All have lied, twisted, 'spun',
And all that happens is that Good 'ole Tone banishes them to the proverbial bedroom without tea, and hey presto they get back in to Government like nothing has happened.
Ok, i know Campbell isn't Govt as such, but he feathered his nest whilst in the seat of power, got himself a nice tour of the Far East with a rugby team.
Now i'm not niave enough to believe this sort of thing never ever happened before but hold on a second,

Bliar said when first elected 'no more sleaze'
Put your money where your mouth is Tony
AND Bug*er off
Do the decent thing and leave, oh and take that thick sweaty-sock financier with you too, lets get an Englishman in charge for a spell, shall we?
Sorry to interrupt a class rant Dartspud, but where did Byers lie. I say this, only because the Government appeared to win today QED , Byers doesn't tell porkies?

And could you perhaps list examples of where the Politicians you have named have lied and cheated , with sources?

Simply to cover our Arrse you understand :D


Well Blunkett certainly did over his baby and his "help" with visas. He also got a great cut off payment and then fcuk me, whooops, here he is again!
Campbell - opens his mouth and no truth comes out. Deserves putting up against a wall - any time of day, with no last ciggie!
The other two - Mandy's a total cnut and another one that keeps coming back - Tone certainly loves his boys (bit like Mandy too really!) and Buyers I think, like all good govt. employees has managed to wriggle out of the charge.
Case closed!

Oh, edited to add this from the Torygraph:

"Stephen Byers's explanation for his lie to MPs on the transport select committee was little short of "gibberish" a High Court judge
said yesterday


Kit Reviewer

The Telegraph said:
I did lie over Railtrack but can't remember why, says Byers
By Alistair Osborne, Associate City Editor
(Filed: 15/07/2005)

Stephen Byers, the former transport secretary, admitted yesterday that he had lied to MPs.

Under cross-examination in the High Court from Keith Rowley, QC, Mr Byers conceded that he gave an untrue answer to the transport select committee five weeks after he put Railtrack into administration in October 2001.

Mr Byers said answers could be given ‘in a way which would allow the question to move on to other issues’

On Nov 14, Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, asked Mr Byers: "Was there any discussion, theoretical or otherwise, in your department before July 25 [when Mr Byers met Railtrack's then chairman John Robinson] about the possibility of a future change in status for Railtrack, whether nationalisation, the move into a company limited by guarantee, or whatever?"

Mr Byers had replied: "Not that I am aware of."

Mr Rowley said "that answer was untrue, was it not?"

Looking uncomfortable, Mr Byers replied: "It's true to say there was work going on. So, yes, that was untrue."

Mr Rowley cited seven documented instances of such work, including a meeting with the Prime Minister.

"Amidst that welter of documentation you could not possibly have believed that the answer you gave to Mr Grayling was true, could you?" Mr Rowley said.

"I accept this is not an accurate statement," Mr Byers said.

"It was deliberately not an accurate statement," said Mr Rowley, who is bringing the case for 49,000 Railtrack shareholders alleging that Mr Byers abused his powers when he put the company into administration.

Mr Byers paused and said: "It was such a long time ago, I can't remember. But it is not a truthful statement and I apologise for that. I cannot remember the motives behind it."

Mr Rowley countered: "Let me suggest a motive. You didn't want the sub-committee to know that options for Railtrack, including renationalisation and other changes to its structure, was something you had asked your officials to examine within three days of your taking office. That's why you made that untrue statement."

"I'm sure that wasn't the reason," said Mr Byers, who became Transport Secretary on June 8. "There is no other possible reason," Mr Rowley replied. "There are other reasons but they are none of them acceptable, I would accept that," Mr Byers said.

Mr Rowley said: "You knew that if you told the truth there would be further investigations and further questions about your conduct and the truth would have been that you had planned from July that, if you could achieve it, you would put Railtrack into administration."

Mr Byers intervened, saying: "That was not the case."

Mr Rowley continued: "You saw the political benefits of reversing a loathed privatisation. You saw the opportunity to do it at no cost and you crowed about it afterwards. That's how you described it at the very beginning of your cross-examination - reversing a privatisation. Mr Byers, your defence is that you were acting in the public interest. You weren't."

"That is not the case," replied Mr Byers, disputing Mr Rowley's allegations that he had set out to "injure the shareholders".

The exchange prompted the Government's counsel, Jonathan Sumption, QC, to ask Mr Byers to clarify what he meant by "other reasons" for giving such an answer to the select committee, acknowledging: "I know it's difficult for you."

Mr Byers said sometimes such answers could be given "in a way which would allow the question to move on to other issues but not to conceal any conspiracy or plot". He confessed, however: "I cannot understand why I gave the reply I did."

