better stop building houses, opening schools and cancel private hospitals then. If there are only 6 childcare agencies in the country I would agree it is non story, if there are more I think it could have been managed a little better There are 6 registered agencies on the Govt website. I don't know how many there are in total or what it takes to be registered but let's face it, no one in their right mind is going to use and agency that isn't registered. I think that is the crux of the anger from some. If people are going to use an agency to find childminders and the PM's wife has shares in 1 of 6 of the chosen agencies, she can benefit from the policy. It is the world we live in that every stroke of the pen or nod of the head is scrutinised in the hope of finding wrong doing. If there are more than 6 agencies in the country it might have been prudent to sell the shares ahead of the budget to prevent this type of negativity." Ther would need to be a cut off. As I mentioned with chewie Blair and Tony. With everyblaw change especially human rights. Chewie benefitted massively she began her own matrix Chambers to represent human rights issues ( which gets free government funding for human rights legal challenges) all the while while her husband over saw huge legislation changes while in office Over human rights. The same can be said of keir starmer who still works as a legal a counsel. Would any direct changes to say nhs parishes be scrutinised because his wife now works for it? Where does it stop? | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. Right, now I see it. Better stop building houses, opening schools and cancel private hospitals then. If there are only 6 childcare agencies in the country I would agree it is non story, if there are more I think it could have been managed a little better There are 6 registered agencies on the Govt website. I don't know how many there are in total or what it takes to be registered but let's face it, no one in their right mind is going to use and agency that isn't registered. I think that is the crux of the anger from some. If people are going to use an agency to find childminders and the PM's wife has shares in 1 of 6 of the chosen agencies, she can benefit from the policy. It is the world we live in that every stroke of the pen or nod of the head is scrutinised in the hope of finding wrong doing. If there are more than 6 agencies in the country it might have been prudent to sell the shares ahead of the budget to prevent this type of negativity. Ther would need to be a cut off. As I mentioned with chewie Blair and Tony. With everyblaw change especially human rights. Chewie benefitted massively she began her own matrix Chambers to represent human rights issues ( which gets free government funding for human rights legal challenges) all the while while her husband over saw huge legislation changes while in office Over human rights. The same can be said of keir starmer who still works as a legal a counsel. Would any direct changes to say nhs parishes be scrutinised because his wife now works for it? Where does it stop?" What about! What about!! What about!!! Conflicts of interest should not be permitted regardless of tie colour. You seem to be implying it is ok because it has happened before? It isn’t ok. | |||
"Again though, this specific issue in and of itself is not particularly a big one BUT it IS symptomatic of a pattern if behaviour. Not sure why that is such a hard concept for people to grasp? “Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, held shares in a firm that received nearly £300,000 in taxpayer-funded loans handed out during the PM’s time as chancellor. The New Craftsmen, a company selling up-market pieces of furniture, collapsed into liquidation in November 2022, according to Companies House filings. It shows the firm received £37,500 under the Covid bounce-back loan scheme introduced by Sunak in April 2020 and that the government also held 450,000 shares in the company via the Future Fund, also set up by Sunak to help small startups ride out the pandemic. Under the scheme, the government extended loans that would then convert into shares when the companies attracted new funding. A source familiar with the loan said the government lent The New Craftsmen £250,000, a sum that was matched by private investors. The loan was converted into equity, Company House fillings suggest, the value of which has been wiped out. Among the investors listed on the company’s shareholder register is Akshata Murty, who held 218,785 shares in the business through Catamaran Ventures UK. Murty also held shares personally in Lava Mayfair Club, a private members’ gym that buckled under the weight of Covid restrictions in 2021, with debts to HMRC of £374,000. Another Catamaran investment, the fitness chain Digme Fitness, fell into administration in 2021, owing more than £6.1 million in VAT and PAYE taxes, after having received furlough payments of up to £630,000.” And yet she is a billionaire who could have rescued these companies personally. Instead they lost the taxpayer money. You and me! " This synopsis seems to indicate that businesses Ms Murty has invested in have struggled through the lockdown and ceased trading, and with it her shares are now worthless. Companies applying for support during covid were entitled too, why should those who had her as shareholder be excluded? There is also an assumption above that she knows all of the companies she has shares in. | |||
| |||
"Again though, this specific issue in and of itself is not particularly a big one BUT it IS symptomatic of a pattern if behaviour. Not sure why that is such a hard concept for people to grasp? “Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, held shares in a firm that received nearly £300,000 in taxpayer-funded loans handed out during the PM’s time as chancellor. The New Craftsmen, a company selling up-market pieces of furniture, collapsed into liquidation in November 2022, according to Companies House filings. It shows the firm received £37,500 under the Covid bounce-back loan scheme introduced by Sunak in April 2020 and that the government also held 450,000 shares in the company via the Future Fund, also set up by Sunak to help small startups ride out the pandemic. Under the scheme, the government extended loans that would then convert into shares when the companies attracted new funding. A source familiar with the loan said the government lent The New Craftsmen £250,000, a sum that was matched by private investors. The loan was converted into equity, Company House fillings suggest, the value of which has been wiped out. Among the investors listed on the company’s shareholder register is Akshata Murty, who held 218,785 shares in the business through Catamaran Ventures UK. Murty also held shares personally in Lava Mayfair Club, a private members’ gym that buckled under the weight of Covid restrictions in 2021, with debts to HMRC of £374,000. Another Catamaran investment, the fitness chain Digme Fitness, fell into administration in 2021, owing more than £6.1 million in VAT and PAYE taxes, after having received furlough payments of up to £630,000.” And yet she is a billionaire who could have rescued these companies personally. Instead they lost the taxpayer money. You and me! This synopsis seems to indicate that businesses Ms Murty has invested in have struggled through the lockdown and ceased trading, and with it her shares are now worthless. Companies applying for support during covid were entitled too, why should those who had her as shareholder be excluded? There is also an assumption above that she knows all of the companies she has shares in. " Are you honestly trying to say the owner of Catamaran investment, a company registered in the Caymans, doesn’t know what company they/she invests in? This isn’t a diversified pension fund investment lolz! | |||
"Again though, this specific issue in and of itself is not particularly a big one BUT it IS symptomatic of a pattern if behaviour. Not sure why that is such a hard concept for people to grasp? “Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, held shares in a firm that received nearly £300,000 in taxpayer-funded loans handed out during the PM’s time as chancellor. The New Craftsmen, a company selling up-market pieces of furniture, collapsed into liquidation in November 2022, according to Companies House filings. It shows the firm received £37,500 under the Covid bounce-back loan scheme introduced by Sunak in April 2020 and that the government also held 450,000 shares in the company via the Future Fund, also set up by Sunak to help small startups ride out the pandemic. Under the scheme, the government extended loans that would then convert into shares when the companies attracted new funding. A source familiar with the loan said the government lent The New Craftsmen £250,000, a sum that was matched by private investors. The loan was converted into equity, Company House fillings suggest, the value of which has been wiped out. Among the investors listed on the company’s shareholder register is Akshata Murty, who held 218,785 shares in the business through Catamaran Ventures UK. Murty also held shares personally in Lava Mayfair Club, a private members’ gym that buckled under the weight of Covid restrictions in 2021, with debts to HMRC of £374,000. Another Catamaran investment, the fitness chain Digme Fitness, fell into administration in 2021, owing more than £6.1 million in VAT and PAYE taxes, after having received furlough payments of up to £630,000.” And yet she is a billionaire who could have rescued these companies personally. Instead they lost the taxpayer money. You and me! This synopsis seems to indicate that businesses Ms Murty has invested in have struggled through the lockdown and ceased trading, and with it her shares are now worthless. Companies applying for support during covid were entitled too, why should those who had her as shareholder be excluded? There is also an assumption above that she knows all of the companies she has shares in. Are you honestly trying to say the owner of Catamaran investment, a company registered in the Caymans, doesn’t know what company they/she invests in? This isn’t a diversified pension fund investment lolz!" The others? | |||
