Discussion:
Labour Party "morality" (or otherwise)
(too old to reply)
JNugent
2021-07-21 23:36:29 UTC
Permalink
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9810951/Labour-MP-Apsana-Begum-conned-council-64-000-fraudulent-housing-claims-court-hears.html>

QUOTE:
A Labour MP conned a local authority out of £64,000 in benefits by
'deliberately and dishonestly' obtaining social house, after using her
connections as a housing advisor to 'jump the queue', a court heard today.

Apsana Begum, the MP for Poplar and Limehouse in east London, claimed
she was living in 'overcrowded conditions' with her family when she was
in a four bedroomed house with three other people, jurors were told.
ENDQUOTE

I, of course, make no comment...

The case is sub-judice.

But the names "Huhne" and "Onasanya" keep springing to mind.
Pancho
2021-07-22 00:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
But the names "Huhne" and "Onasanya" keep springing to mind.
I'll raise you Elphicke, Archer and Atkin.
JNugent
2021-07-22 11:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by JNugent
But the names "Huhne" and "Onasanya" keep springing to mind.
I'll raise you Elphicke, Archer and Atkin.
Who is defending any of those?

Imagine if you were a constituent of either Huhne or Onasanya and you
were about to be banned from driving on "totting up" after being flashed
at a few mph over the motorway speed limit. Imagine the prospect of
losing your licence, your job, your home and maybe your family and
imagine writing to either of them asking for their help. The answer
would undoubtedly have been something along the lines that the law is
the law and is there to foster safety and that there was nothing they
could do to help. If you asked them to help get the law changed so that
the penalty were less harsh, you'd have been quietly laughed at after
you'd left the "surgery" office.

But of course, the penalties *were* recognised (by them) as too harsh to
apply to important people like themselves.

As I said, the present case, where a Labour MP is standing trial for
allegedly making a fraudulent application for housing and dishonestly
receiving £63,000 of other peoples' money by making false statements to
Tower Hamlets Council, is sub judice and it would be wrong to make
comment about the honesty or otherwise of the defendant.
Pancho
2021-07-22 12:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
As I said, the present case, where a Labour MP is standing trial for
allegedly making a fraudulent application for housing and dishonestly
receiving £63,000 of other peoples' money by making false statements to
Tower Hamlets Council, is sub judice and it would be wrong to make
comment about the honesty or otherwise of the defendant.
You have made a comment about her honesty twice. Claiming you haven't is
just weasel behaviour.
JNugent
2021-07-22 12:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by JNugent
As I said, the present case, where a Labour MP is standing trial for
allegedly making a fraudulent application for housing and dishonestly
receiving £63,000 of other peoples' money by making false statements
to Tower Hamlets Council, is sub judice and it would be wrong to make
comment about the honesty or otherwise of the defendant.
You have made a comment about her honesty twice. Claiming you haven't is
just weasel behaviour.
I have certainly neither commented upon nor questioned the morality and
honesty of the Labour MP who is standing trial for (allegedly)
fraudulently applying for housing and for getting other benefit(s)
costing Tower Hamlets Council (ie, the rest of us) some £63,000.

As far as I am concerned, she is as pure as the driven snow and her case
is sub judice. That is why I make no comment upon the case.

I take the view that one is innocent *unless* proven guilty (and not
*until* proven guilty, a concept which sees conviction as just a matter
of time).

All I have done is properly report on that which is being stated in the
equally-properly conducted media reports of the case.
Pamela
2021-07-28 11:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by JNugent
But the names "Huhne" and "Onasanya" keep springing to mind.
I'll raise you Elphicke, Archer and Atkin.
Who is defending any of those?
Imagine if you were a constituent of either Huhne or Onasanya and
you were about to be banned from driving on "totting up" after being
flashed at a few mph over the motorway speed limit. Imagine the
prospect of losing your licence, your job, your home and maybe your
family and imagine writing to either of them asking for their help.
The answer would undoubtedly have been something along the lines
that the law is the law and is there to foster safety and that there
was nothing they could do to help. If you asked them to help get the
law changed so that the penalty were less harsh, you'd have been
quietly laughed at after you'd left the "surgery" office.
But of course, the penalties *were* recognised (by them) as too
harsh to apply to important people like themselves.
As I said, the present case, where a Labour MP is standing trial for
allegedly making a fraudulent application for housing and
dishonestly receiving £63,000
It was £64,00 in your first post.
Post by JNugent
of other peoples' money by making
false statements to Tower Hamlets Council, is sub judice and it
would be wrong to make comment about the honesty or otherwise of the
defendant.
JNugent
2021-07-28 12:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by JNugent
But the names "Huhne" and "Onasanya" keep springing to mind.
I'll raise you Elphicke, Archer and Atkin.
Who is defending any of those?
Imagine if you were a constituent of either Huhne or Onasanya and
you were about to be banned from driving on "totting up" after being
flashed at a few mph over the motorway speed limit. Imagine the
prospect of losing your licence, your job, your home and maybe your
family and imagine writing to either of them asking for their help.
The answer would undoubtedly have been something along the lines
that the law is the law and is there to foster safety and that there
was nothing they could do to help. If you asked them to help get the
law changed so that the penalty were less harsh, you'd have been
quietly laughed at after you'd left the "surgery" office.
But of course, the penalties *were* recognised (by them) as too
harsh to apply to important people like themselves.
As I said, the present case, where a Labour MP is standing trial for
allegedly making a fraudulent application for housing and
dishonestly receiving £63,000
It was £64,00 in your first post.
Slip of the memory.

