FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Jess Phillips declaration of interests
Jess Phillips declaration of interests
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Where can I find this is the Guardian? Until I can, I believe it's just right wing smear." Lol. Evening Standard | |||
"Where can I find this is the Guardian? Until I can, I believe it's just right wing smear. Lol. Evening Standard" Oh, that's standard 
Wonder where everyone else is? This would be blowing up if it was a Tory MP | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It's not at all clear whether these are new allegations, or just a re-visit to the stuff she was reprimanded for last year. We'll just have to wait for the media to find some actual details to report." You're right it's not clear, the way I read it though was it's about the matters last year. | |||
"It's not at all clear whether these are new allegations, or just a re-visit to the stuff she was reprimanded for last year. We'll just have to wait for the media to find some actual details to report." Yeah let's not jump to conclusions | |||
| |||
"Where can I find this is the Guardian? Until I can, I believe it's just right wing smear. Lol. Evening Standard Oh, that's standard
Wonder where everyone else is? This would be blowing up if it was a Tory MP "***************************************** Door unlatched and swings open, followed by a cold rush of air from outside. Tall figure quickly enters the forum, turns and closes door with a 'cla-clakk' It's the good natured 'Forum Sentinel', wearing woolly hat, warm coat and stout trousers, he's carrying a paraffin storm lamp which emits a yellow-ish white light, which he now extinguishes. "Well folks", says he, in his cheerful manner...... "I've been out and about since the emergence of this particular thread, expecting a few posters turning up with the usual comments, especially the regular 'Whatabouttery' gang but, it's looking thin at the moment, there's not even the odd Scoff and Curse post, I wonder where they are...?" He looks a liftle perplexed by this, and goes on to reveal... "I've looked everywhere, even traipsed down to the caravan section, but no sign..... Is there any plotting and scheming classes on anywhere, I wondered, or maybe there's a fresh subject been found for them to bash the country or the government with.....?? " "Well, maybe it's the quiet before the storm of the itinerant lefty crew........ We'd better be on guard this evening folks, I've a funny feeling the entertainment is coming, let's wait and see, there'll be some hilarious character here soon.....!" He bids good evening, fastens his coat, dons cap and with another cold-ish rush of outside air, the door closes and he's gone.  | |||
"Where can I find this is the Guardian? Until I can, I believe it's just right wing smear. Lol. Evening Standard Oh, that's standard
Wonder where everyone else is? This would be blowing up if it was a Tory MP
*****************************************
Door unlatched and swings open, followed by a cold rush of air from outside.
Tall figure quickly enters the forum, turns and closes door with a 'cla-clakk'
It's the good natured 'Forum Sentinel', wearing woolly hat, warm coat and stout trousers, he's carrying a paraffin storm lamp which emits a yellow-ish white light, which he now extinguishes.
"Well folks", says he, in his cheerful manner...... "I've been out and about since the emergence of this particular thread, expecting a few posters turning up with the usual comments, especially the regular 'Whatabouttery' gang but, it's looking thin at the moment, there's not even the odd Scoff and Curse post, I wonder where they are...?"
He looks a liftle perplexed by this, and goes on to reveal... "I've looked everywhere, even traipsed down to the caravan section, but no sign..... Is there any plotting and scheming classes on anywhere, I wondered, or maybe there's a fresh subject been found for them to bash the country or the government with.....?? "
"Well, maybe it's the quiet before the storm of the itinerant lefty crew........ We'd better be on guard this evening folks, I've a funny feeling the entertainment is coming, let's wait and see, there'll be some hilarious character here soon.....!"
He bids good evening, fastens his coat, dons cap and with another cold-ish rush of outside air, the door closes and he's gone. " | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons." Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story." Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... | |||
"According to the BBC she has 'repeatedly' declared late and has been warned of this. Either she doesn't understand the 28 day deadline or she purposely doesn't care about the deadline." I think that's what SKS got in trouble for to. Declaring before deadlines seems to be to much for some politicians | |||
"According to the BBC she has 'repeatedly' declared late and has been warned of this. Either she doesn't understand the 28 day deadline or she purposely doesn't care about the deadline. I think that's what SKS got in trouble for to. Declaring before deadlines seems to be to much for some politicians" I believe so but we keep hearing 'it was only a late declaration' in defence. Here's something which is thrown at Tories very often... NOTHING TO SEE HERE I guess that works both ways. | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here....." What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. | |||
"According to the BBC she has 'repeatedly' declared late and has been warned of this. Either she doesn't understand the 28 day deadline or she purposely doesn't care about the deadline. I think that's what SKS got in trouble for to. Declaring before deadlines seems to be to much for some politicians" Yes. I don't know why that seems so tricky with a staff who also carry out the booking, I imagine. 28 days is a bit awkward though. If it was 35, a monthly filing would mean that this problem would be much simplified. Wonder what the reason is for that particular timeframe. | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter." But, but, but.... TORIES | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES" In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish." This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter." Do you have any inside information about Nick Brown? Or has the Party told you to keep quiet? | |||
"According to the BBC she has 'repeatedly' declared late and has been warned of this. Either she doesn't understand the 28 day deadline or she purposely doesn't care about the deadline. I think that's what SKS got in trouble for to. Declaring before deadlines seems to be to much for some politicians Yes. I don't know why that seems so tricky with a staff who also carry out the booking, I imagine. 28 days is a bit awkward though. If it was 35, a monthly filing would mean that this problem would be much simplified. Wonder what the reason is for that particular timeframe." I can only imagine the vast difficulties faced by an MP having only 28 days to make such a declaration. Perhaps if it were somehow linked to any expenses claims they might suddenly be able to achieve it  | |||
"According to the BBC she has 'repeatedly' declared late and has been warned of this. Either she doesn't understand the 28 day deadline or she purposely doesn't care about the deadline. I think that's what SKS got in trouble for to. Declaring before deadlines seems to be to much for some politicians Yes. I don't know why that seems so tricky with a staff who also carry out the booking, I imagine. 28 days is a bit awkward though. If it was 35, a monthly filing would mean that this problem would be much simplified. Wonder what the reason is for that particular timeframe. I can only imagine the vast difficulties faced by an MP having only 28 days to make such a declaration. Perhaps if it were somehow linked to any expenses claims they might suddenly be able to achieve it "I'm not saying it's that hard, especially with staff, but imagine you got paid every 28 days rather than once a month. It just seems like an odd number from a boring, administrative perspective. | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. Do you have any inside information about Nick Brown? Or has the Party told you to keep quiet?" Is a late filing as serious as not declaring a gift of tens of thousands of pounds for a company that you're asking questions in Parliament for? I'd say no, but you clearly think otherwise. Andrew Bridgen was deselected for an internal Labour party matter wasn't he? What point are you making and why do you assume I vote Labour? Is nothing that the Conservative party does ever wrong and will you always vote for them regardless? | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? " Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better. | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better." You noted bad Tories on this thread just as you did on the Abbott one. Always one to shout that the Tories are undoubtedly worse, whilst that may be true, how about keeping that to threads about Tory MPs. You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear. And you would wonder why people think you vote Labour?  | |||
| |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better. You noted bad Tories on this thread just as you did on the Abbott one. Always one to shout that the Tories are undoubtedly worse, whilst that may be true, how about keeping that to threads about Tory MPs. You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear. And you would wonder why people think you vote Labour? "So there was no "but, but, but TORIES". I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both. I didn't post a thread about Bridgen but replied to one about Abbott started by someone else. I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips. Just raising a point about the severity of the alleged infraction. Again, you seem unable to acknowledge that there are more and less serious infractions. I don't know why it's such a struggle. Is a politician filing a payment "sleaze" or just crap admin? Interested to know what is "sleazy" about this. What have I "over-exaggerated" about this Government's corruption and incompetence? I still don't know why you are so keen to control what I choose to write either or why you seem to get so incensed by it. Your problem, not mine. | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better. You noted bad Tories on this thread just as you did on the Abbott one. Always one to shout that the Tories are undoubtedly worse, whilst that may be true, how about keeping that to threads about Tory MPs. You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear. And you would wonder why people think you vote Labour?
So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both. I didn't post a thread about Bridgen but replied to one about Abbott started by someone else.
I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips. Just raising a point about the severity of the alleged infraction.
Again, you seem unable to acknowledge that there are more and less serious infractions. I don't know why it's such a struggle.
Is a politician filing a payment "sleaze" or just crap admin? Interested to know what is "sleazy" about this.
What have I "over-exaggerated" about this Government's corruption and incompetence?
I still don't know why you are so keen to control what I choose to write either or why you seem to get so incensed by it.
