Cash for honours: Labour hid millions from auditors

#2
We don't have a Government or Criminal Justice system, we have racketeers. This lot could have shown Al Capone a thing or two.

I'm not a religious man, but I pray for the day when these lying, cheating b*stards are held to account for their corruption and deceit.
 
#3
Pleeeeeeease let it be true. It would mean a right royal buggering for BLiar. :twisted:
 
#4
So, if I've got this right, Blair gets his Foreign Policy from Washington and his knowledge of accounting practises from Enron, Worldcom?

Blair must now be worried about so many things, all of which he has no control over - so, Tony, please just fcuk off out of office now, before you do any more damage to, this country, its reputation, its people and above all its armed forces.

How can one man's "leadership" be allowed to do so much damage?
 
#5
Well if true and I believe it is, as blogg says conspiracy to commit false accounting is rather a heavy charge to dodge.
 
#6
armchair_jihad said:
Well if true and I believe it is, as blogg says conspiracy to commit false accounting is rather a heavy charge to dodge.
It's not false accounting. The loan money came in after the year in question was accounted. Not to mention such a big bag of dosh is 'unconventional', but that's all, not illegal.

Unfortunately.
 
#7
Awol said:
armchair_jihad said:
Well if true and I believe it is, as blogg says conspiracy to commit false accounting is rather a heavy charge to dodge.
It's not false accounting. The loan money came in after the year in question was accounted. Not to mention such a big bag of dosh is 'unconventional', but that's all, not illegal.

Unfortunately.
Not picking a fight AWOL, but that's not what the Indie is saying. Are you basing your comment on the Indie article, another source, or were you "the bag man"!
 
#8
#9
ABrighter2006 said:
Awol said:
armchair_jihad said:
Well if true and I believe it is, as blogg says conspiracy to commit false accounting is rather a heavy charge to dodge.
It's not false accounting. The loan money came in after the year in question was accounted. Not to mention such a big bag of dosh is 'unconventional', but that's all, not illegal.

Unfortunately.
Not picking a fight AWOL, but that's not what the Indie is saying. Are you basing your comment on the Indie article, another source, or were you "the bag man"!
Either way, the rats are certainly looking to jump ship, distancing themselves from Tone. Quite amusing to read.
 
#10
ABrighter2006 said:
Awol said:
armchair_jihad said:
Well if true and I believe it is, as blogg says conspiracy to commit false accounting is rather a heavy charge to dodge.
It's not false accounting. The loan money came in after the year in question was accounted. Not to mention such a big bag of dosh is 'unconventional', but that's all, not illegal.

Unfortunately.
Not picking a fight AWOL, but that's not what the Indie is saying. Are you basing your comment on the Indie article, another source, or were you "the bag man"!
Depends how you read it Abright. Look at this..

Accountancy experts say it is "extremely unusual" for the party to make no mention in its 2004 accounts of the £12m in loans it received from Labour backers, including Sir Gulam Noon and Chai Patel, before the 2005 general election. The sum amounted to a huge increase in the party's debt and would in normal circumstances have to be mentioned, even though it happened after the end of 2004.
My bold.

I just applied a bit of healthy cynicism regarding normal journalistic sensationalism, and came to the conclusion that it is probably a non-story with the Indie just doing a bit of muck-raking using the usual tools of nuance and suggestion.

Then again, I know SFA about accounting so I am probably wrong.

(But then, us bag men always say that :) )
 
#11
If the reports are right the "loans" are shown in the 2005 accounts but not 2004.

So the question is if they should have been "disclosed" (even if not accounted for) in the 2004 accounts as a significant events because they came in before those accounts were signed by the auditors. Is that false accounting? No idea.

But if Labour pressured those who provided the dosh into giving "Loans" not "Donations" there is another issue. Loans are, well, loans.

But Donations should be treated as Income. If they should properly have been treated as Donations, then in 2005 the Labour party accounts would have shown the income from Donations ballon up from £8.9m in 2004 to £25.8m in 2005, which might have provoked some interesting questions!

The net loss for the year would then have reduced from £14.5m to £2.5m. Does that actually matter? Again no idea but it by God it looks damn odd
 
#12
Awol said:
armchair_jihad said:
Well if true and I believe it is, as blogg says conspiracy to commit false accounting is rather a heavy charge to dodge.
It's not false accounting. The loan money came in after the year in question was accounted. Not to mention such a big bag of dosh is 'unconventional', but that's all, not illegal.
Not so, it depends what the terms of the loans were and when they were agreed - if they were agreed in the year in question, which is what the Independant indicates, then that is false accounting irrespective of when the money arrived.
 
#13
Sadly, I am surrounded by accounting types (any more accountants here, would make it the MOD), and they have offered their' collective GARP view, that the numbers should have been on the books.

Fair play on the healthy cynicism, if I appear a sick, twisted, bitter opponent of Blair and his government, please excuse me, it's just the way I am!
 
#14
I really hope they can shaft the slimy shite! Maybe they'll also discover where he's stashed all his bungs.

MsG
 
#15
I am puzzled why any wealthy man or woman would want to give money. There must a reason or reasons and possibly, hopefully, we shall find out.
Still, Bliar will get his KG no doubt and we can look forward to seeing the grinning spiv wandering around Windsor dressed in all the regalia.
Worst still, there be a Lady Bliar!
 
#16
Please let him go to jail, please, please....

I know there is no chance really because, well you know why ... but ...

pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
#17
A news article from the future:

Ex-PM in record payout

April 1 2012

Disgraced former prime minister Tony Blair today won an out-of-court settlement from the Home Office following a lawsuit for human rights violations and medical negligence.

His legal team - advised by his wife, former QC and judge Cherie Booth, controversially debarred from legal practice herself - stated that the payout of £500,000 was recognition of the violation of Mr Blair's rights and a failure in the duty of care.

Mr Blair's team alleged that the Home Office were negligent in allowing his repeated sodomy night after night by up to 50 inmates at a time. Although the extra-judicial payout was hailed by his legal team it is unlikely that it will benefit Mr Blair. A spokeswoman said "Tony contracted various debilitating sexually-transmitted diseases arising from the humiliations inflicted during his five year jail term. He requires round-the-clock medical care and this sum will just about pay for a former council flat on the Asbo Estate after paying for NHS home care".
 
#18
Isquared, don't you believe it.
He isn't going to be getting a k. at all. The warrants will be arriving before.
Then of course there is the dodgy financial dealings and misuse of public funds with re gards the Dome, remember that?
Once, one of the threads of this cardi get pulled the whole cardi falls apart.
I give it 3.5 years at the outside and Blair and Bush will be facing long prison sentences for one thing or another.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top