"Again though, this specific issue in and of itself is not particularly a big one BUT it IS symptomatic of a pattern if behaviour. Not sure why that is such a hard concept for people to grasp? “Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, held shares in a firm that received nearly £300,000 in taxpayer-funded loans handed out during the PM’s time as chancellor. The New Craftsmen, a company selling up-market pieces of furniture, collapsed into liquidation in November 2022, according to Companies House filings. It shows the firm received £37,500 under the Covid bounce-back loan scheme introduced by Sunak in April 2020 and that the government also held 450,000 shares in the company via the Future Fund, also set up by Sunak to help small startups ride out the pandemic. Under the scheme, the government extended loans that would then convert into shares when the companies attracted new funding. A source familiar with the loan said the government lent The New Craftsmen £250,000, a sum that was matched by private investors. The loan was converted into equity, Company House fillings suggest, the value of which has been wiped out. Among the investors listed on the company’s shareholder register is Akshata Murty, who held 218,785 shares in the business through Catamaran Ventures UK. Murty also held shares personally in Lava Mayfair Club, a private members’ gym that buckled under the weight of Covid restrictions in 2021, with debts to HMRC of £374,000. Another Catamaran investment, the fitness chain Digme Fitness, fell into administration in 2021, owing more than £6.1 million in VAT and PAYE taxes, after having received furlough payments of up to £630,000.” And yet she is a billionaire who could have rescued these companies personally. Instead they lost the taxpayer money. You and me! This synopsis seems to indicate that businesses Ms Murty has invested in have struggled through the lockdown and ceased trading, and with it her shares are now worthless. Companies applying for support during covid were entitled too, why should those who had her as shareholder be excluded? There is also an assumption above that she knows all of the companies she has shares in. Are you honestly trying to say the owner of Catamaran investment, a company registered in the Caymans, doesn’t know what company they/she invests in? This isn’t a diversified pension fund investment lolz!" I had a little nosey at this, she is the owner / director Catamaran ventures uk limited, is that what you are calling Catamaran investment? If it is, registered in the UK, and funds startups. | |||
"Again though, this specific issue in and of itself is not particularly a big one BUT it IS symptomatic of a pattern if behaviour. Not sure why that is such a hard concept for people to grasp? “Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, held shares in a firm that received nearly £300,000 in taxpayer-funded loans handed out during the PM’s time as chancellor. The New Craftsmen, a company selling up-market pieces of furniture, collapsed into liquidation in November 2022, according to Companies House filings. It shows the firm received £37,500 under the Covid bounce-back loan scheme introduced by Sunak in April 2020 and that the government also held 450,000 shares in the company via the Future Fund, also set up by Sunak to help small startups ride out the pandemic. Under the scheme, the government extended loans that would then convert into shares when the companies attracted new funding. A source familiar with the loan said the government lent The New Craftsmen £250,000, a sum that was matched by private investors. The loan was converted into equity, Company House fillings suggest, the value of which has been wiped out. Among the investors listed on the company’s shareholder register is Akshata Murty, who held 218,785 shares in the business through Catamaran Ventures UK. Murty also held shares personally in Lava Mayfair Club, a private members’ gym that buckled under the weight of Covid restrictions in 2021, with debts to HMRC of £374,000. Another Catamaran investment, the fitness chain Digme Fitness, fell into administration in 2021, owing more than £6.1 million in VAT and PAYE taxes, after having received furlough payments of up to £630,000.” And yet she is a billionaire who could have rescued these companies personally. Instead they lost the taxpayer money. You and me! This synopsis seems to indicate that businesses Ms Murty has invested in have struggled through the lockdown and ceased trading, and with it her shares are now worthless. Companies applying for support during covid were entitled too, why should those who had her as shareholder be excluded? There is also an assumption above that she knows all of the companies she has shares in. Are you honestly trying to say the owner of Catamaran investment, a company registered in the Caymans, doesn’t know what company they/she invests in? This isn’t a diversified pension fund investment lolz! I had a little nosey at this, she is the owner / director Catamaran ventures uk limited, is that what you are calling Catamaran investment? If it is, registered in the UK, and funds startups. " Parent/holding company is registered offshore in Caymans a tax haven. Owned by Sunak and wife. | |||
"I had a little nosey at this, she is the owner / director Catamaran ventures uk limited, is that what you are calling Catamaran investment? If it is, registered in the UK, and funds startups. Parent/holding company is registered offshore in Caymans a tax haven. Owned by Sunak and wife." I'm at a loss to find out anything about a holding company in the Caymans. I have seen that all records are up to date on companies house, would that not indicate this company is registered here and will pay tax here? | |||
"Again though, this specific issue in and of itself is not particularly a big one BUT it IS symptomatic of a pattern if behaviour. Not sure why that is such a hard concept for people to grasp? “Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, held shares in a firm that received nearly £300,000 in taxpayer-funded loans handed out during the PM’s time as chancellor. The New Craftsmen, a company selling up-market pieces of furniture, collapsed into liquidation in November 2022, according to Companies House filings. It shows the firm received £37,500 under the Covid bounce-back loan scheme introduced by Sunak in April 2020 and that the government also held 450,000 shares in the company via the Future Fund, also set up by Sunak to help small startups ride out the pandemic. Under the scheme, the government extended loans that would then convert into shares when the companies attracted new funding. A source familiar with the loan said the government lent The New Craftsmen £250,000, a sum that was matched by private investors. The loan was converted into equity, Company House fillings suggest, the value of which has been wiped out. Among the investors listed on the company’s shareholder register is Akshata Murty, who held 218,785 shares in the business through Catamaran Ventures UK. Murty also held shares personally in Lava Mayfair Club, a private members’ gym that buckled under the weight of Covid restrictions in 2021, with debts to HMRC of £374,000. Another Catamaran investment, the fitness chain Digme Fitness, fell into administration in 2021, owing more than £6.1 million in VAT and PAYE taxes, after having received furlough payments of up to £630,000.” And yet she is a billionaire who could have rescued these companies personally. Instead they lost the taxpayer money. You and me! This synopsis seems to indicate that businesses Ms Murty has invested in have struggled through the lockdown and ceased trading, and with it her shares are now worthless. Companies applying for support during covid were entitled too, why should those who had her as shareholder be excluded? There is also an assumption above that she knows all of the companies she has shares in. Are you honestly trying to say the owner of Catamaran investment, a company registered in the Caymans, doesn’t know what company they/she invests in? This isn’t a diversified pension fund investment lolz! I had a little nosey at this, she is the owner / director Catamaran ventures uk limited, is that what you are calling Catamaran investment? If it is, registered in the UK, and funds startups. Parent/holding company is registered offshore in Caymans a tax haven. Owned by Sunak and wife." Oops Catamaran “Ventures” not “investment. Set up is murkier than that. Funds for CV come from Trust Funds registered in Cayman and BVI (both tax havens) and Sunak and Murty are the Trust beneficiaries. No way she doesn’t know what companies she is invested in. No way her and hubbie didn’t know they would benefit from govt policy through those companies receiving support. Timing of company losses vs govt support will be interesting. So too will be whether these companies paid out dividends before going bankrupt losing the tax payer money. | |||
"Again though, this specific issue in and of itself is not particularly a big one BUT it IS symptomatic of a pattern if behaviour. Not sure why that is such a hard concept for people to grasp? “Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, held shares in a firm that received nearly £300,000 in taxpayer-funded loans handed out during the PM’s time as chancellor. The New Craftsmen, a company selling up-market pieces of furniture, collapsed into liquidation in November 2022, according to Companies House filings. It shows the firm received £37,500 under the Covid bounce-back loan scheme introduced by Sunak in April 2020 and that the government also held 450,000 shares in the company via the Future Fund, also set up by Sunak to help small startups ride out the pandemic. Under the scheme, the government extended loans that would then convert into shares when the companies attracted new funding. A source familiar with the loan said the government lent The New Craftsmen £250,000, a sum that was matched by private investors. The loan was converted into equity, Company House fillings suggest, the value of which has been wiped out. Among the investors listed on the company’s shareholder register is Akshata Murty, who held 218,785 shares in the business through Catamaran Ventures UK. Murty also held shares personally in Lava Mayfair Club, a private members’ gym that buckled under the weight of Covid restrictions in 2021, with debts to HMRC of £374,000. Another Catamaran investment, the fitness chain Digme Fitness, fell into administration in 2021, owing more than £6.1 million in VAT and PAYE taxes, after having received furlough payments of up to £630,000.” And yet she is a billionaire who could have rescued these companies personally. Instead they lost the taxpayer money. You and me! This synopsis seems to indicate that businesses Ms Murty has invested in have struggled through the lockdown and ceased trading, and with it her shares are now worthless. Companies applying for support during covid were entitled too, why should those who had her as shareholder be excluded? There is also an assumption above that she knows all of the companies she has shares in. Are you honestly trying to say the owner of Catamaran investment, a company registered in the Caymans, doesn’t know what company they/she invests in? This isn’t a diversified pension fund investment lolz! I had a little nosey at this, she is the owner / director Catamaran ventures uk limited, is that what you are calling Catamaran investment? If it is, registered in the UK, and funds startups. Parent/holding company is registered offshore in Caymans a tax haven. Owned by Sunak and wife. Oops Catamaran “Ventures” not “investment. Set up is murkier than that. Funds for CV come from Trust Funds registered in Cayman and BVI (both tax havens) and Sunak and Murty are the Trust beneficiaries. No way she doesn’t know what companies she is invested in. No way her and hubbie didn’t know they would benefit from govt policy through those companies receiving support. Timing of company losses vs govt support will be interesting. So too will be whether these companies paid out dividends before going bankrupt losing the tax payer money." I've had some free time today and gone down a rabbit hole with this, boredom! 