Your problem, not mine."“So there was no "but, but, but TORIES". I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both” Thread about a specific labour MP, and in your own words you introduced a Tory example, which seems very much, but, but but the tories. ‘’ I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips’’ Asking to consider the seriousness of the allegation and comparing it to what others have done, is very much defending her. Quick question, how do those doing the auditing of these declarations of payments know she is late with the submission if she hasn’t submitted it? | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better. You noted bad Tories on this thread just as you did on the Abbott one. Always one to shout that the Tories are undoubtedly worse, whilst that may be true, how about keeping that to threads about Tory MPs. You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear. And you would wonder why people think you vote Labour?
So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both. I didn't post a thread about Bridgen but replied to one about Abbott started by someone else.
I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips. Just raising a point about the severity of the alleged infraction.
Again, you seem unable to acknowledge that there are more and less serious infractions. I don't know why it's such a struggle.
Is a politician filing a payment "sleaze" or just crap admin? Interested to know what is "sleazy" about this.
What have I "over-exaggerated" about this Government's corruption and incompetence?
I still don't know why you are so keen to control what I choose to write either or why you seem to get so incensed by it.
Your problem, not mine.
“So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both”
Thread about a specific labour MP, and in your own words you introduced a Tory example, which seems very much, but, but but the tories.
‘’ I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips’’
Asking to consider the seriousness of the allegation and comparing it to what others have done, is very much defending her.
Quick question, how do those doing the auditing of these declarations of payments know she is late with the submission if she hasn’t submitted it?"I want to qualify that question, it wasn’t great! She needs to declare outside payments, why is she consistently late and why would we trust her to not have declared outside payments at all, if she knows she is going to fall foul of the timelines again? Is she edging her bets, in terms of being challenged over to appearances etc… | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better. You noted bad Tories on this thread just as you did on the Abbott one. Always one to shout that the Tories are undoubtedly worse, whilst that may be true, how about keeping that to threads about Tory MPs. You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear. And you would wonder why people think you vote Labour?
So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both. I didn't post a thread about Bridgen but replied to one about Abbott started by someone else.
I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips. Just raising a point about the severity of the alleged infraction.
Again, you seem unable to acknowledge that there are more and less serious infractions. I don't know why it's such a struggle.
Is a politician filing a payment "sleaze" or just crap admin? Interested to know what is "sleazy" about this.
What have I "over-exaggerated" about this Government's corruption and incompetence?
I still don't know why you are so keen to control what I choose to write either or why you seem to get so incensed by it.
Your problem, not mine."First of all, I'm not 'incensed' by anything. I dislike hypocrisy and I'll call it out when I see it. Apparently, according to you there's no but, but, but... you brought the tories into a thread about Jess Phillips. That's but, but, but, of course you'll disagree because that's what you do but it's clear to see. I honestly can't be arsed to go find your over-exaggerations but the other members here will know what I'm talking about. Additionally, you continually try to downplay the 'severity' of Labour 'infractions', that's clear to see on this thread. I'd call that 'defending' Labour. | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better. You noted bad Tories on this thread just as you did on the Abbott one. Always one to shout that the Tories are undoubtedly worse, whilst that may be true, how about keeping that to threads about Tory MPs. You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear. And you would wonder why people think you vote Labour?
So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both. I didn't post a thread about Bridgen but replied to one about Abbott started by someone else.
I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips. Just raising a point about the severity of the alleged infraction.
Again, you seem unable to acknowledge that there are more and less serious infractions. I don't know why it's such a struggle.
Is a politician filing a payment "sleaze" or just crap admin? Interested to know what is "sleazy" about this.
What have I "over-exaggerated" about this Government's corruption and incompetence?
I still don't know why you are so keen to control what I choose to write either or why you seem to get so incensed by it.
Your problem, not mine.
“So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both”
Thread about a specific labour MP, and in your own words you introduced a Tory example, which seems very much, but, but but the tories.
‘’ I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips’’
Asking to consider the seriousness of the allegation and comparing it to what others have done, is very much defending her.
Quick question, how do those doing the auditing of these declarations of payments know she is late with the submission if she hasn’t submitted it?"I introduced two equally contrasting examples. One Tory, one Labour. Did I treat one worse than the other? Does that mean it was just about Tories? Why should I not introduce any example that I choose to? Because you or someone else tells me? She should be punished as appropriate. How's that a defence? She should be punished as appropriate. Jess Phillips should be punished as appropriate. Is that in any way clear yet? What other words would you like me to use? You tell me as you seem just as keen to define what I can write. Are you able to tell me if some offences are more serious than others? Are they, or are they not? Nobody else asked seems to be able to answer either. Is it a difficult question? They know she is late because she made the submission more than 28 days after the date that she was supposed to have been paid or submitted an invoice. That's literally the matter under investigation. Is the simple answer not good enough? | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better. You noted bad Tories on this thread just as you did on the Abbott one. Always one to shout that the Tories are undoubtedly worse, whilst that may be true, how about keeping that to threads about Tory MPs. You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear. And you would wonder why people think you vote Labour?
So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both. I didn't post a thread about Bridgen but replied to one about Abbott started by someone else.
I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips. Just raising a point about the severity of the alleged infraction.
Again, you seem unable to acknowledge that there are more and less serious infractions. I don't know why it's such a struggle.
Is a politician filing a payment "sleaze" or just crap admin? Interested to know what is "sleazy" about this.
What have I "over-exaggerated" about this Government's corruption and incompetence?
I still don't know why you are so keen to control what I choose to write either or why you seem to get so incensed by it.
Your problem, not mine.
First of all, I'm not 'incensed' by anything. I dislike hypocrisy and I'll call it out when I see it.
Apparently, according to you there's no but, but, but... you brought the tories into a thread about Jess Phillips. That's but, but, but, of course you'll disagree because that's what you do but it's clear to see.
I honestly can't be arsed to go find your over-exaggerations but the other members here will know what I'm talking about.
Additionally, you continually try to downplay the 'severity' of Labour 'infractions', that's clear to see on this thread. I'd call that 'defending' Labour.
"You seem unable to address the actual point. Are some infractions more serious than others? It doesn't downplay anything. It just provides perspective. You seem unable to calibrate your outrage. You're claiming that that filing a payment late is "sleazy" but unable to explain how. You can "call that" whatever you like. I call what you're doing not being able to answer simple, straightforward questions because the answers make the "sleazy" offence sound a bit mundane. | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better. You noted bad Tories on this thread just as you did on the Abbott one. Always one to shout that the Tories are undoubtedly worse, whilst that may be true, how about keeping that to threads about Tory MPs. You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear. And you would wonder why people think you vote Labour?
So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both. I didn't post a thread about Bridgen but replied to one about Abbott started by someone else.
I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips. Just raising a point about the severity of the alleged infraction.
Again, you seem unable to acknowledge that there are more and less serious infractions. I don't know why it's such a struggle.
Is a politician filing a payment "sleaze" or just crap admin? Interested to know what is "sleazy" about this.
What have I "over-exaggerated" about this Government's corruption and incompetence?
I still don't know why you are so keen to control what I choose to write either or why you seem to get so incensed by it.
Your problem, not mine.
First of all, I'm not 'incensed' by anything. I dislike hypocrisy and I'll call it out when I see it.
Apparently, according to you there's no but, but, but... you brought the tories into a thread about Jess Phillips. That's but, but, but, of course you'll disagree because that's what you do but it's clear to see.
I honestly can't be arsed to go find your over-exaggerations but the other members here will know what I'm talking about.
Additionally, you continually try to downplay the 'severity' of Labour 'infractions', that's clear to see on this thread. I'd call that 'defending' Labour.
You seem unable to address the actual point. Are some infractions more serious than others?
It doesn't downplay anything. It just provides perspective. You seem unable to calibrate your outrage.
You're claiming that that filing a payment late is "sleazy" but unable to explain how.
You can "call that" whatever you like. I call what you're doing not being able to answer simple, straightforward questions because the answers make the "sleazy" offence sound a bit mundane."In the second paragraph you say you are not downplaying Labour behaviour, yet in the final paragraph you resort again to downplaying Phillips' conduct. Where are you on the latest outbreak of Leftist antisemitism at your favourite rag the Guardian? I guess it's just this week's isolated incident of Jew hatred and we should all move on. | |||
" You seem unable to address the actual point. Are some infractions more serious than others? It doesn't downplay anything. It just provides perspective. You seem unable to calibrate your outrage. You're claiming that that filing a payment late is "sleazy" but unable to explain how. You can "call that" whatever you like. I call what you're doing not being able to answer simple, straightforward questions because the answers make the "sleazy" offence sound a bit mundane." I'm not sure why you feel I'm unable to address the 'actual point'. The actual point of this thread is Jess Phillips and her inability to lodge interests. Of course some 'infractions' are more serious than others, that's not in dispute. You keep deflecting and downplaying, it's what you do best. | |||
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65402128 | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better. You noted bad Tories on this thread just as you did on the Abbott one. Always one to shout that the Tories are undoubtedly worse, whilst that may be true, how about keeping that to threads about Tory MPs. You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear. And you would wonder why people think you vote Labour?
So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both. I didn't post a thread about Bridgen but replied to one about Abbott started by someone else.
I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips. Just raising a point about the severity of the alleged infraction.
Again, you seem unable to acknowledge that there are more and less serious infractions. I don't know why it's such a struggle.
Is a politician filing a payment "sleaze" or just crap admin? Interested to know what is "sleazy" about this.
What have I "over-exaggerated" about this Government's corruption and incompetence?
I still don't know why you are so keen to control what I choose to write either or why you seem to get so incensed by it.
Your problem, not mine.
First of all, I'm not 'incensed' by anything. I dislike hypocrisy and I'll call it out when I see it.
Apparently, according to you there's no but, but, but... you brought the tories into a thread about Jess Phillips. That's but, but, but, of course you'll disagree because that's what you do but it's clear to see.
I honestly can't be arsed to go find your over-exaggerations but the other members here will know what I'm talking about.
Additionally, you continually try to downplay the 'severity' of Labour 'infractions', that's clear to see on this thread. I'd call that 'defending' Labour.
You seem unable to address the actual point. Are some infractions more serious than others?
It doesn't downplay anything. It just provides perspective. You seem unable to calibrate your outrage.
You're claiming that that filing a payment late is "sleazy" but unable to explain how.
You can "call that" whatever you like. I call what you're doing not being able to answer simple, straightforward questions because the answers make the "sleazy" offence sound a bit mundane.
In the second paragraph you say you are not downplaying Labour behaviour, yet in the final paragraph you resort again to downplaying Phillips' conduct.
Where are you on the latest outbreak of Leftist antisemitism at your favourite rag the Guardian? I guess it's just this week's isolated incident of Jew hatred and we should all move on."It is telling that you are obsessed by how I am writing in this thread. What's the difference between "downplaying" and "context"? Are you able to say how serious this allegation is? It's already been posted: "Sky News understands it relates to speculation over an appearance the shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding made on TV where guests would usually be paid. However, she waived the fee - meaning there was nothing to be declared." https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-jess-phillips-under-investigation-by-standards-commissioner-12867011 Amusing assumptions about my choice of reading, but why would you think beyond your prejudices about anyone who criticises the Tory party? Can you move on from that? Unlikely, I'm guessing | |||
" You seem unable to address the actual point. Are some infractions more serious than others? It doesn't downplay anything. It just provides perspective. You seem unable to calibrate your outrage. You're claiming that that filing a payment late is "sleazy" but unable to explain how. You can "call that" whatever you like. I call what you're doing not being able to answer simple, straightforward questions because the answers make the "sleazy" offence sound a bit mundane. I'm not sure why you feel I'm unable to address the 'actual point'. The actual point of this thread is Jess Phillips and her inability to lodge interests. Of course some 'infractions' are more serious than others, that's not in dispute. You keep deflecting and downplaying, it's what you do best. " I've stated my position on this several times. If what she has done is serious or not is also absolutely pertinent to the thread. "Sky News understands it relates to speculation over an appearance the shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding made on TV where guests would usually be paid. However, she waived the fee - meaning there was nothing to be declared." https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-jess-phillips-under-investigation-by-standards-commissioner-12867011 Can you explain how that might be "sleazy" if that is what happened? Even if she filed an interest after 28 days bit still filed it, how serious matter is that? You seem unable to say. How is discussing the actual matter under investigation "deflecting"? What is it you want to discuss other than what happened and how serious it is? All you are obsessively trying to do is make a point about me. I'm sure that you will try again as you have nothing to add to the discussion on the topic except perhaps "but, but LABOUR"?  | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better. You noted bad Tories on this thread just as you did on the Abbott one. Always one to shout that the Tories are undoubtedly worse, whilst that may be true, how about keeping that to threads about Tory MPs. You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear. And you would wonder why people think you vote Labour?
So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both. I didn't post a thread about Bridgen but replied to one about Abbott started by someone else.
I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips. Just raising a point about the severity of the alleged infraction.
Again, you seem unable to acknowledge that there are more and less serious infractions. I don't know why it's such a struggle.
Is a politician filing a payment "sleaze" or just crap admin? Interested to know what is "sleazy" about this.
What have I "over-exaggerated" about this Government's corruption and incompetence?
I still don't know why you are so keen to control what I choose to write either or why you seem to get so incensed by it.
Your problem, not mine.
First of all, I'm not 'incensed' by anything. I dislike hypocrisy and I'll call it out when I see it.
Apparently, according to you there's no but, but, but... you brought the tories into a thread about Jess Phillips. That's but, but, but, of course you'll disagree because that's what you do but it's clear to see.
I honestly can't be arsed to go find your over-exaggerations but the other members here will know what I'm talking about.
Additionally, you continually try to downplay the 'severity' of Labour 'infractions', that's clear to see on this thread. I'd call that 'defending' Labour.
You seem unable to address the actual point. Are some infractions more serious than others?
It doesn't downplay anything. It just provides perspective. You seem unable to calibrate your outrage.
You're claiming that that filing a payment late is "sleazy" but unable to explain how.
You can "call that" whatever you like. I call what you're doing not being able to answer simple, straightforward questions because the answers make the "sleazy" offence sound a bit mundane.
In the second paragraph you say you are not downplaying Labour behaviour, yet in the final paragraph you resort again to downplaying Phillips' conduct.
Where are you on the latest outbreak of Leftist antisemitism at your favourite rag the Guardian? I guess it's just this week's isolated incident of Jew hatred and we should all move on."I,'ve not seen the cartoon in the guardian but have read the description which does not sound good at all. It is very surprising coming hot on the heels of Diane Abbott's letter and the controversy that caused. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Late declaration rather than no declaration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65402128.amp Perhaps a story, perhaps a non-story. Hmm...apologist for Abbott, apologist for Phillips. Seems to be some sort of pattern developing here..... What apology? She broke a rule and should have an appropriate punishment. How serious is a late filing compared to not filing at all or deliberately concealing an interest? It's perfectly possible to calibrate how serious a breach it is. You can work out if fraud is worse than murder, so I'm sure you can also calibrate your outrage on this matter. But, but, but.... TORIES In your head, perhaps. I haven't been particularly concerned about the number of late filing incidents from the Tories either. There are many more genuine matters of corruption. Andrew Bridgen was chucked out of the party for comparing vaccination requirements to the Holocaust. That's why the Tories haven't been making more of Abbott's letter. What he said was no more antisemitic than what she wrote. It was stupid after an avalanche of stupid for both of them. He's a dickish MP who got chucked out for being a dick and she's a foolish MP chucked out (or will soon be) for being foolish. Neither were really worth the fuss. Either you think that some breaches are more serious than others or you don't. I happen to think that is the case. If you don't then you are free to interpret it however you wish. This is a thread on Jess Phillips. More but, but, but TORIES I see. What does it have to do with Bridgen or Abbott?? Not at all Tories and Labour can create equal problems. That's exactly why I noted both Bridgen and Abbott. You didn't understand that? We can discuss anything we want on a thread. Why do you need to police what I write? Tories are way ahead on corruption and incompetence at the moment. In large part because they are in power and are the ones spending the public purse. Also in part because they sacked all of their competent politicians and appear to be left with a poor quality group to choose from. We'll see if Labour is any better. You noted bad Tories on this thread just as you did on the Abbott one. Always one to shout that the Tories are undoubtedly worse, whilst that may be true, how about keeping that to threads about Tory MPs. You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear. And you would wonder why people think you vote Labour?
So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both. I didn't post a thread about Bridgen but replied to one about Abbott started by someone else.
I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips. Just raising a point about the severity of the alleged infraction.
Again, you seem unable to acknowledge that there are more and less serious infractions. I don't know why it's such a struggle.
Is a politician filing a payment "sleaze" or just crap admin? Interested to know what is "sleazy" about this.
What have I "over-exaggerated" about this Government's corruption and incompetence?
I still don't know why you are so keen to control what I choose to write either or why you seem to get so incensed by it.
Your problem, not mine.
“So there was no "but, but, but TORIES".
I covered both Conservative and Labour, because there are both”
Thread about a specific labour MP, and in your own words you introduced a Tory example, which seems very much, but, but but the tories.
‘’ I didn't defend her and I'm not defending Jess Phillips’’
Asking to consider the seriousness of the allegation and comparing it to what others have done, is very much defending her.
Quick question, how do those doing the auditing of these declarations of payments know she is late with the submission if she hasn’t submitted it?
I introduced two equally contrasting examples. One Tory, one Labour. Did I treat one worse than the other?
