Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
TORY SLEEZE TORY SLEEZE TORY SLEEZE
Wait, I mean: hmmmm, interesting
For when this governing malarkey gets boring
write to my mp if i want things changed.......basically I do not have 40K to spend to get this done. (Im sure the 40K just made it worth AM spending some time on this case rather than actually influencing his decision)
does not necessarily equal corruption.
but in this case it looks pretty clear
that there was any impropriety (other than that it was "naive" for him to have become personally involved in the case), though.
They finally get let back into government on the slimmest of margins and yet they can't help themselves. YOU WANTEE? GIMME MONEE
I didn't realise guntrip had IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE.
he acted directly and - most importantly - beyond his remit to use his political office to alter legislation
that's a textbook definition of corruption
to make some representations to Ghana which were "entirely proper and consistent with [the government's] support for legitimate British businesses abroad."
If it was as blatantly corrupt as you say it was, do you not think the Guardian (which, let's face it, would not be likely to hold back on criticising the Tories) would have been more scathing? It's hardly cash for peerages, is it?
+ Business gives £40,000 to potential government minister's election campaign
+ Potential government minister becomes actual government minister
+ Actual government minister uses newfound powers to lobby for said business in ways that will benefit it
Democracy in action, kids.
done anything for the Unions who fund them so well. Oh, hang on...
I forgot that the Conservative Party operates in a political vacuum.
I'm not sure where anyone has suggested this.
a little white lie is still a lie
and it doesn't matter to me either what interests he was acting in or what his political stripe
his actions are a textbook definition of corruption
"illegal, bad or dishonest"? No, didn't think so.
"dishonestly using your position or power to your own advantage, especially for money"
before looking like a dumbass.
by YOUR definition Andrew Mitchell is corrupt and his actions are a textbook definition of corruption
Or did I miss it?
Of course he's dishonest.
that I don't think supporting british business is beyond DFID's remit now. Might have been under a Labour government.
I meant to write something clever like "no, but it is protectionism! I thought you hated that lol!" and it would've been really great but now I've ruined it
Regardless of this issue, Andrew Mitchell is a horrible, hypocritical tax dodger.
i am sorry