I'm going to let it go now, the only thing I could see in the company records is Murty provided the Catamaran Ventures with a 4.5 million loan to fund the start ups.
This is why I use accountants, I have no idea... on the face of it looks legit and above board in terms of returns and reporting in the UK, no mention of anything out of the ordinary.
I will watch this thread with interest  | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. Right, now I see it. Better stop building houses, opening schools and cancel private hospitals then. If there are only 6 childcare agencies in the country I would agree it is non story, if there are more I think it could have been managed a little better There are 6 registered agencies on the Govt website. I don't know how many there are in total or what it takes to be registered but let's face it, no one in their right mind is going to use and agency that isn't registered. I think that is the crux of the anger from some. If people are going to use an agency to find childminders and the PM's wife has shares in 1 of 6 of the chosen agencies, she can benefit from the policy. It is the world we live in that every stroke of the pen or nod of the head is scrutinised in the hope of finding wrong doing. If there are more than 6 agencies in the country it might have been prudent to sell the shares ahead of the budget to prevent this type of negativity. Ther would need to be a cut off. As I mentioned with chewie Blair and Tony. With everyblaw change especially human rights. Chewie benefitted massively she began her own matrix Chambers to represent human rights issues ( which gets free government funding for human rights legal challenges) all the while while her husband over saw huge legislation changes while in office Over human rights. The same can be said of keir starmer who still works as a legal a counsel. Would any direct changes to say nhs parishes be scrutinised because his wife now works for it? Where does it stop? What about! What about!! What about!!! Conflicts of interest should not be permitted regardless of tie colour. You seem to be implying it is ok because it has happened before? It isn’t ok." It's not whay about. These thing occurred. I am pointing out to you the absurdity of requiring a PM or their fanily to have NO financial interests in the uk whatsoever | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. Right, now I see it. Better stop building houses, opening schools and cancel private hospitals then. If there are only 6 childcare agencies in the country I would agree it is non story, if there are more I think it could have been managed a little better There are 6 registered agencies on the Govt website. I don't know how many there are in total or what it takes to be registered but let's face it, no one in their right mind is going to use and agency that isn't registered. I think that is the crux of the anger from some. If people are going to use an agency to find childminders and the PM's wife has shares in 1 of 6 of the chosen agencies, she can benefit from the policy. It is the world we live in that every stroke of the pen or nod of the head is scrutinised in the hope of finding wrong doing. If there are more than 6 agencies in the country it might have been prudent to sell the shares ahead of the budget to prevent this type of negativity. Ther would need to be a cut off. As I mentioned with chewie Blair and Tony. With everyblaw change especially human rights. Chewie benefitted massively she began her own matrix Chambers to represent human rights issues ( which gets free government funding for human rights legal challenges) all the while while her husband over saw huge legislation changes while in office Over human rights. The same can be said of keir starmer who still works as a legal a counsel. Would any direct changes to say nhs parishes be scrutinised because his wife now works for it? Where does it stop? What about! What about!! What about!!! Conflicts of interest should not be permitted regardless of tie colour. You seem to be implying it is ok because it has happened before? It isn’t ok. It's not whay about. These thing occurred. I am pointing out to you the absurdity of requiring a PM or their fanily to have NO financial interests in the uk whatsoever" Nobody is saying “no financial interests” they are saying “no conflicts of interest”. Benefitting financially from Govt policy is against the Ministerial Code. If they don’t like that either do not become a Minister or do not get involved in a policy area where a conflict could arise or divest yourself of financial interests. | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. Right, now I see it. Better stop building houses, opening schools and cancel private hospitals then. If there are only 6 childcare agencies in the country I would agree it is non story, if there are more I think it could have been managed a little better There are 6 registered agencies on the Govt website. I don't know how many there are in total or what it takes to be registered but let's face it, no one in their right mind is going to use and agency that isn't registered. I think that is the crux of the anger from some. If people are going to use an agency to find childminders and the PM's wife has shares in 1 of 6 of the chosen agencies, she can benefit from the policy. It is the world we live in that every stroke of the pen or nod of the head is scrutinised in the hope of finding wrong doing. If there are more than 6 agencies in the country it might have been prudent to sell the shares ahead of the budget to prevent this type of negativity. Ther would need to be a cut off. As I mentioned with chewie Blair and Tony. With everyblaw change especially human rights. Chewie benefitted massively she began her own matrix Chambers to represent human rights issues ( which gets free government funding for human rights legal challenges) all the while while her husband over saw huge legislation changes while in office Over human rights. The same can be said of keir starmer who still works as a legal a counsel. Would any direct changes to say nhs parishes be scrutinised because his wife now works for it? Where does it stop? What about! What about!! What about!!! Conflicts of interest should not be permitted regardless of tie colour. You seem to be implying it is ok because it has happened before? It isn’t ok. It's not whay about. These thing occurred. I am pointing out to you the absurdity of requiring a PM or their fanily to have NO financial interests in the uk whatsoever Nobody is saying “no financial interests” they are saying “no conflicts of interest”. Benefitting financially from Govt policy is against the Ministerial Code. If they don’t like that either do not become a Minister or do not get involved in a policy area where a conflict could arise or divest yourself of financial interests." But every minister benefits financially from changes. When they increase the personal allowance. What do you think that is yo a minister? | |||
"The issue is an incentive for potential childminders to be given a £600 payment to join the profession is doubled to £1200 if they join through a childcare agency. I believe there are 6 childcare agencies who are able to offer the £1200 government incentive that will basically allow them to attract more childminders, boosting their potential earnings. Sunak's wife own shares in 1 of those 6 childcare agencies. Right, now I see it. Better stop building houses, opening schools and cancel private hospitals then. If there are only 6 childcare agencies in the country I would agree it is non story, if there are more I think it could have been managed a little better There are 6 registered agencies on the Govt website. I don't know how many there are in total or what it takes to be registered but let's face it, no one in their right mind is going to use and agency that isn't registered. I think that is the crux of the anger from some. If people are going to use an agency to find childminders and the PM's wife has shares in 1 of 6 of the chosen agencies, she can benefit from the policy. It is the world we live in that every stroke of the pen or nod of the head is scrutinised in the hope of finding wrong doing. If there are more than 6 agencies in the country it might have been prudent to sell the shares ahead of the budget to prevent this type of negativity. Ther would need to be a cut off. As I mentioned with chewie Blair and Tony. With everyblaw change especially human rights. Chewie benefitted massively she began her own matrix Chambers to represent human rights issues ( which gets free government funding for human rights legal challenges) all the while while her husband over saw huge legislation changes while in office Over human rights. The same can be said of keir starmer who still works as a legal a counsel. Would any direct changes to say nhs parishes be scrutinised because his wife now works for it? Where does it stop? What about! What about!! What about!!! Conflicts of interest should not be permitted regardless of tie colour. You seem to be implying it is ok because it has happened before? It isn’t ok. It's not whay about. These thing occurred. I am pointing out to you the absurdity of requiring a PM or their fanily to have NO financial interests in the uk whatsoever Nobody is saying “no financial interests” they are saying “no conflicts of interest”. Benefitting financially from Govt policy is against the Ministerial Code. If they don’t like that either do not become a Minister or do not get involved in a policy area where a conflict could arise or divest yourself of financial interests. But every minister benefits financially from changes. When they increase the personal allowance. What do you think that is yo a minister?" Sorry but that is a completely moot point because all (well not all actually) taxpayers benefit from that. The issue is when a small number of individuals, including the Minister and maybe family members, friends, and/cronies benefit (usually at a cost to the public purse and therefore tax payers). Case in point is the policy enacted by the Johnson govt to put in place VIP lanes for PPE procurement. | |||
| |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65301099 Bit late posting this but once again we have a sitting PM being investigated for ethics!" When I saw that headline yesterday I thought of this thread | |||
"Oh dear... Bosses of the childcare firm at the centre of a Rishi Sunak conflict of interest row attended a Downing Street reception just hours after he was pressed by MPs over his links with the provider, the Guardian has learned. Koru Kids, which lists the prime minister’s wife, Akshata Murty, as a shareholder and is expected to benefit from changes announced in the budget, is understood to have been present at a No 11 reception for the education sector on Wednesday evening. The company’s presence at the event, which was hosted by the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, and the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, will raise further questions over the prime minister’s family links, even though neither he nor his wife attended the reception." Man declares ministerial interest. Draws attention to commons committee about ministerial interests declared Commons committee doesn't look. More of a bad look for the committee | |||
"Oh dear... Bosses of the childcare firm at the centre of a Rishi Sunak conflict of interest row attended a Downing Street reception just hours after he was pressed by MPs over his links with the provider, the Guardian has learned. Koru Kids, which lists the prime minister’s wife, Akshata Murty, as a shareholder and is expected to benefit from changes announced in the budget, is understood to have been present at a No 11 reception for the education sector on Wednesday evening. The company’s presence at the event, which was hosted by the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, and the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, will raise further questions over the prime minister’s family links, even though neither he nor his wife attended the reception. Man declares ministerial interest. Draws attention to commons committee about ministerial interests declared Commons committee doesn't look. More of a bad look for the committee " Maybe. “Mr Sunak did not mention Ms Murty's links to Koru Kids when he was questioned by MPs over the childcare policy at a parliamentary committee hearing on 28 March.” “Labour MP Catherine McKinnell asked Mr Sunak whether he had any interest to declare, and in reply he said: "No, all my disclosures are declared in the normal way." “The list of ministerial interests is separate to the register of interests for MPs, which says members "must always consider whether they have a conflict of interest". Optics aren’t great but hey ho! | |||
| |||
| |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you!" I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys. | |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you! I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys." Agreed! It is clear that there are some who believe something is fishy. If it turns out he did nothing wrong then he gets vindicated. Before Johnson and Sunak I cannot recall a sitting PM being investigated by the ethics committee though? Seems odd to me. There is a general whiff of sleaze and corruption sticking to the Govt. Clearly this doesn’t bother some of the posters on here. | |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you! I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys. Agreed! It is clear that there are some who believe something is fishy. If it turns out he did nothing wrong then he gets vindicated. Before Johnson and Sunak I cannot recall a sitting PM being investigated by the ethics committee though? Seems odd to me. There is a general whiff of sleaze and corruption sticking to the Govt. Clearly this doesn’t bother some of the posters on here." Just saw last point. Yes absolutely. I have said many times I don’t care what colour tie they wear. As they work for us I expect them to not be corrupt and to uphold all codes of practice. Maybe I am old fashioned? | |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you! I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys. Agreed! It is clear that there are some who believe something is fishy. If it turns out he did nothing wrong then he gets vindicated. Before Johnson and Sunak I cannot recall a sitting PM being investigated by the ethics committee though? Seems odd to me. There is a general whiff of sleaze and corruption sticking to the Govt. Clearly this doesn’t bother some of the posters on here. Just saw last point. Yes absolutely. I have said many times I don’t care what colour tie they wear. As they work for us I expect them to not be corrupt and to uphold all codes of practice. Maybe I am old fashioned?" I agree Johnson was absolutely covered in sleaze, he's gone now, time to forget about him. However, to your point on 'before Johnson and Sunak', is it that there's something fishy here, or is it that Labour are attempting a mud slinging campaign? I hope you remember that SKS had to offer an apology just last year for what may be considered 'sleaze'. I don't you sticking it to him. | |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you! I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys. Agreed! It is clear that there are some who believe something is fishy. If it turns out he did nothing wrong then he gets vindicated. Before Johnson and Sunak I cannot recall a sitting PM being investigated by the ethics committee though? Seems odd to me. There is a general whiff of sleaze and corruption sticking to the Govt. Clearly this doesn’t bother some of the posters on here. Just saw last point. Yes absolutely. I have said many times I don’t care what colour tie they wear. As they work for us I expect them to not be corrupt and to uphold all codes of practice. Maybe I am old fashioned? I agree Johnson was absolutely covered in sleaze, he's gone now, time to forget about him. However, to your point on 'before Johnson and Sunak', is it that there's something fishy here, or is it that Labour are attempting a mud slinging campaign? I hope you remember that SKS had to offer an apology just last year for what may be considered 'sleaze'. I don't you sticking it to him." Well you know I am a centrist with no particular loyalty to any party. It always makes me laugh when some on here accuse me of being lefty and socialist. Too many people have become binary and tribalist. I actually/honestly do not recall the Starmer thing so please tell me. However, I do hold the government and ministers to higher standards than the opposition MPs. Doesn’t mean the opposition can do what they want, they are still public servants. But Ministers set policy and are therefore able to potentially benefit from it by having foresight and influencing how the policy is developed. So if/when the Govt changes at next GE my focus and “outrage” will be directed at them whatever tie they wear. | |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you! I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys. Agreed! It is clear that there are some who believe something is fishy. If it turns out he did nothing wrong then he gets vindicated. Before Johnson and Sunak I cannot recall a sitting PM being investigated by the ethics committee though? Seems odd to me. There is a general whiff of sleaze and corruption sticking to the Govt. Clearly this doesn’t bother some of the posters on here. Just saw last point. Yes absolutely. I have said many times I don’t care what colour tie they wear. As they work for us I expect them to not be corrupt and to uphold all codes of practice. Maybe I am old fashioned? I agree Johnson was absolutely covered in sleaze, he's gone now, time to forget about him. However, to your point on 'before Johnson and Sunak', is it that there's something fishy here, or is it that Labour are attempting a mud slinging campaign? I hope you remember that SKS had to offer an apology just last year for what may be considered 'sleaze'. I don't you sticking it to him. Well you know I am a centrist with no particular loyalty to any party. It always makes me laugh when some on here accuse me of being lefty and socialist. Too many people have become binary and tribalist. I actually/honestly do not recall the Starmer thing so please tell me. However, I do hold the government and ministers to higher standards than the opposition MPs. Doesn’t mean the opposition can do what they want, they are still public servants. But Ministers set policy and are therefore able to potentially benefit from it by having foresight and influencing how the policy is developed. So if/when the Govt changes at next GE my focus and “outrage” will be directed at them whatever tie they wear." SKS faced an investigation into allegations he broke MP rules registering his outside earnings, gifts, benefits and hospitality. I think the point I'm trying to make here is there's always shouting when a Tory is under investigation and not a peep when it's Labour. Guilty or not, it happens before conclusion. That smells of nothing more than a smear campaign. | |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you! I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys. Agreed! It is clear that there are some who believe something is fishy. If it turns out he did nothing wrong then he gets vindicated. Before Johnson and Sunak I cannot recall a sitting PM being investigated by the ethics committee though? Seems odd to me. There is a general whiff of sleaze and corruption sticking to the Govt. Clearly this doesn’t bother some of the posters on here. Just saw last point. Yes absolutely. I have said many times I don’t care what colour tie they wear. As they work for us I expect them to not be corrupt and to uphold all codes of practice. Maybe I am old fashioned? I agree Johnson was absolutely covered in sleaze, he's gone now, time to forget about him. However, to your point on 'before Johnson and Sunak', is it that there's something fishy here, or is it that Labour are attempting a mud slinging campaign? I hope you remember that SKS had to offer an apology just last year for what may be considered 'sleaze'. I don't you sticking it to him. Well you know I am a centrist with no particular loyalty to any party. It always makes me laugh when some on here accuse me of being lefty and socialist. Too many people have become binary and tribalist. I actually/honestly do not recall the Starmer thing so please tell me. However, I do hold the government and ministers to higher standards than the opposition MPs. Doesn’t mean the opposition can do what they want, they are still public servants. But Ministers set policy and are therefore able to potentially benefit from it by having foresight and influencing how the policy is developed. So if/when the Govt changes at next GE my focus and “outrage” will be directed at them whatever tie they wear. SKS faced an investigation into allegations he broke MP rules registering his outside earnings, gifts, benefits and hospitality. I think the point I'm trying to make here is there's always shouting when a Tory is under investigation and not a peep when it's Labour. Guilty or not, it happens before conclusion. That smells of nothing more than a smear campaign." Thanks. I seem to recall certain posted (or was that a single poster with multiple profiles) who never missed a chance of starting threads about Labour or posting in threads about them and SKS or Corbyn in particular. Nothing stopping anyone starting a thread. In fact if there is sleaze or corruption from any of our public servants it should be highlighted. Again though, the Govt should, IMO, be held to even higher standards AND perhaps the volume of threads/posts simply reflects the volume of sleaze/corruption associated with the Govt (who happen to be Tories)? Corruption in our public servants is never acceptable, so when people on here post “whatabout” posts it just smacks of justifying or excusing that behaviour. | |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you! I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys. Agreed! It is clear that there are some who believe something is fishy. If it turns out he did nothing wrong then he gets vindicated. Before Johnson and Sunak I cannot recall a sitting PM being investigated by the ethics committee though? Seems odd to me. There is a general whiff of sleaze and corruption sticking to the Govt. Clearly this doesn’t bother some of the posters on here. Just saw last point. Yes absolutely. I have said many times I don’t care what colour tie they wear. As they work for us I expect them to not be corrupt and to uphold all codes of practice. Maybe I am old fashioned? I agree Johnson was absolutely covered in sleaze, he's gone now, time to forget about him. However, to your point on 'before Johnson and Sunak', is it that there's something fishy here, or is it that Labour are attempting a mud slinging campaign? I hope you remember that SKS had to offer an apology just last year for what may be considered 'sleaze'. I don't you sticking it to him. Well you know I am a centrist with no particular loyalty to any party. It always makes me laugh when some on here accuse me of being lefty and socialist. Too many people have become binary and tribalist. I actually/honestly do not recall the Starmer thing so please tell me. However, I do hold the government and ministers to higher standards than the opposition MPs. Doesn’t mean the opposition can do what they want, they are still public servants. But Ministers set policy and are therefore able to potentially benefit from it by having foresight and influencing how the policy is developed. So if/when the Govt changes at next GE my focus and “outrage” will be directed at them whatever tie they wear. SKS faced an investigation into allegations he broke MP rules registering his outside earnings, gifts, benefits and hospitality. I think the point I'm trying to make here is there's always shouting when a Tory is under investigation and not a peep when it's Labour. Guilty or not, it happens before conclusion. That smells of nothing more than a smear campaign. Thanks. I seem to recall certain posted (or was that a single poster with multiple profiles) who never missed a chance of starting threads about Labour or posting in threads about them and SKS or Corbyn in particular. Nothing stopping anyone starting a thread. In fact if there is sleaze or corruption from any of our public servants it should be highlighted. Again though, the Govt should, IMO, be held to even higher standards AND perhaps the volume of threads/posts simply reflects the volume of sleaze/corruption associated with the Govt (who happen to be Tories)? Corruption in our public servants is never acceptable, so when people on here post “whatabout” posts it just smacks of justifying or excusing that behaviour. " I can't agree with you that the govt should be held to higher standards than those want to be govt. They are one and the same. That's like saying 'don't worry about it, he's only opposition', not for me. Of course nothing is stopping anyone starting threads, however, in your own words 'I don't care what colour tie they wear', so honestly, I'd expect you to be starting them. | |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you! I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys. Agreed! It is clear that there are some who believe something is fishy. If it turns out he did nothing wrong then he gets vindicated. Before Johnson and Sunak I cannot recall a sitting PM being investigated by the ethics committee though? Seems odd to me. There is a general whiff of sleaze and corruption sticking to the Govt. Clearly this doesn’t bother some of the posters on here. Just saw last point. Yes absolutely. I have said many times I don’t care what colour tie they wear. As they work for us I expect them to not be corrupt and to uphold all codes of practice. Maybe I am old fashioned? I agree Johnson was absolutely covered in sleaze, he's gone now, time to forget about him. However, to your point on 'before Johnson and Sunak', is it that there's something fishy here, or is it that Labour are attempting a mud slinging campaign? I hope you remember that SKS had to offer an apology just last year for what may be considered 'sleaze'. I don't you sticking it to him. Well you know I am a centrist with no particular loyalty to any party. It always makes me laugh when some on here accuse me of being lefty and socialist. Too many people have become binary and tribalist. I actually/honestly do not recall the Starmer thing so please tell me. However, I do hold the government and ministers to higher standards than the opposition MPs. Doesn’t mean the opposition can do what they want, they are still public servants. But Ministers set policy and are therefore able to potentially benefit from it by having foresight and influencing how the policy is developed. So if/when the Govt changes at next GE my focus and “outrage” will be directed at them whatever tie they wear. SKS faced an investigation into allegations he broke MP rules registering his outside earnings, gifts, benefits and hospitality. I think the point I'm trying to make here is there's always shouting when a Tory is under investigation and not a peep when it's Labour. Guilty or not, it happens before conclusion. That smells of nothing more than a smear campaign. Thanks. I seem to recall certain posted (or was that a single poster with multiple profiles) who never missed a chance of starting threads about Labour or posting in threads about them and SKS or Corbyn in particular. Nothing stopping anyone starting a thread. In fact if there is sleaze or corruption from any of our public servants it should be highlighted. Again though, the Govt should, IMO, be held to even higher standards AND perhaps the volume of threads/posts simply reflects the volume of sleaze/corruption associated with the Govt (who happen to be Tories)? Corruption in our public servants is never acceptable, so when people on here post “whatabout” posts it just smacks of justifying or excusing that behaviour. I can't agree with you that the govt should be held to higher standards than those want to be govt. They are one and the same. That's like saying 'don't worry about it, he's only opposition', not for me. Of course nothing is stopping anyone starting threads, however, in your own words 'I don't care what colour tie they wear', so honestly, I'd expect you to be starting them." Thanks Feisty but I will start threads on topics as I see fit! You may not agree but I have explained why IMO those in Govt should be held to even higher standards, they design and set policy, the opposition do not. It is vastly different. When/if Labour get in to No10 let’s see if there is sufficient corruption or sleaze to warrant me starting a thread. If there is I will! | |||
"Genuinely nobody cares and nobody should care about this when there are far bigger issues to solve. I see OP that you conveniently ignored someone else commenting that Akshay Murthy only owns 0.5% of the company's shares. So if this figure is wrong, show evidence and prove it as fake news. Otherwise the only one stirring the outrage pot here is you. Slow News Tuesday? Not to mention this coming on the heels of Labour's attack ads aimed at the PM's wife...this political haymaking is going to backfire big time on anyone who's anti-Tory. " Not sure percentages are that good an indicator. After all Akshata Murty “only” holds 0.93% of Infosys but that has helped make her a billionaire (or near enough). According to Companies House, Murty holds two batches of shares in privately held Koru Kids. She holds 20,000 ordinary shares and 7,100 Series A ordinary shares in the company. No idea what voting rights come with those different class of shares. Do you? Pretty much every article I have read calls her a “major shareholder” so perhaps everyone is lying and creating drama, inc right wing press? | |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you! I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys. Agreed! It is clear that there are some who believe something is fishy. If it turns out he did nothing wrong then he gets vindicated. Before Johnson and Sunak I cannot recall a sitting PM being investigated by the ethics committee though? Seems odd to me. There is a general whiff of sleaze and corruption sticking to the Govt. Clearly this doesn’t bother some of the posters on here. Just saw last point. Yes absolutely. I have said many times I don’t care what colour tie they wear. As they work for us I expect them to not be corrupt and to uphold all codes of practice. Maybe I am old fashioned? I agree Johnson was absolutely covered in sleaze, he's gone now, time to forget about him. However, to your point on 'before Johnson and Sunak', is it that there's something fishy here, or is it that Labour are attempting a mud slinging campaign? I hope you remember that SKS had to offer an apology just last year for what may be considered 'sleaze'. I don't you sticking it to him. Well you know I am a centrist with no particular loyalty to any party. It always makes me laugh when some on here accuse me of being lefty and socialist. Too many people have become binary and tribalist. I actually/honestly do not recall the Starmer thing so please tell me. However, I do hold the government and ministers to higher standards than the opposition MPs. Doesn’t mean the opposition can do what they want, they are still public servants. But Ministers set policy and are therefore able to potentially benefit from it by having foresight and influencing how the policy is developed. So if/when the Govt changes at next GE my focus and “outrage” will be directed at them whatever tie they wear. SKS faced an investigation into allegations he broke MP rules registering his outside earnings, gifts, benefits and hospitality. I think the point I'm trying to make here is there's always shouting when a Tory is under investigation and not a peep when it's Labour. Guilty or not, it happens before conclusion. That smells of nothing more than a smear campaign. Thanks. I seem to recall certain posted (or was that a single poster with multiple profiles) who never missed a chance of starting threads about Labour or posting in threads about them and SKS or Corbyn in particular. Nothing stopping anyone starting a thread. In fact if there is sleaze or corruption from any of our public servants it should be highlighted. Again though, the Govt should, IMO, be held to even higher standards AND perhaps the volume of threads/posts simply reflects the volume of sleaze/corruption associated with the Govt (who happen to be Tories)? Corruption in our public servants is never acceptable, so when people on here post “whatabout” posts it just smacks of justifying or excusing that behaviour. I can't agree with you that the govt should be held to higher standards than those want to be govt. They are one and the same. That's like saying 'don't worry about it, he's only opposition', not for me. Of course nothing is stopping anyone starting threads, however, in your own words 'I don't care what colour tie they wear', so honestly, I'd expect you to be starting them. Thanks Feisty but I will start threads on topics as I see fit! You may not agree but I have explained why IMO those in Govt should be held to even higher standards, they design and set policy, the opposition do not. It is vastly different. When/if Labour get in to No10 let’s see if there is sufficient corruption or sleaze to warrant me starting a thread. If there is I will!" Of course you'll start threads that you see fit. I'm starting to possibly see why people call you a leftie though (I obviously know different). As I've said, I can't agree that it's 'vastly different', I understand why you think so but IMO any incoming minister (that's the opposition) should be held to the exact same standards as the current ones. | |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you! I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys. Agreed! It is clear that there are some who believe something is fishy. If it turns out he did nothing wrong then he gets vindicated. Before Johnson and Sunak I cannot recall a sitting PM being investigated by the ethics committee though? Seems odd to me. There is a general whiff of sleaze and corruption sticking to the Govt. Clearly this doesn’t bother some of the posters on here. Just saw last point. Yes absolutely. I have said many times I don’t care what colour tie they wear. As they work for us I expect them to not be corrupt and to uphold all codes of practice. Maybe I am old fashioned? I agree Johnson was absolutely covered in sleaze, he's gone now, time to forget about him. However, to your point on 'before Johnson and Sunak', is it that there's something fishy here, or is it that Labour are attempting a mud slinging campaign? I hope you remember that SKS had to offer an apology just last year for what may be considered 'sleaze'. I don't you sticking it to him. Well you know I am a centrist with no particular loyalty to any party. It always makes me laugh when some on here accuse me of being lefty and socialist. Too many people have become binary and tribalist. I actually/honestly do not recall the Starmer thing so please tell me. However, I do hold the government and ministers to higher standards than the opposition MPs. Doesn’t mean the opposition can do what they want, they are still public servants. But Ministers set policy and are therefore able to potentially benefit from it by having foresight and influencing how the policy is developed. So if/when the Govt changes at next GE my focus and “outrage” will be directed at them whatever tie they wear. SKS faced an investigation into allegations he broke MP rules registering his outside earnings, gifts, benefits and hospitality. I think the point I'm trying to make here is there's always shouting when a Tory is under investigation and not a peep when it's Labour. Guilty or not, it happens before conclusion. That smells of nothing more than a smear campaign. Thanks. I seem to recall certain posted (or was that a single poster with multiple profiles) who never missed a chance of starting threads about Labour or posting in threads about them and SKS or Corbyn in particular. Nothing stopping anyone starting a thread. In fact if there is sleaze or corruption from any of our public servants it should be highlighted. Again though, the Govt should, IMO, be held to even higher standards AND perhaps the volume of threads/posts simply reflects the volume of sleaze/corruption associated with the Govt (who happen to be Tories)? Corruption in our public servants is never acceptable, so when people on here post “whatabout” posts it just smacks of justifying or excusing that behaviour. I can't agree with you that the govt should be held to higher standards than those want to be govt. They are one and the same. That's like saying 'don't worry about it, he's only opposition', not for me. Of course nothing is stopping anyone starting threads, however, in your own words 'I don't care what colour tie they wear', so honestly, I'd expect you to be starting them. Thanks Feisty but I will start threads on topics as I see fit! You may not agree but I have explained why IMO those in Govt should be held to even higher standards, they design and set policy, the opposition do not. It is vastly different. When/if Labour get in to No10 let’s see if there is sufficient corruption or sleaze to warrant me starting a thread. If there is I will! Of course you'll start threads that you see fit. I'm starting to possibly see why people call you a leftie though (I obviously know different). As I've said, I can't agree that it's 'vastly different', I understand why you think so but IMO any incoming minister (that's the opposition) should be held to the exact same standards as the current ones." Actually that is a fair point (on incoming ministers). The practical difference is that you can only set policy that you can then benefit from while in Govt. Of course if you are already in bed with certain donors etc, then when you get into Govt you can proceed with policy that helps them and you. PPE VIP Lane is an example. I am sure certain people will shout “nothing has gone to court” but pretty sure only companies recommended by Tories secured contracts via the VIP and none by Labour? Someone can correct me if wrong? | |||
"It isn’t this in and of itself but a pattern of behaviour over the last few years. I think people do care. I think people should care. People do expect their Ministers to not have conflicts of interest. Maybe they will not care about this specifically but certainly they do care about the broader picture. If it doesn’t bother you then bully for you! I'd agree people do care about the wider picture. Something we agree on. I still say this is a non story until we find out if and when Sunak did anything wrong. He says he declared it, if he did then he's all good. If he didn't then throw the book. Make sure we do it to all of them though, not just Torys. Agreed! It is clear that there are some who believe something is fishy. If it turns out he did nothing wrong then he gets vindicated. Before Johnson and Sunak I cannot recall a sitting PM being investigated by the ethics committee though? Seems odd to me. There is a general whiff of sleaze and corruption sticking to the Govt. Clearly this doesn’t bother some of the posters on here. Just saw last point. Yes absolutely. I have said many times I don’t care what colour tie they wear. As they work for us I expect them to not be corrupt and to uphold all codes of practice. Maybe I am old fashioned? I agree Johnson was absolutely covered in sleaze, he's gone now, time to forget about him. However, to your point on 'before Johnson and Sunak', is it that there's something fishy here, or is it that Labour are attempting a mud slinging campaign? I hope you remember that SKS had to offer an apology just last year for what may be considered 'sleaze'. I don't you sticking it to him. Well you know I am a centrist with no particular loyalty to any party. It always makes me laugh when some on here accuse me of being lefty and socialist. Too many people have become binary and tribalist. I actually/honestly do not recall the Starmer thing so please tell me. However, I do hold the government and ministers to higher standards than the opposition MPs. Doesn’t mean the opposition can do what they want, they are still public servants. But Ministers set policy and are therefore able to potentially benefit from it by having foresight and influencing how the policy is developed. So if/when the Govt changes at next GE my focus and “outrage” will be directed at them whatever tie they wear. SKS faced an investigation into allegations he broke MP rules registering his outside earnings, gifts, benefits and hospitality. I think the point I'm trying to make here is there's always shouting when a Tory is under investigation and not a peep when it's Labour. Guilty or not, it happens before conclusion. That smells of nothing more than a smear campaign. Thanks. I seem to recall certain posted (or was that a single poster with multiple profiles) who never missed a chance of starting threads about Labour or posting in threads about them and SKS or Corbyn in particular. Nothing stopping anyone starting a thread. In fact if there is sleaze or corruption from any of our public servants it should be highlighted. Again though, the Govt should, IMO, be held to even higher standards AND perhaps the volume of threads/posts simply reflects the volume of sleaze/corruption associated with the Govt (who happen to be Tories)? Corruption in our public servants is never acceptable, so when people on here post “whatabout” posts it just smacks of justifying or excusing that behaviour. I can't agree with you that the govt should be held to higher standards than those want to be govt. They are one and the same. That's like saying 'don't worry about it, he's only opposition', not for me. Of course nothing is stopping anyone starting threads, however, in your own words 'I don't care what colour tie they wear', so honestly, I'd expect you to be starting them. Thanks Feisty but I will start threads on topics as I see fit! You may not agree but I have explained why IMO those in Govt should be held to even higher standards, they design and set policy, the opposition do not. It is vastly different. When/if Labour get in to No10 let’s see if there is sufficient corruption or sleaze to warrant me starting a thread. If there is I will! Of course you'll start threads that you see fit. I'm starting to possibly see why people call you a leftie though (I obviously know different). As I've said, I can't agree that it's 'vastly different', I understand why you think so but IMO any incoming minister (that's the opposition) should be held to the exact same standards as the current ones. Actually that is a fair point (on incoming ministers). The practical difference is that you can only set policy that you can then benefit from while in Govt. Of course if you are already in bed with certain donors etc, then when you get into Govt you can proceed with policy that helps them and you. PPE VIP Lane is an example. I am sure certain people will shout “nothing has gone to court” but pretty sure only companies recommended by Tories secured contracts via the VIP and none by Labour? Someone can correct me if wrong?" I do understand your thinking, it's not that that I'm disagreeing with, it's the 'standards' part. Starmer is currently costing up to 'business', no doubt he will set policy that will help once he gets into power (he will get into power IMO). First things first, social housing, wonder which benefactors will benefit. | |||
| |||
"I agree this does not look good on Sunak but we should let the process happen before judging. Same with the situation with the on going SNP situation. There the police and others need to get to the bottom of things before anyone can judge" Fair and balanced as always. But where’s the fun in sitting back and waiting | |||
| |||
| |||
"Oh dear... Bosses of the childcare firm at the centre of a Rishi Sunak conflict of interest row attended a Downing Street reception just hours after he was pressed by MPs over his links with the provider, the Guardian has learned. Koru Kids, which lists the prime minister’s wife, Akshata Murty, as a shareholder and is expected to benefit from changes announced in the budget, is understood to have been present at a No 11 reception for the education sector on Wednesday evening. The company’s presence at the event, which was hosted by the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, and the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, will raise further questions over the prime minister’s family links, even though neither he nor his wife attended the reception. Man declares ministerial interest. Draws attention to commons committee about ministerial interests declared Commons committee doesn't look. More of a bad look for the committee Maybe. “Mr Sunak did not mention Ms Murty's links to Koru Kids when he was questioned by MPs over the childcare policy at a parliamentary committee hearing on 28 March.” “Labour MP Catherine McKinnell asked Mr Sunak whether he had any interest to declare, and in reply he said: "No, all my disclosures are declared in the normal way." “The list of ministerial interests is separate to the register of interests for MPs, which says members "must always consider whether they have a conflict of interest". Optics aren’t great but hey ho!" Man lists ministerial interests. Committee is told he has listed his ministerial interests and they can check there. Committee doesn't check. | |||
"Oh dear... Bosses of the childcare firm at the centre of a Rishi Sunak conflict of interest row attended a Downing Street reception just hours after he was pressed by MPs over his links with the provider, the Guardian has learned. Koru Kids, which lists the prime minister’s wife, Akshata Murty, as a shareholder and is expected to benefit from changes announced in the budget, is understood to have been present at a No 11 reception for the education sector on Wednesday evening. The company’s presence at the event, which was hosted by the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, and the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, will raise further questions over the prime minister’s family links, even though neither he nor his wife attended the reception. Man declares ministerial interest. Draws attention to commons committee about ministerial interests declared Commons committee doesn't look. More of a bad look for the committee Maybe. “Mr Sunak did not mention Ms Murty's links to Koru Kids when he was questioned by MPs over the childcare policy at a parliamentary committee hearing on 28 March.” “Labour MP Catherine McKinnell asked Mr Sunak whether he had any interest to declare, and in reply he said: "No, all my disclosures are declared in the normal way." “The list of ministerial interests is separate to the register of interests for MPs, which says members "must always consider whether they have a conflict of interest". Optics aren’t great but hey ho! Man lists ministerial interests. Committee is told he has listed his ministerial interests and they can check there. Committee doesn't check. " So you keep saying but as I have already posted, the Chair, who is a Tory BTW, doesn’t agree... "Sir Bernard Jenkin, the chair of the Committee, was clearly not completely satisfied and wrote back with new queries of his own. Sir Bernard asked a key question about the Budget announcement: just why was the Government offering £1,200 to people who register as childminders through just six childminder agencies, double the amount offered to those who registered with Ofsted as an individual? As well as asking for the rationale behind that extra £600 incentive, the Tory grandee also asked “what engagement has taken place with the sector on this issue?” Both are important questions." | |||