The shareholders allege that Mr Byers used "targeted malice" to seize their company and Mr Rowley has said the former Cabinet minister's "credibility" is at the centre of the case.

Earlier Mr Rowley questioned why officials and advisers in the Transport Department, Treasury and No 10 were all under the impression by mid-September that Mr Byers favoured replacing Railtrack with a company limited by guarantee - the forerunner to Network Rail. Mr Byers maintains he only made his decision on Oct 5.

Mr Rowley quoted a memo about Railtrack from Brian Hackland, at the No 10 policy unit, on Sept 18 to the Prime Minister, saying: "Both Stephen Byers and Gordon Brown are now leaning towards a company limited by guarantee."

Mr Rowley cited similar documents, with the same date, from Bob Linnard, a senior civil servant at the Transport Department, and another from Lewis Atter, a Treasury official.

Mr Byers insisted such documents did not reflect his "state of mind". "So Mr Linnard was wrong, was he?" Mr Rowley asked. "Yes," said Mr Byers. "Dr Hackland was wrong?" Mr Rowley asked. "He was," Mr Byers said. "Mr Atter was also wrong?" Mr Rowley asked.

"Mr Atter can make whatever representations he likes to the Chancellor but he doesn't know my state of mind," Mr Byers said. "He was wrong?" Mr Rowley asked. "He was," said Mr Byers.

Edited to add picture of the guilty barstard.

The hearing continues.


Kit Reviewer

The Telegraph said:
Byers 'misled MPs' over Railtrack plea for cash
By Alistair Osborne, Associate City Editor
(Filed: 14/07/2005)

Stephen Byers, the former Transport Secretary, was accused yesterday of misleading Parliament over his account of a vital meeting leading to Railtrack's administration in October 2001.

The High Court was told that Mr Byers's witness statement asserts that a meeting on July 25 with Railtrack's then chairman John Robinson "totally changed the way in which we had to consider the future of Railtrack".

Stephen Byers faces the media outside the High Court

Keith Rowley QC, bringing the case for 49,000 Railtrack shareholders alleging that Mr Byers abused his powers, recounted the former Cabinet minister's statement to Parliament on Oct 15.

Mr Rowley said Mr Byers had explained that Mr Robinson had told him Railtrack's position "was far worse than he had thought in April" and that the company needed "extra financial assistance" from the Government.

Pointing out that Mr Robinson had not even joined the company by that April, Mr Rowley said it was "Mr Robinson's evidence that he didn't say that" and that he had not "asked for more money".

"Mr Robinson only asked for a soft letter of comfort. The statement you made to the House on Oct 15 was incorrect in that respect, wasn't it?" Mr Rowley said. "That is totally without foundation," Mr Byers replied.

Mr Rowley pointed to the manuscript note of the meeting, taken by Mr Byers's then private secretary David Hill. "You don't find any record of Mr Robinson asking for more financial assistance, do you?" Mr Rowley said.

"That was the point at which Mr Robinson asked for notes not to be taken," Mr Byers replied.

"What you told the House of Commons on Oct 15 was wrong," Mr Rowley said. Mr Byers replied: "He did ask for extra financial assistance and my statement to the House was absolutely accurate."

Mr Rowley turned to three e-mails sent by Mr Byers's then special adviser, Dan Corry, in August and September of that year, the first of which said Mr Byers was "very attracted to the idea of pushing them into administration".

Mr Byers said he was on holiday in Crete at the time and had spoken on his mobile telephone to Mr Corry who had expressed his concerns that officials in the Transport Department were trying to "close down" the option of turning Railtrack into a not-for-profit trust - the forerunner to Network Rail.

"I said to Dan Corry something like 'go in hard'. I can't recall because I was looking across the Med and I was on holiday," Mr Byers said. "I'm clear I did not say I'm very attracted to pushing them into administration."

Mr Rowley cited two further e-mails from Mr Corry the following month, saying Mr Byers preferred a "non-equity model" and another saying: "Our lawyers worry me. They need to be asking what our SOS [Secretary of State] wants not why it may be difficult. Let's keep them up to the mark."

Mr Rowley said: "You had divulged to Mr Corry that what you wanted was to push Railtrack into administration and exit by a company limited by guarantee."

"No I didn't," Mr Byers replied. "I didn't take any decision until Oct 5. Dan Corry is wrong when he says I had a preferred route in the middle of September."

"Mr Corry doesn't seem to have a very good record of accuracy," Mr Rowley said. "He got it wrong on Aug 23 and Sept 12 and 17. It's simply not plausible Mr Corry got things wrong time after time after time."