Does that mean it was just about Tories?
Why should I not introduce any example that I choose to? Because you or someone else tells me?
She should be punished as appropriate. How's that a defence?
She should be punished as appropriate.
Jess Phillips should be punished as appropriate.
Is that in any way clear yet?
What other words would you like me to use?
You tell me as you seem just as keen to define what I can write.
Are you able to tell me if some offences are more serious than others? Are they, or are they not?
Nobody else asked seems to be able to answer either. Is it a difficult question?
They know she is late because she made the submission more than 28 days after the date that she was supposed to have been paid or submitted an invoice. That's literally the matter under investigation. Is the simple answer not good enough?"Steady on, I'm not at all telling you what you can and can't write... I was merely pointing out where you have been challenged, correctly in my opinion your use of "what about". In terms of offences being more serious than others I would think the potential punishment for those offences would be the key indicator, do you agree? | |||
" You seem unable to address the actual point. Are some infractions more serious than others? It doesn't downplay anything. It just provides perspective. You seem unable to calibrate your outrage. You're claiming that that filing a payment late is "sleazy" but unable to explain how. You can "call that" whatever you like. I call what you're doing not being able to answer simple, straightforward questions because the answers make the "sleazy" offence sound a bit mundane. I'm not sure why you feel I'm unable to address the 'actual point'. The actual point of this thread is Jess Phillips and her inability to lodge interests. Of course some 'infractions' are more serious than others, that's not in dispute. You keep deflecting and downplaying, it's what you do best. I've stated my position on this several times. If what she has done is serious or not is also absolutely pertinent to the thread. "Sky News understands it relates to speculation over an appearance the shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding made on TV where guests would usually be paid. However, she waived the fee - meaning there was nothing to be declared." https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-jess-phillips-under-investigation-by-standards-commissioner-12867011 Can you explain how that might be "sleazy" if that is what happened? Even if she filed an interest after 28 days bit still filed it, how serious matter is that? You seem unable to say. How is discussing the actual matter under investigation "deflecting"? What is it you want to discuss other than what happened and how serious it is? All you are obsessively trying to do is make a point about me. I'm sure that you will try again as you have nothing to add to the discussion on the topic except perhaps "but, but LABOUR"? "You don't quite get it, do you? Of course I have been discussing Labour, this thread believe it or not is about Jess Phillips - a Labour MP. You're obviously welcome to continue to downplay and deflect, just as I'm welcome to call it out. I think that's probably enough on this subjectbon you wish to speak about Jess Phillips. | |||
"I have been trying to keep up with the thread but I can’t see if a question has been answered Do we know how late the declaration is? Is it like sunak where he should have declared, didn’t, but is now doing so because of the fuss! Or are we talking about like others have said an appearance fee that was not declared " I can't see timelines other than exceeded the 28 days. She appears to be a persistent offender having already been reprimanded last year after an investigation found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28 day deadline. In my opinion it starts to question whether she is incompetent, forgetful or simply blasé, which I find hard to believe being the Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding. | |||
| |||
" You seem unable to address the actual point. Are some infractions more serious than others? It doesn't downplay anything. It just provides perspective. You seem unable to calibrate your outrage. You're claiming that that filing a payment late is "sleazy" but unable to explain how. You can "call that" whatever you like. I call what you're doing not being able to answer simple, straightforward questions because the answers make the "sleazy" offence sound a bit mundane. I'm not sure why you feel I'm unable to address the 'actual point'. The actual point of this thread is Jess Phillips and her inability to lodge interests. Of course some 'infractions' are more serious than others, that's not in dispute. You keep deflecting and downplaying, it's what you do best. I've stated my position on this several times. If what she has done is serious or not is also absolutely pertinent to the thread. "Sky News understands it relates to speculation over an appearance the shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding made on TV where guests would usually be paid. However, she waived the fee - meaning there was nothing to be declared." https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-jess-phillips-under-investigation-by-standards-commissioner-12867011 Can you explain how that might be "sleazy" if that is what happened? Even if she filed an interest after 28 days bit still filed it, how serious matter is that? You seem unable to say. How is discussing the actual matter under investigation "deflecting"? What is it you want to discuss other than what happened and how serious it is? All you are obsessively trying to do is make a point about me. I'm sure that you will try again as you have nothing to add to the discussion on the topic except perhaps "but, but LABOUR"?
You don't quite get it, do you?
Of course I have been discussing Labour, this thread believe it or not is about Jess Phillips - a Labour MP.
You're obviously welcome to continue to downplay and deflect, just as I'm welcome to call it out.
I think that's probably enough on this subjectbon you wish to speak about Jess Phillips."So, just for clarity, discussing what Jess Phillips is being investigated for and how serious a matter that is , is "deflecting" from the topic of Jess Phillips being investigated for that matter? What is the topic about Jess Phillips that I am allowed to discuss then? You can define the terms as anything outside your terms seems to be unacceptable. | |||
"I have been trying to keep up with the thread but I can’t see if a question has been answered Do we know how late the declaration is? Is it like sunak where he should have declared, didn’t, but is now doing so because of the fuss! Or are we talking about like others have said an appearance fee that was not declared I can't see timelines other than exceeded the 28 days. She appears to be a persistent offender having already been reprimanded last year after an investigation found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28 day deadline. In my opinion it starts to question whether she is incompetent, forgetful or simply blasé, which I find hard to believe being the Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding." It's not her, personally, who files these I would imagine. Perhaps it is. Seems like an administrative issue more than one of intent. Not impressive. Not considered important enough? Impossible to know. That's why I questioned why a 28 day deadline when administrative life generally runs monthly. Seems to be an odd reporting cycle. Still, it's not as if MPs don't know the rules, so it's not an excuse, just interesting. | |||
| |||
"I have been trying to keep up with the thread but I can’t see if a question has been answered Do we know how late the declaration is? Is it like sunak where he should have declared, didn’t, but is now doing so because of the fuss! Or are we talking about like others have said an appearance fee that was not declared I can't see timelines other than exceeded the 28 days. She appears to be a persistent offender having already been reprimanded last year after an investigation found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28 day deadline. In my opinion it starts to question whether she is incompetent, forgetful or simply blasé, which I find hard to believe being the Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding. It's not her, personally, who files these I would imagine. Perhaps it is. Seems like an administrative issue more than one of intent. Not impressive. Not considered important enough? Impossible to know. That's why I questioned why a 28 day deadline when administrative life generally runs monthly. Seems to be an odd reporting cycle. Still, it's not as if MPs don't know the rules, so it's not an excuse, just interesting." She's probably got some zero hours numpty who should be doing the trivial stuff like adhering to ethics requirements. She needs to sack them pronto so she can get back to focusing on important stuff like workers' rights and where the next wad of extra Parliamentary cash is coming from. | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. " She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though." According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. | |||
| |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense." How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense." Jess Phillips has failed to declare on time on at least 17 occasions. Don't worry thought, it's just an admin error. | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. Jess Phillips has failed to declare on time on at least 17 occasions. Don't worry thought, it's just an admin error." This is from the investigation: She found a total of 17 out of 32 declarations had been made outside the 28-day deadline, breaching the Code of Conduct for MPs. They included a £16,572 payment from Simon and Schuster for a book that was logged 39 days late, a payment from the Independent newspaper for two columns that was 103 days late and £15,000 for presenting Have I Got News For You a day late. Separately she completely forgot to register a £1,500 payment for appearing as a guest on the show. | |||
"Does anyone know the difference between what Philips is being investigated for and "Rules on income and expenditure statements and publication of mandatory information"" Phillips is being investigated for a potential breach of paragraph 14 of the MP's Code of Conduct, which relates to the registering of interests, including payments received. The other wording is relating to appendix 2 of the Rules on All Party Parliamentary Groups. That covers both the registering of interests, and the admissibility of expenses. So, someone being investigated for a breach of the wording you quoted could have done exactly the same thing as Phillips is being investigated for, or they could be under investigation for invalid expenses. | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. Jess Phillips has failed to declare on time on at least 17 occasions. Don't worry thought, it's just an admin error. This is from the investigation: She found a total of 17 out of 32 declarations had been made outside the 28-day deadline, breaching the Code of Conduct for MPs. They included a £16,572 payment from Simon and Schuster for a book that was logged 39 days late, a payment from the Independent newspaper for two columns that was 103 days late and £15,000 for presenting Have I Got News For You a day late. Separately she completely forgot to register a £1,500 payment for appearing as a guest on the show." Late filing is late filing. Not registering at all would appear to be most serious. It does seem to indicate a pattern of terrible admin to me. What do you think? Is this "sleaze"? | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. Jess Phillips has failed to declare on time on at least 17 occasions. Don't worry thought, it's just an admin error. This is from the investigation: She found a total of 17 out of 32 declarations had been made outside the 28-day deadline, breaching the Code of Conduct for MPs. They included a £16,572 payment from Simon and Schuster for a book that was logged 39 days late, a payment from the Independent newspaper for two columns that was 103 days late and £15,000 for presenting Have I Got News For You a day late. Separately she completely forgot to register a £1,500 payment for appearing as a guest on the show. Late filing is late filing. Not registering at all would appear to be most serious. It does seem to indicate a pattern of terrible admin to me. What do you think? Is this "sleaze"?" Late filing is late filing. Persitent late filing is something else altogether. Along with non-filing. That to me is serious. She clearly doesn't think so. We have no idea whether it's 'sleaze' or not. I mean if you take the literal meaning or the word it could very well be. | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. Jess Phillips has failed to declare on time on at least 17 occasions. Don't worry thought, it's just an admin error. This is from the investigation: She found a total of 17 out of 32 declarations had been made outside the 28-day deadline, breaching the Code of Conduct for MPs. They included a £16,572 payment from Simon and Schuster for a book that was logged 39 days late, a payment from the Independent newspaper for two columns that was 103 days late and £15,000 for presenting Have I Got News For You a day late. Separately she completely forgot to register a £1,500 payment for appearing as a guest on the show. Late filing is late filing. Not registering at all would appear to be most serious. It does seem to indicate a pattern of terrible admin to me. What do you think? Is this "sleaze"? Late filing is late filing. Persitent late filing is something else altogether. Along with non-filing. That to me is serious. She clearly doesn't think so. We have no idea whether it's 'sleaze' or not. I mean if you take the literal meaning or the word it could very well be. " Why is persistent late filing "something else altogether"? Isn't it the same thing being done repeatedly? A failure of process and prioritisation. I agree that she should fix the problem and be punished as appropriate. So no particular indication of sleaze although you tried to imply that I "forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze". Something that apparently makes you feel physically ill. Over-dramatic much? Yes, that is making a point about how you choose to make your arguements in the face of your criticisms about me. That's where it takes us. Nowhere useful. | |||
"Why is persistent late filing "something else altogether"? Isn't it the same thing being done repeatedly? A failure of process and prioritisation. I agree that she should fix the problem and be punished as appropriate. So no particular indication of sleaze ..." It could be sleaze. She might have been paid £1m by a gambling company and failed to declare it. Or it could be a simple mistake and she's completely innocent. Maybe it would be better to wait until the facts come out before attempting to decide whether her offence is more, or less, sleazy than someone else's. | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. Jess Phillips has failed to declare on time on at least 17 occasions. Don't worry thought, it's just an admin error. This is from the investigation: She found a total of 17 out of 32 declarations had been made outside the 28-day deadline, breaching the Code of Conduct for MPs. They included a £16,572 payment from Simon and Schuster for a book that was logged 39 days late, a payment from the Independent newspaper for two columns that was 103 days late and £15,000 for presenting Have I Got News For You a day late. Separately she completely forgot to register a £1,500 payment for appearing as a guest on the show. Late filing is late filing. Not registering at all would appear to be most serious. It does seem to indicate a pattern of terrible admin to me. What do you think? Is this "sleaze"? Late filing is late filing. Persitent late filing is something else altogether. Along with non-filing. That to me is serious. She clearly doesn't think so. We have no idea whether it's 'sleaze' or not. I mean if you take the literal meaning or the word it could very well be. Why is persistent late filing "something else altogether"? Isn't it the same thing being done repeatedly? A failure of process and prioritisation. I agree that she should fix the problem and be punished as appropriate. So no particular indication of sleaze although you tried to imply that I "forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze". Something that apparently makes you feel physically ill. Over-dramatic much? Yes, that is making a point about how you choose to make your arguements in the face of your criticisms about me. That's where it takes us. Nowhere useful." You really ought to stop with your petulant personal attacks mate, as I said it'll give you a hernia. Let it go | |||
"Labour MP Jess Phillips is under investigation by Parliament's standards commissioner. Daniel Greenberg confirmed the probe on the commissioner's website, describing it as in relation to the "registration of interests under category one of the guide to the rules - employment and earnings". No further detail was given, but Sky News understands it relates to speculation over an appearance the shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding made on TV where guests would usually be paid. However, she waived the fee - meaning there was nothing to be declared." So it would for example bean appearance on a radio station like LBC or a tv show like peston rather than what would or could be considered a conflict of interests …. I am still confused… if she waved the fee, which could be confirmed by the programme makers as well, and there was no conflict of interest… why would she need to declare it? Are we saying her tv appearance should be a matter of public record, which it would already be because it’s happened! Honestly…. Just weird | |||
"I am still confused… if she waved the fee, which could be confirmed by the programme makers as well, and there was no conflict of interest… why would she need to declare it?" She wouldn't. All we know at the moment is that there is an investigation. Maybe someone saw her on TV, assumed there was a fee involved, and reported her when the appropriate register entry didn't appear. Even if it is just as simple as phoning up the TV company and asking if she was paid, they still have to formally declare that an investigation is taking place, and they have to make sure that they investigate thoroughly. We'll just have to wait until the details are made public before we can decide whether she's been naughty or not. | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable."" I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this" I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. Jess Phillips has failed to declare on time on at least 17 occasions. Don't worry thought, it's just an admin error. This is from the investigation: She found a total of 17 out of 32 declarations had been made outside the 28-day deadline, breaching the Code of Conduct for MPs. They included a £16,572 payment from Simon and Schuster for a book that was logged 39 days late, a payment from the Independent newspaper for two columns that was 103 days late and £15,000 for presenting Have I Got News For You a day late. Separately she completely forgot to register a £1,500 payment for appearing as a guest on the show. Late filing is late filing. Not registering at all would appear to be most serious. It does seem to indicate a pattern of terrible admin to me. What do you think? Is this "sleaze"? Late filing is late filing. Persitent late filing is something else altogether. Along with non-filing. That to me is serious. She clearly doesn't think so. We have no idea whether it's 'sleaze' or not. I mean if you take the literal meaning or the word it could very well be. Why is persistent late filing "something else altogether"? Isn't it the same thing being done repeatedly? A failure of process and prioritisation. I agree that she should fix the problem and be punished as appropriate. So no particular indication of sleaze although you tried to imply that I "forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze". Something that apparently makes you feel physically ill. Over-dramatic much? Yes, that is making a point about how you choose to make your arguements in the face of your criticisms about me. That's where it takes us. Nowhere useful. You really ought to stop with your petulant personal attacks mate, as I said it'll give you a hernia. Let it go "You wrote this. They appear to be a string of personal attacks: "You fail to see that you're not taken too seriously round here because of your whataboutery and constant need to be correct. You're forever over exaggerating Tory sleaze and downplaying Labour sleaze, its nauseating. You're not the only one but you are the one who has tried to whatabout on this thread. I know you'll come back with 'no whataboutery, blah, blah, blah'. I wouldn't bother, it's clear." What did I write to provoke this? Could you quote what I wrote that warranted this response? I can learn from it and become a better person. | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."" I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both" Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look?" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion?" The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though. | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though." Simple solution, points penalty system such as we have for driving offences. In this instance reach x amount of points and a fine is issued, I would guarantee the slack, couldn't care less attitude would disappear overnight.... | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though. Simple solution, points penalty system such as we have for driving offences. In this instance reach x amount of points and a fine is issued, I would guarantee the slack, couldn't care less attitude would disappear overnight.... " There is no indication that there is a "couldn't care less attitude" yet. It doesn't seem (so far) that there have been a succession of late filings since the previous investigation when the requirements for improvement were put in place. There may well be a graduated penalty system in place. I haven't checked. Have you? | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though. Simple solution, points penalty system such as we have for driving offences. In this instance reach x amount of points and a fine is issued, I would guarantee the slack, couldn't care less attitude would disappear overnight.... There is no indication that there is a "couldn't care less attitude" yet. It doesn't seem (so far) that there have been a succession of late filings since the previous investigation when the requirements for improvement were put in place. There may well be a graduated penalty system in place. I haven't checked. Have you?" What would you call her attitude? Interested to hear how you spin this to something meaningless after she has already been down this path once before. You seem to need to deflect labours actions and decisions a lot recently | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though." While I respect your opinion, I personally don't agree. To me someone repeating the same offence again and again is more serious than a first time offender. I also think it could be considered as not respecting the rules. Some might say if they don't respect these rules, what other rules are they disrespecting. God only knows how many rules this current government have broken, the last thing I want is more of the same but with a different rosette | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though. While I respect your opinion, I personally don't agree. To me someone repeating the same offence again and again is more serious than a first time offender. I also think it could be considered as not respecting the rules. Some might say if they don't respect these rules, what other rules are they disrespecting. God only knows how many rules this current government have broken, the last thing I want is more of the same but with a different rosette" If they had a system that didn't work so that you got a thousand accidental errors, why is that so terrible compared to one accidental error? The point being that it is unintentional. If you are then told to fix the system and ignore it, then you are a repeat offender. You are not learning or trying to change. You are being intentional. Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and mass murder, isn't it? | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though. While I respect your opinion, I personally don't agree. To me someone repeating the same offence again and again is more serious than a first time offender. I also think it could be considered as not respecting the rules. Some might say if they don't respect these rules, what other rules are they disrespecting. God only knows how many rules this current government have broken, the last thing I want is more of the same but with a different rosette If they had a system that didn't work so that you got a thousand accidental errors, why is that so terrible compared to one accidental error? The point being that it is unintentional. If you are then told to fix the system and ignore it, then you are a repeat offender. You are not learning or trying to change. You are being intentional. Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and mass murder, isn't it?" So it's the system that is the problem and nothing to do with the people that fall foul of it | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though. While I respect your opinion, I personally don't agree. To me someone repeating the same offence again and again is more serious than a first time offender. I also think it could be considered as not respecting the rules. Some might say if they don't respect these rules, what other rules are they disrespecting. God only knows how many rules this current government have broken, the last thing I want is more of the same but with a different rosette If they had a system that didn't work so that you got a thousand accidental errors, why is that so terrible compared to one accidental error? The point being that it is unintentional. If you are then told to fix the system and ignore it, then you are a repeat offender. You are not learning or trying to change. You are being intentional. Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and mass murder, isn't it? So it's the system that is the problem and nothing to do with the people that fall foul of it" Which should mean all MP's are doing the same as Phillips, but are they  | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though. While I respect your opinion, I personally don't agree. To me someone repeating the same offence again and again is more serious than a first time offender. I also think it could be considered as not respecting the rules. Some might say if they don't respect these rules, what other rules are they disrespecting. God only knows how many rules this current government have broken, the last thing I want is more of the same but with a different rosette If they had a system that didn't work so that you got a thousand accidental errors, why is that so terrible compared to one accidental error? The point being that it is unintentional. If you are then told to fix the system and ignore it, then you are a repeat offender. You are not learning or trying to change. You are being intentional. Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and mass murder, isn't it? So it's the system that is the problem and nothing to do with the people that fall foul of it" No. Her systems and processes are crap. She needs to fix it. | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though. While I respect your opinion, I personally don't agree. To me someone repeating the same offence again and again is more serious than a first time offender. I also think it could be considered as not respecting the rules. Some might say if they don't respect these rules, what other rules are they disrespecting. God only knows how many rules this current government have broken, the last thing I want is more of the same but with a different rosette If they had a system that didn't work so that you got a thousand accidental errors, why is that so terrible compared to one accidental error? The point being that it is unintentional. If you are then told to fix the system and ignore it, then you are a repeat offender. You are not learning or trying to change. You are being intentional. Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and mass murder, isn't it? So it's the system that is the problem and nothing to do with the people that fall foul of it Which should mean all MP's are doing the same as Phillips, but are they "They do their own things. Some, clearly, more competently than others. | |||
" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion?" This is where I want to jump back in…. Because that is way too simplistic… this is basically comparing someone who has nicked a pen to a bank robber because in theory they are both theft! Or someone doing 32 in a 30mph zone to someone doing 120mph on a motorway because they are both speeding! And because in theory they are the same they should be punished equally… I get the principle behind declaring everything as it can stop what is perceived a conflict of interests or people are being in effect paid to lobby…. But the examples given in this thread so far are a book deal advance, a newspaper column and a tv appearance Hate to compare again but the sunak late declaration issue was regarding something that could have been seen as a huge conflict of interests to which a change in policy has probably netted his family shed loads of money Again…. I am struggling to see the conflict of interests element in any the examples given | |||
" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? This is where I want to jump back in…. Because that is way too simplistic… this is basically comparing someone who has nicked a pen to a bank robber because in theory they are both theft! Or someone doing 32 in a 30mph zone to someone doing 120mph on a motorway because they are both speeding! And because in theory they are the same they should be punished equally… I get the principle behind declaring everything as it can stop what is perceived a conflict of interests or people are being in effect paid to lobby…. But the examples given in this thread so far are a book deal advance, a newspaper column and a tv appearance Hate to compare again but the sunak late declaration issue was regarding something that could have been seen as a huge conflict of interests to which a change in policy has probably netted his family shed loads of money Again…. I am struggling to see the conflict of interests element in any the examples given " Nicking and pen and murder?? The question posed made no such comparison. However lets use your speeding analogy. It's like getting caught speeding 17 times and still being allowed to keep your licence. | |||
" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? This is where I want to jump back in…. Because that is way too simplistic… this is basically comparing someone who has nicked a pen to a bank robber because in theory they are both theft! Or someone doing 32 in a 30mph zone to someone doing 120mph on a motorway because they are both speeding! And because in theory they are the same they should be punished equally… I get the principle behind declaring everything as it can stop what is perceived a conflict of interests or people are being in effect paid to lobby…. But the examples given in this thread so far are a book deal advance, a newspaper column and a tv appearance Hate to compare again but the sunak late declaration issue was regarding something that could have been seen as a huge conflict of interests to which a change in policy has probably netted his family shed loads of money Again…. I am struggling to see the conflict of interests element in any the examples given Nicking and pen and murder?? The question posed made no such comparison. However lets use your speeding analogy. It's like getting caught speeding 17 times and still being allowed to keep your licence. " On one trip on the same motorway? | |||
" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? This is where I want to jump back in…. Because that is way too simplistic… this is basically comparing someone who has nicked a pen to a bank robber because in theory they are both theft! Or someone doing 32 in a 30mph zone to someone doing 120mph on a motorway because they are both speeding! And because in theory they are the same they should be punished equally… I get the principle behind declaring everything as it can stop what is perceived a conflict of interests or people are being in effect paid to lobby…. But the examples given in this thread so far are a book deal advance, a newspaper column and a tv appearance Hate to compare again but the sunak late declaration issue was regarding something that could have been seen as a huge conflict of interests to which a change in policy has probably netted his family shed loads of money Again…. I am struggling to see the conflict of interests element in any the examples given Nicking and pen and murder?? The question posed made no such comparison. However lets use your speeding analogy. It's like getting caught speeding 17 times and still being allowed to keep your licence. On one trip on the same motorway?" As it happens, a friend of mine got caught twice on one trip at either ends of a motorway and got a ban. Do you think that's fair? They cited recklessness and not just a 'mistake' | |||
" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? This is where I want to jump back in…. Because that is way too simplistic… this is basically comparing someone who has nicked a pen to a bank robber because in theory they are both theft! Or someone doing 32 in a 30mph zone to someone doing 120mph on a motorway because they are both speeding! And because in theory they are the same they should be punished equally… I get the principle behind declaring everything as it can stop what is perceived a conflict of interests or people are being in effect paid to lobby…. But the examples given in this thread so far are a book deal advance, a newspaper column and a tv appearance Hate to compare again but the sunak late declaration issue was regarding something that could have been seen as a huge conflict of interests to which a change in policy has probably netted his family shed loads of money Again…. I am struggling to see the conflict of interests element in any the examples given Nicking and pen and murder?? The question posed made no such comparison. However lets use your speeding analogy. It's like getting caught speeding 17 times and still being allowed to keep your licence. On one trip on the same motorway? As it happens, a friend of mine got caught twice on one trip at either ends of a motorway and got a ban. Do you think that's fair? They cited recklessness and not just a 'mistake'"  | |||
" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? This is where I want to jump back in…. Because that is way too simplistic… this is basically comparing someone who has nicked a pen to a bank robber because in theory they are both theft! Or someone doing 32 in a 30mph zone to someone doing 120mph on a motorway because they are both speeding! And because in theory they are the same they should be punished equally… I get the principle behind declaring everything as it can stop what is perceived a conflict of interests or people are being in effect paid to lobby…. But the examples given in this thread so far are a book deal advance, a newspaper column and a tv appearance Hate to compare again but the sunak late declaration issue was regarding something that could have been seen as a huge conflict of interests to which a change in policy has probably netted his family shed loads of money Again…. I am struggling to see the conflict of interests element in any the examples given " I think you have misunderstood the question as I was not comparing different offences at all. A bit further back I was asking if breaking a rule multiple times is worse than breaking the same rule once. Sunak is not involved in my question at all | |||
" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? This is where I want to jump back in…. Because that is way too simplistic… this is basically comparing someone who has nicked a pen to a bank robber because in theory they are both theft! Or someone doing 32 in a 30mph zone to someone doing 120mph on a motorway because they are both speeding! And because in theory they are the same they should be punished equally… I get the principle behind declaring everything as it can stop what is perceived a conflict of interests or people are being in effect paid to lobby…. But the examples given in this thread so far are a book deal advance, a newspaper column and a tv appearance Hate to compare again but the sunak late declaration issue was regarding something that could have been seen as a huge conflict of interests to which a change in policy has probably netted his family shed loads of money Again…. I am struggling to see the conflict of interests element in any the examples given Nicking and pen and murder?? The question posed made no such comparison. However lets use your speeding analogy. It's like getting caught speeding 17 times and still being allowed to keep your licence. On one trip on the same motorway? As it happens, a friend of mine got caught twice on one trip at either ends of a motorway and got a ban. Do you think that's fair? They cited recklessness and not just a 'mistake'" I'm simply talking about the circumstances under which the offence is repeated, not the offence itself. You are implying there is an equivalence? I don't believe that late filing of an outside interest can lead to a fatal accident. | |||
" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? This is where I want to jump back in…. Because that is way too simplistic… this is basically comparing someone who has nicked a pen to a bank robber because in theory they are both theft! Or someone doing 32 in a 30mph zone to someone doing 120mph on a motorway because they are both speeding! And because in theory they are the same they should be punished equally… I get the principle behind declaring everything as it can stop what is perceived a conflict of interests or people are being in effect paid to lobby…. But the examples given in this thread so far are a book deal advance, a newspaper column and a tv appearance Hate to compare again but the sunak late declaration issue was regarding something that could have been seen as a huge conflict of interests to which a change in policy has probably netted his family shed loads of money Again…. I am struggling to see the conflict of interests element in any the examples given Nicking and pen and murder?? The question posed made no such comparison. However lets use your speeding analogy. It's like getting caught speeding 17 times and still being allowed to keep your licence. On one trip on the same motorway? As it happens, a friend of mine got caught twice on one trip at either ends of a motorway and got a ban. Do you think that's fair? They cited recklessness and not just a 'mistake' I'm simply talking about the circumstances under which the offence is repeated, not the offence itself. You are implying there is an equivalence? I don't believe that late filing of an outside interest can lead to a fatal accident." I should've known more questions would've come, I answered your question quite simply. Yes, on the same motorway on the same trip. Jess Phillips either doesn't understand a very simple rule or doesn't care for the rule. In either case, that makes me question her ability to do her job to a good enough standard. | |||
| |||
"Perhaps this is a good point to remind everyone that we don't know if Jess Phillips has actually failed to make a declaration or not in this year. All we know is that there's some sort of investigation going on. She might be completely innocent." She may well be found innocent in this particular investigation. I thunk we've moved o to the wider issue of Jess and her declarations, of which we do know. | |||
" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? This is where I want to jump back in…. Because that is way too simplistic… this is basically comparing someone who has nicked a pen to a bank robber because in theory they are both theft! Or someone doing 32 in a 30mph zone to someone doing 120mph on a motorway because they are both speeding! And because in theory they are the same they should be punished equally… I get the principle behind declaring everything as it can stop what is perceived a conflict of interests or people are being in effect paid to lobby…. But the examples given in this thread so far are a book deal advance, a newspaper column and a tv appearance Hate to compare again but the sunak late declaration issue was regarding something that could have been seen as a huge conflict of interests to which a change in policy has probably netted his family shed loads of money Again…. I am struggling to see the conflict of interests element in any the examples given Nicking and pen and murder?? The question posed made no such comparison. However lets use your speeding analogy. It's like getting caught speeding 17 times and still being allowed to keep your licence. On one trip on the same motorway? As it happens, a friend of mine got caught twice on one trip at either ends of a motorway and got a ban. Do you think that's fair? They cited recklessness and not just a 'mistake' I'm simply talking about the circumstances under which the offence is repeated, not the offence itself. You are implying there is an equivalence? I don't believe that late filing of an outside interest can lead to a fatal accident. I should've known more questions would've come, I answered your question quite simply. Yes, on the same motorway on the same trip. Jess Phillips either doesn't understand a very simple rule or doesn't care for the rule. In either case, that makes me question her ability to do her job to a good enough standard. " Deliberately missing the point. Understood. Same offence happening multiple times in a single event. Are you really unable to understand the difference between a incorrect process creating multiple identical errors and deliberately choosing to repeat a problem? If you fix a poor process the error doesn't happen again, bit the problem was the process being wrong. I don't think that you want to understand, but worth restating once more. I have stated multiple times that she or her team appear to have made a systematic administrative error on one topic. There was no action taken after the investigation other than asking for the process to be fixed. That does not really bring into question her ability to do anything else at all. Quite a stretch to think that. The current investigation may not be a problem at all. We don't know yet, do we? | |||
" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? This is where I want to jump back in…. Because that is way too simplistic… this is basically comparing someone who has nicked a pen to a bank robber because in theory they are both theft! Or someone doing 32 in a 30mph zone to someone doing 120mph on a motorway because they are both speeding! And because in theory they are the same they should be punished equally… I get the principle behind declaring everything as it can stop what is perceived a conflict of interests or people are being in effect paid to lobby…. But the examples given in this thread so far are a book deal advance, a newspaper column and a tv appearance Hate to compare again but the sunak late declaration issue was regarding something that could have been seen as a huge conflict of interests to which a change in policy has probably netted his family shed loads of money Again…. I am struggling to see the conflict of interests element in any the examples given Nicking and pen and murder?? The question posed made no such comparison. However lets use your speeding analogy. It's like getting caught speeding 17 times and still being allowed to keep your licence. On one trip on the same motorway? As it happens, a friend of mine got caught twice on one trip at either ends of a motorway and got a ban. Do you think that's fair? They cited recklessness and not just a 'mistake' I'm simply talking about the circumstances under which the offence is repeated, not the offence itself. You are implying there is an equivalence? I don't believe that late filing of an outside interest can lead to a fatal accident. I should've known more questions would've come, I answered your question quite simply. Yes, on the same motorway on the same trip. Jess Phillips either doesn't understand a very simple rule or doesn't care for the rule. In either case, that makes me question her ability to do her job to a good enough standard. Deliberately missing the point. Understood. Same offence happening multiple times in a single event. Are you really unable to understand the difference between a incorrect process creating multiple identical errors and deliberately choosing to repeat a problem? If you fix a poor process the error doesn't happen again, bit the problem was the process being wrong. I don't think that you want to understand, but worth restating once more. I have stated multiple times that she or her team appear to have made a systematic administrative error on one topic. There was no action taken after the investigation other than asking for the process to be fixed. That does not really bring into question her ability to do anything else at all. Quite a stretch to think that. The current investigation may not be a problem at all. We don't know yet, do we?" You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I'm of the opinion that if she can't or won't follow a simple rule then I question her ability. | |||
" The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? This is where I want to jump back in…. Because that is way too simplistic… this is basically comparing someone who has nicked a pen to a bank robber because in theory they are both theft! Or someone doing 32 in a 30mph zone to someone doing 120mph on a motorway because they are both speeding! And because in theory they are the same they should be punished equally… I get the principle behind declaring everything as it can stop what is perceived a conflict of interests or people are being in effect paid to lobby…. But the examples given in this thread so far are a book deal advance, a newspaper column and a tv appearance Hate to compare again but the sunak late declaration issue was regarding something that could have been seen as a huge conflict of interests to which a change in policy has probably netted his family shed loads of money Again…. I am struggling to see the conflict of interests element in any the examples given Nicking and pen and murder?? The question posed made no such comparison. However lets use your speeding analogy. It's like getting caught speeding 17 times and still being allowed to keep your licence. On one trip on the same motorway? As it happens, a friend of mine got caught twice on one trip at either ends of a motorway and got a ban. Do you think that's fair? They cited recklessness and not just a 'mistake' I'm simply talking about the circumstances under which the offence is repeated, not the offence itself. You are implying there is an equivalence? I don't believe that late filing of an outside interest can lead to a fatal accident. I should've known more questions would've come, I answered your question quite simply. Yes, on the same motorway on the same trip. Jess Phillips either doesn't understand a very simple rule or doesn't care for the rule. In either case, that makes me question her ability to do her job to a good enough standard. Deliberately missing the point. Understood. Same offence happening multiple times in a single event. Are you really unable to understand the difference between a incorrect process creating multiple identical errors and deliberately choosing to repeat a problem? If you fix a poor process the error doesn't happen again, bit the problem was the process being wrong. I don't think that you want to understand, but worth restating once more. I have stated multiple times that she or her team appear to have made a systematic administrative error on one topic. There was no action taken after the investigation other than asking for the process to be fixed. That does not really bring into question her ability to do anything else at all. Quite a stretch to think that. The current investigation may not be a problem at all. We don't know yet, do we? You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I'm of the opinion that if she can't or won't follow a simple rule then I question her ability." An example: Your factory makes metal parts. You programme the machine to make a certain shape. It creates 100 metal parts that are the wrong shape. Have you made one mistake in programming the machine incorrectly or have you made 100 mistakes? | |||
"An example: Your factory makes metal parts. You programme the machine to make a certain shape. It creates 100 metal parts that are the wrong shape. Have you made one mistake in programming the machine incorrectly or have you made 100 mistakes?" Another example: You programmed your machine incorrectly last year. You were found out, you got reprimanded for it, and you said sorry. How long will your work colleagues continue discussing it, as if it was still a current issue. | |||
| |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though. While I respect your opinion, I personally don't agree. To me someone repeating the same offence again and again is more serious than a first time offender. I also think it could be considered as not respecting the rules. Some might say if they don't respect these rules, what other rules are they disrespecting. God only knows how many rules this current government have broken, the last thing I want is more of the same but with a different rosette If they had a system that didn't work so that you got a thousand accidental errors, why is that so terrible compared to one accidental error? The point being that it is unintentional. If you are then told to fix the system and ignore it, then you are a repeat offender. You are not learning or trying to change. You are being intentional. Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and mass murder, isn't it? So it's the system that is the problem and nothing to do with the people that fall foul of it No. Her systems and processes are crap. She needs to fix it." When you say her system, does that mean it's not a universal system used by all MP's? If it's universal then I would expect all MP's involved to have problems. If it's her system then she is again accountable for that | |||
"When I mentioned the bank robber example I never mentioned murder at all… that is what they are inferring! What I said is that by treating them all equally you are equating someone nicking a pen to a bank robber because they are both in theory theft! But you are not making any allowance for the gravity or seriousness of the event … even our laws and the House of Commons standards committee do that! Does 1 big offence equal loads of little ones? Again… I’m not worried about a book advance, a newspaper column and a television appearance… maybe some are… " Again that's not what was said. I said two identical offences but one person does it once while the other person does it multiple times. If we use your nicking a pen example then it's one person nicks a pen once while the other person nicks a pen on many occasions. The nature of the offense is the same but one is singular while the other is a repeat offender. | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though. While I respect your opinion, I personally don't agree. To me someone repeating the same offence again and again is more serious than a first time offender. I also think it could be considered as not respecting the rules. Some might say if they don't respect these rules, what other rules are they disrespecting. God only knows how many rules this current government have broken, the last thing I want is more of the same but with a different rosette If they had a system that didn't work so that you got a thousand accidental errors, why is that so terrible compared to one accidental error? The point being that it is unintentional. If you are then told to fix the system and ignore it, then you are a repeat offender. You are not learning or trying to change. You are being intentional. Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and mass murder, isn't it? So it's the system that is the problem and nothing to do with the people that fall foul of it No. Her systems and processes are crap. She needs to fix it. When you say her system, does that mean it's not a universal system used by all MP's? If it's universal then I would expect all MP's involved to have problems. If it's her system then she is again accountable for that" As far as I am aware there is no universal system. The requirement is to make the declaration within 28 days. There are no rules about how you achieve it. Are you disagreeing with what I wrote? "Her systems and processes are crap. She needs to fix it." | |||
"Surely an MP not declaring second incomes within 28 days shows a lack of respect for the rules of the government that they serve? If they disrespect these rules then what else are they disrespecting and not complying with? Regardless of political party, I believe that compliance to the rules shows integrity. She doesn't serve the Government, but certainly the rules her position as an MP should be taken seriously. It does demonstrate some lack of administrative competence if repeated. Disrespect implies a deliberate act. Is it deliberate? Your last point is absolutely correct though. According to others on here this is not the first time it has happened. Does that make it worse than the first offense. How serious is the offence considered by the Committee on Standards or the general public? My view is that it demonstrates poor admin, not intent to deceive. You could certainly say that reflects badly in her ability to manage staff and priorities. There is a "rectification" process that she was supposed to follow after the last referral. I cannot be bothered to read it, I'm afraid. I don't know what this involves or implies from an "official" perspective except it is short of an actual reprimand or punishment. "(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner— (a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and (b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable." I'm not sure of the level of severity for what she has done but my question is does it make it worse that she is a repeat offender or not. From what I now read from other posters is that she has done this 17 times before and some times it seems to have been way over even the 35 days you put forward as an improvement to the system. My opinion is it is worse as she even cannot register things on time repeatedly or her staff can't register things on time and she cannot manage them to do so. It may well be more clerical problems that she is incapable of solving than a sinister deception but it does not look good either way. As she is likely to be part of the next government I was hoping for better than this I have already agreed that even this lack of administrative capability or prioritisation does not look good. However, lots of people are excellent at some things and awful at others. "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I am aware that you have agreed it does not look good and I did not question that. My question was does it make it worse that she has done this multiple times (17 apparently) or not?. If she is awful at admin herself that's fair enough though I personally would have thought 17 breaches of the rules would have focused her a bit more. If she put it in the hands of her team and they are also are bad at admin then I question her judgment on that especially as the problem keeps arising. Is she bad at admin or bad at managing or both Those are questions to which there is not much of an answer, except that the original response was essentially administrative. The implication is that is where the problem lies. I guess it might be possible to dig out the findings if you have a look? The question was do you think it makes it worse that she has done this multiple times or not? To put it another way on a severity level you mentioned earlier: MP A gets caught declaring late for the first time. MP B gets caught for declaring late for the 17th time. Which is more severe in your opinion? The original investigation was for multiple "offences" and seems to effectively be saying "sort your admin out", so clearly wasn't viewed that seriously under the rules. In my opinion I don't really think it's any more severe if repeated under the process that was investigated. So the minor administrative offence, however frequent just is not a big deal. The financial interest is not being concealed, just filed late. The difference between filing your taxes late and tax evasion for instance. It was done multiple times under the original (clearly non-functional) process and if that process is fixed and there is no further repetition, then it's fine. However, having been told to sort your admin out, if you repeat the failure then it is more serious because you've now not done what you were asked to do and fix your process. I would imagine that this would be viewed more seriously even though the root issue is still a minor one. I don't know what the actual rules are around this though. While I respect your opinion, I personally don't agree. To me someone repeating the same offence again and again is more serious than a first time offender. I also think it could be considered as not respecting the rules. Some might say if they don't respect these rules, what other rules are they disrespecting. God only knows how many rules this current government have broken, the last thing I want is more of the same but with a different rosette If they had a system that didn't work so that you got a thousand accidental errors, why is that so terrible compared to one accidental error? The point being that it is unintentional. If you are then told to fix the system and ignore it, then you are a repeat offender. You are not learning or trying to change. You are being intentional. Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and mass murder, isn't it? So it's the system that is the problem and nothing to do with the people that fall foul of it No. Her systems and processes are crap. She needs to fix it. When you say her system, does that mean it's not a universal system used by all MP's? If it's universal then I would expect all MP's involved to have problems. If it's her system then she is again accountable for that As far as I am aware there is no universal system. The requirement is to make the declaration within 28 days. There are no rules about how you achieve it. Are you disagreeing with what I wrote? "Her systems and processes are crap. She needs to fix it."" I was exploring possible reasons why she might not be responsible for all these late submissions. If it was a universal system that she had to use then that would look better. However it seems that is not the case | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons." Meh… A privileged white girl who doesn’t think the rules should apply to her. Pretty much standard. | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Meh… A privileged white girl who doesn’t think the rules should apply to her. Pretty much standard." You’re on a mission! | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Meh… A privileged white girl who doesn’t think the rules should apply to her. Pretty much standard. You’re on a mission!" | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Meh… A privileged white girl who doesn’t think the rules should apply to her. Pretty much standard. You’re on a mission! "UNLOS, such a shame  | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Meh… A privileged white girl who doesn’t think the rules should apply to her. Pretty much standard. You’re on a mission!
UNLOS, such a shame "That whole “episode” has been plain weird!!! | |||
"I often draw attention to suspicious behaviour of Govt ministers and conflicts of interest. This has from time-to-time seen me accused of being a “leftie” which is laughable as I am actually a centrist. The reason I have called out corruption (suspected or real) related to Govt ministers is two fold: They are in govt/part of executive so I hold them to slightly higher standards and there has just been so many incidences! However, with a view to balance I saw this today... +++++ The parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into shadow minister Jess Phillips’ declaration of interests. The Standards Commissioner opened a probe on April 24 over an alleged breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. The allegation relates to paragraph 14 of the code, which concerns the registration of financial interests. Ms Phillips was reprimanded last year after an investigation by the watchdog found she had failed to register a number of outside earnings within the 28-day deadline set by the Commons. Meh… A privileged white girl who doesn’t think the rules should apply to her. Pretty much standard. You’re on a mission!
UNLOS, such a shame
That whole “episode” has been plain weird!!!"Indeed, another one (oddball) bites the dust | |||