"Oh dear... Bosses of the childcare firm at the centre of a Rishi Sunak conflict of interest row attended a Downing Street reception just hours after he was pressed by MPs over his links with the provider, the Guardian has learned. Koru Kids, which lists the prime minister’s wife, Akshata Murty, as a shareholder and is expected to benefit from changes announced in the budget, is understood to have been present at a No 11 reception for the education sector on Wednesday evening. The company’s presence at the event, which was hosted by the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, and the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, will raise further questions over the prime minister’s family links, even though neither he nor his wife attended the reception. Man declares ministerial interest. Draws attention to commons committee about ministerial interests declared Commons committee doesn't look. More of a bad look for the committee Maybe. “Mr Sunak did not mention Ms Murty's links to Koru Kids when he was questioned by MPs over the childcare policy at a parliamentary committee hearing on 28 March.” “Labour MP Catherine McKinnell asked Mr Sunak whether he had any interest to declare, and in reply he said: "No, all my disclosures are declared in the normal way." “The list of ministerial interests is separate to the register of interests for MPs, which says members "must always consider whether they have a conflict of interest". Optics aren’t great but hey ho! Man lists ministerial interests. Committee is told he has listed his ministerial interests and they can check there. Committee doesn't check. So you keep saying but as I have already posted, the Chair, who is a Tory BTW, doesn’t agree... Sir Bernard Jenkin, the chair of the Committee, was clearly not completely satisfied and wrote back with new queries of his own. Sir Bernard asked a key question about the Budget announcement: just why was the Government offering £1,200 to people who register as childminders through just six childminder agencies, double the amount offered to those who registered with Ofsted as an individual? As well as asking for the rationale behind that extra £600 incentive, the Tory grandee also asked “what engagement has taken place with the sector on this issue?” Both are important questions." He can disagree all he wants. The registered interests is there to be checked. Not for rishi to continually allude to | |||
"Oh dear... Bosses of the childcare firm at the centre of a Rishi Sunak conflict of interest row attended a Downing Street reception just hours after he was pressed by MPs over his links with the provider, the Guardian has learned. Koru Kids, which lists the prime minister’s wife, Akshata Murty, as a shareholder and is expected to benefit from changes announced in the budget, is understood to have been present at a No 11 reception for the education sector on Wednesday evening. The company’s presence at the event, which was hosted by the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, and the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, will raise further questions over the prime minister’s family links, even though neither he nor his wife attended the reception. Man declares ministerial interest. Draws attention to commons committee about ministerial interests declared Commons committee doesn't look. More of a bad look for the committee Maybe. “Mr Sunak did not mention Ms Murty's links to Koru Kids when he was questioned by MPs over the childcare policy at a parliamentary committee hearing on 28 March.” “Labour MP Catherine McKinnell asked Mr Sunak whether he had any interest to declare, and in reply he said: "No, all my disclosures are declared in the normal way." “The list of ministerial interests is separate to the register of interests for MPs, which says members "must always consider whether they have a conflict of interest". Optics aren’t great but hey ho! Man lists ministerial interests. Committee is told he has listed his ministerial interests and they can check there. Committee doesn't check. So you keep saying but as I have already posted, the Chair, who is a Tory BTW, doesn’t agree... Sir Bernard Jenkin, the chair of the Committee, was clearly not completely satisfied and wrote back with new queries of his own. Sir Bernard asked a key question about the Budget announcement: just why was the Government offering £1,200 to people who register as childminders through just six childminder agencies, double the amount offered to those who registered with Ofsted as an individual? As well as asking for the rationale behind that extra £600 incentive, the Tory grandee also asked “what engagement has taken place with the sector on this issue?” Both are important questions. He can disagree all he wants. The registered interests is there to be checked. Not for rishi to continually allude to" Lol I am sure they’ll come to you for advice and guidance on ministerial code of practice. Stay by the phone. It’ll be ringing any time now........? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Hey Morley here’s some more info for you to downplay... ++++ When asked whether he had any personal interests he needed to declare about the decision, he flatly denied having any. “No all my disclosures are declared in the normal way,” Sunak told McKinnell. In reality they had not been. Within hours it emerged that Sunak’s own wife held shares in one of the agencies set to benefit from his decision. Not only this, but the bosses of the said agency had been personally invited into a Downing Street reception that took place just hours after the Prime Minister was questioned about it by MPs. None of this had been declared by Sunak, either directly, or on his public register of interests. Asked three weeks ago why the PM had failed to make any such declarations, his Press Secretary insisted that he had followed the rules “to the letter”. This claim looks very difficult to stand up, given that Sunak is now under investigation by Parliament’s Standards Commissioner for failing to properly declare his interests to MPs as he is required to under the Code of Conduct. According to the relevant part of the code: “Members must always be open and frank in declaring any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.” It is hard to find a convincing case for Sunak having done this. Since Sunak’s apparent conflict of interest was first revealed, Downing Street has sought to defend his apparent failure, by claiming that the PM had told the Cabinet Secretary instead. However, even if true, this is irrelevant given that such declarations were not public at the time he was questioned by MPs and given that his own spokespeople still refuse to say exactly when this declaration actually took place." They were declared on the ministers interests. Thats the proper way | |||
"Hey Morley here’s some more info for you to downplay... ++++ When asked whether he had any personal interests he needed to declare about the decision, he flatly denied having any. “No all my disclosures are declared in the normal way,” Sunak told McKinnell. In reality they had not been. Within hours it emerged that Sunak’s own wife held shares in one of the agencies set to benefit from his decision. Not only this, but the bosses of the said agency had been personally invited into a Downing Street reception that took place just hours after the Prime Minister was questioned about it by MPs. None of this had been declared by Sunak, either directly, or on his public register of interests. Asked three weeks ago why the PM had failed to make any such declarations, his Press Secretary insisted that he had followed the rules “to the letter”. This claim looks very difficult to stand up, given that Sunak is now under investigation by Parliament’s Standards Commissioner for failing to properly declare his interests to MPs as he is required to under the Code of Conduct. According to the relevant part of the code: “Members must always be open and frank in declaring any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.” It is hard to find a convincing case for Sunak having done this. Since Sunak’s apparent conflict of interest was first revealed, Downing Street has sought to defend his apparent failure, by claiming that the PM had told the Cabinet Secretary instead. However, even if true, this is irrelevant given that such declarations were not public at the time he was questioned by MPs and given that his own spokespeople still refuse to say exactly when this declaration actually took place. They were declared on the ministers interests. Thats the proper way" Have they called you yet for your expert advice? If not don’t worry, can only be a matter of time! | |||
| |||
"Do we actually know if these interests were declared correctly or not?" The committee believes they were not declared properly AND that Sunak should have declared when asked in committee but he didn’t. Otherwise, regardless of what our Resident Government and Parliamentary Expert says, this would not have been referred to the ethics committee. It’s not like I am making all this up! It is happening! | |||
"Do we actually know if these interests were declared correctly or not? The committee believes they were not declared properly AND that Sunak should have declared when asked in committee but he didn’t. Otherwise, regardless of what our Resident Government and Parliamentary Expert says, this would not have been referred to the ethics committee. It’s not like I am making all this up! It is happening!" Believing they were not declared properly doesn't equate to actuality. | |||
"Do we actually know if these interests were declared correctly or not? The committee believes they were not declared properly AND that Sunak should have declared when asked in committee but he didn’t. Otherwise, regardless of what our Resident Government and Parliamentary Expert says, this would not have been referred to the ethics committee. It’s not like I am making all this up! It is happening! Believing they were not declared properly doesn't equate to actuality. " Perhaps not we shall see. I doubt a Tory grandee would want to haul Sunak into the ethics committee for nothing though? | |||
"Do we actually know if these interests were declared correctly or not? The committee believes they were not declared properly AND that Sunak should have declared when asked in committee but he didn’t. Otherwise, regardless of what our Resident Government and Parliamentary Expert says, this would not have been referred to the ethics committee. It’s not like I am making all this up! It is happening! Believing they were not declared properly doesn't equate to actuality. Perhaps not we shall see. I doubt a Tory grandee would want to haul Sunak into the ethics committee for nothing though?" We shall see | |||
| |||