I can't offhand recall whether it is £63,000 or £64,000 that the Labour
MP has (allegedly) obtained by deception.

And it is only an allegation.

Nothing has been proved either way. Yet.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
of other peoples' money by making
false statements to Tower Hamlets Council, is sub judice and it
would be wrong to make comment about the honesty or otherwise of the
defendant.
Patrick Hearn
2021-07-31 15:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by JNugent
But the names "Huhne" and "Onasanya" keep springing to mind.
I'll raise you Elphicke, Archer and Atkin.
Who is defending any of those?
Imagine if you were a constituent of either Huhne or Onasanya and
you were about to be banned from driving on "totting up" after being
flashed at a few mph over the motorway speed limit. Imagine the
prospect of losing your licence, your job, your home and maybe your
family and imagine writing to either of them asking for their help.
The answer would undoubtedly have been something along the lines
that the law is the law and is there to foster safety and that there
was nothing they could do to help. If you asked them to help get the
law changed so that the penalty were less harsh, you'd have been
quietly laughed at after you'd left the "surgery" office.
But of course, the penalties *were* recognised (by them) as too
harsh to apply to important people like themselves.
As I said, the present case, where a Labour MP is standing trial for
allegedly making a fraudulent application for housing and
dishonestly receiving £63,000
It was £64,00 in your first post.
Slip of the memory.
I can't offhand recall whether it is £63,000 or £64,000 that the Labour
MP has (allegedly) obtained by deception.
And it is only an allegation.
Nothing has been proved either way. Yet.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
of other peoples' money by making
false statements to Tower Hamlets Council, is sub judice and it
would be wrong to make comment about the honesty or otherwise of the
defendant.
Acquitted

Patrick
JNugent
2021-07-31 16:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Hearn
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by JNugent
But the names "Huhne" and "Onasanya" keep springing to mind.
I'll raise you Elphicke, Archer and Atkin.
Who is defending any of those?
Imagine if you were a constituent of either Huhne or Onasanya and
you were about to be banned from driving on "totting up" after being
flashed at a few mph over the motorway speed limit. Imagine the
prospect of losing your licence, your job, your home and maybe your
family and imagine writing to either of them asking for their help.
The answer would undoubtedly have been something along the lines
that the law is the law and is there to foster safety and that there
was nothing they could do to help. If you asked them to help get the
law changed so that the penalty were less harsh, you'd have been
quietly laughed at after you'd left the "surgery" office.
But of course, the penalties *were* recognised (by them) as too
harsh to apply to important people like themselves.
As I said, the present case, where a Labour MP is standing trial for
allegedly making a fraudulent application for housing and
dishonestly receiving £63,000
It was £64,00 in your first post.
Slip of the memory.
I can't offhand recall whether it is £63,000 or £64,000 that the Labour
MP has (allegedly) obtained by deception.
And it is only an allegation.
Nothing has been proved either way. Yet.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
of other peoples' money by making
false statements to Tower Hamlets Council, is sub judice and it
would be wrong to make comment about the honesty or otherwise of the
defendant.
Acquitted
So I heard.
abelard
2021-07-31 18:04:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 08:49:30 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Hearn
Post by Patrick Hearn
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by JNugent
But the names "Huhne" and "Onasanya" keep springing to mind.
I'll raise you Elphicke, Archer and Atkin.
Who is defending any of those?
Imagine if you were a constituent of either Huhne or Onasanya and
you were about to be banned from driving on "totting up" after being
flashed at a few mph over the motorway speed limit. Imagine the
prospect of losing your licence, your job, your home and maybe your
family and imagine writing to either of them asking for their help.
The answer would undoubtedly have been something along the lines
that the law is the law and is there to foster safety and that there
was nothing they could do to help. If you asked them to help get the
law changed so that the penalty were less harsh, you'd have been
quietly laughed at after you'd left the "surgery" office.
But of course, the penalties *were* recognised (by them) as too
harsh to apply to important people like themselves.
As I said, the present case, where a Labour MP is standing trial for
allegedly making a fraudulent application for housing and
dishonestly receiving £63,000
It was £64,00 in your first post.
Slip of the memory.
I can't offhand recall whether it is £63,000 or £64,000 that the Labour
MP has (allegedly) obtained by deception.
And it is only an allegation.
Nothing has been proved either way. Yet.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
of other peoples' money by making
false statements to Tower Hamlets Council, is sub judice and it
would be wrong to make comment about the honesty or otherwise of the
defendant.
Acquitted
he made her do it?

Loading...