"He may have misconstrued," Mr Byers said.

Mr Rowley also asked Mr Byers to explain an account by the former rail regulator Tom Winsor of their dinner at the House of Commons on Feb 5, 2002.

Mr Winsor said Mr Byers told him it was "he, not officials, who had first had the idea of putting Railtrack into administration".

Mr Byers said he had "no recollection over what I said to Mr Winsor", though remembered he had asked officials to "give me a briefing on what Railway Administration really was".

Mr Rowley said: "On the assumption that Mr Winsor's record is accurate, there would have been no reason for you to have told him that if it was not true, would there?"

Mr Byers replied: "There may be a possibility that, over dinner, I may have been more effusive and expansive than I would have been in a more formal setting and that I elaborated more than I would otherwise have done."

Mr Rowley said: "By elaborating you mean you may have told Mr Winsor something that wasn't true?" "No", Mr Byers said.

The hearing continues.
The fact that Byers LIED (even if he can't remember why) does not have a significant bearing on the outcome of the case. That is a matter for parliament. It would have been an issue if Byers had lied on oath about lying, because that would be perjury and he would be now be touching his toes for cellmate Bubba.

Perhaps misleading statements made in Parliament by ministers should be regarded as perjury?


Kit Reviewer
MrPVRd said:
The fact that Byers LIED (even if he can't remember why)

Of course he can't remember why, after studying at the feet of the master, (pictured above,) it's just reflex now.
Agreed MrPVRd, you lie in parliment, you can get lost. We don't want liars and cheats in Parliment we want descent honest folk, striving to make Britian the best country in the world.

Not a bunch of wan*ers looking after their own interests.
Can anybody remember the last time a "class action" was successful in in the UK - yes - I do mean Gt Britain, and NI - in other words when did any group that was challenging the establishment win as a team and made the brastards change the law?
Thalidomide? Nerve agent at Porton Down? "Gulf War Syndrome"? Deafened ex-troops?
Or is it only the NI malignants (sorry - militants).
I have no sympathy with the compo-culture (whilst lusting for the sausages) however I am in despair that our Prime ****** is a demonstrable liar together with much of our elected representation.

And their leader hasn't even the backbone to get rid of them.
Does someone have something incriminating on the Fuhrer, that keeps them and their pals in jobs?
PTP are going Pinko commie on us? You certainly seem to be leaning towards the left a bit lately, honours list coming up is it?
Simply to cover our Arrse you understand
Wouldn't want anyone reaching for their high-priced silks over "slander" ,is all VerminWA.
The last time a government minister (current or ex) sued over libel, he won his case but ended up in the clink himself some years later because he committed perjury.

As the liar Byers case proves, ministers will do anything to avoid having to answer questions on oath. If Hutton and Butler had taken evidence on oath, the outcome would have been far different.
I will tell you the biggest lie this Government has got away with, and you can dig out the TV news footage to back it up.

During the final years of Major's government at every release of the Unemployment figures, a new Labour m1ngepiece would get some airtime to decry the figures as "massaged downwrds" and once in power would release the true jobless figures that were being hid from the public. Some of you may remeber this. Well EIGHT years later we have had not a single triumphant, fanfare ridden announcement from this Government about the "true" unemployment figures.

I am still waiting for this.

I have not forgotten.
Darthspud said:
Do the decent thing and leave, oh and take that thick sweaty-sock financier with you too, lets get an Englishman in charge for a spell, shall we?
What benefits would an English brain bring that its Scots, Welsh or Ulster-born equivalents couldn't?
Steven Byers is a two-faced conniving liar..and I speak as one who knows. How he had the brass neck to stand up in court and dissemble so flagrantly is a matter of sheer amazement to me. Luckily for all of us, TB doesn't like him so he shouldn't be coming back into ministerial office in a rush.
Steven Byers is a two-faced conniving liar..and I speak as one who knows. How he had the brass neck to stand up in court and dissemble so flagrantly is a matter of sheer amazement to me. Luckily for all of us, TB doesn't like him so he shouldn't be coming back into ministerial office in a rush.
LIAR Byers is playing a very dangerous game.

He has told Parliament that he did not lie, and that he made an "inadvertent error". This is contrary to his testimony in which he admitted "misleading" Parliament and could not remember why.

Perhaps he may be invited to return to the courtroom to explain this discrepancy? Whatever happens, anyone will be able to shout "LIAR" with impunity at LIAR Byers, because he will never dare to seek redress in the courts through fear of ending up like Archer or Aitken.

Byers, you are a LIAR. So sue me!
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Golf_one_one Aviation 4
DangerMouse Officers 5
Adjutant Army Pay, Claims & JPA 13

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads