Britons turning to the extreme right in large numbers

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- You have to be very selective about the crime statistics to claim there has been no improvement.
You'd also have to be blind and deaf not to have noticed this government's various moves to try and tackle anti-social behaviour
(which no matter how many measures are introduced to ease this are, in the end, always the actual responsibility of those committing the anti-social behaviour and not the government).

Oh come on that's a BS answer, everyone knows who's responsible, the govt fails because they have introduced not one measure that's makes the perpetrator worry about the responsibility or the consequences. The reason I'm selective about it is because the kind of crimes that concern us most are the ones on the rise.

As for affordable housing?
Again they have done more than any UK government since the 1970's to bring back 'social housing'........but in a country where people are still not willing to pay higher taxes to fund greater social provision they are kind of stuck with limited options, no?

Finally the Council Tax.
No one likes paying taxes especially but this government have done more to help the most vulnerable (particularly the elderly poor).
It seems a tad unreasonable that as a people 'we' claim to want the best possible social (and local) provision and yet 'we' as a society aren't prepared to fund it properly - again something that is not ultimately the government's fault.

Since when have we heard Tone or Gordon begging us to let them raise taxes so they can build more affordable housing, hospitals, prisons. The trick may be not so much about rasing taxes but allocating them to the areas we want to see an improvement in as in the above. Even if it did mean paying more I gladly would if it meant it was going towards the right things.

It'll never be perfect but to write it all off the manifest improvements made since 1997 as a "resolute failure" or "mere lip service" is IMO unrealistic and wholly inaccurate......

Your opinion and your certainly entitled to it but with all due respect your views seem to stem more from a need to defend this govt's efforts than regard them objectively.

......and to move on from that to lay ones' expectations for improvement on that (good) record at the door of a laughably inexperienced, racist and fascist nationalist party is ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than a mainstream party who've created such a level of dissafection and frustration amongst, for the most part, a politically tolerant section of the voting public for them to even consider doing it.

its a democracy, people can vote for who they like. Thats the beautfy of the system. I wouldn't call the BNP extreme right or fascist anymore, the party is more democratic than some mainstream with its policy of wanting an English parliament. Far right, or very right wing, yes.

Sinn Fein are allowed to take part in our democracy and they have been involved with the IRA...i think they've done a lot worse than the British National Party, dont't you?

At the end of the day, i wont be voting British National Party...ill be voting Conservative, but i will certainly not be telling people how they should vote.

Originally posted by ubermunche
Oh come on that's a BS answer, everyone knows who's responsible

- Do they?

I have to admit that sometimes it seems a lot like the debate about terrorism and that the fact that the people who actually carry out the acts themselves are responsible for those acts no matter what (understandable or otherwise) context in which those acts take place.

the govt fails because they have introduced not one measure that's makes the perpetrator worry about the responsibility or the consequences.

- It's a free country, if you believe that that's up to you.......but by that yardstick all previous governments must therefore be described as failures too, right?

It might be more useful to stop thinking that everything can be deterred by the possibility of a sentence, for some that 'threat' isn't one.

The reason I'm selective about it is because the kind of crimes that concern us most are the ones on the rise.

- Or so we are told (to be so concerned).

The interesting thing about crime in the UK is that a lot of it is falling yet people do not recognise this and continue to fear it.

Since when have we heard Tone or Gordon begging us to let them raise taxes so they can build more affordable housing, hospitals, prisons. The trick may be not so much about rasing taxes but allocating them to the areas we want to see an improvement in as in the above.

- Perhaps you missed the constant undertone in the last 3 elections, not forgetting the results?

The public has a choice to vote in a party who would raise tax (slightly), despite an improved position in the results the LibDems lost heavily, again.

If you really thing the public are in the mood to pay higher taxes (as you complain about the level of council tax - a large one-off bill but relatively small when set against many people's annual tax bill) you are kidding yourself.

Even if it did mean paying more I gladly would if it meant it was going towards the right things.

- That's nice and I'll believe you.
The trouble is everybody makes that kind of claim in public but then only votes for parties that either promise to reduce taxes or not raise the tax rates.

your views seem to stem more from a need to defend this govt's efforts than regard them objectively.

- No.
It is not "a need" (?!) to "defend" anything.
It is an objective consideration of the record and results, both theirs and the historical before them.

I would suggest that being unable or ignorant of the historical context robs more than a few here of true 'objectivity' at times.

Much as I do support the Labour party and would like to see better I am well aware they have underperformed at times, but I am realistic and understand reality has a way of upsetting theory and plan.

'Events dear boy events' as MacMillan once said in that Edwardian style of his.

No more ridiculous than a mainstream party who've created such a level of dissafection and frustration amongst, for the most part, a politically tolerant section of the voting public for them to even consider doing it.

- OK that's the claim and you may think that but I'll await the results before getting carried away with this because I have to say I don't believe it myself.

There are -

Local elections 2006 - a breakdown

In total, 4,361 of the 19,579 council seats across 3,123 wards in England will be up for grabs in 176 of England's 388 councils.

This includes a third of seats on 81 district local authorities, half of the seats on seven district councils, a third of seats on 20 unitaries and 36 metropolitan district councils, and all-out elections in the 32 London borough councils. There are no elections in Scotland or Wales. Four of the 12 elected mayors also face the voters in Hackney (Lab), Lewisham (Lab), Newham (Lab) and Watford (Lib Dem).

politics.guardian.co.uk...

- so lets just see how many out of that 4,361 the BNP manage to take and what % of the 19.579 the end up holding.

==================================================================

Originally posted by infinite
its a democracy, people can vote for who they like. Thats the beautfy of the system.

- Absolutely, that's true, they can and it is.

I wouldn't call the BNP extreme right or fascist anymore, the party is more democratic than some mainstream with its policy of wanting an English parliament. Far right, or very right wing, yes.

- Well you are entitled to your opinion but I think you are utterly wrong (although the toleration they get from those who favour the tory party for them is hardly anything new......Nick Griffin's father, Edwin, was a Conservative Party official in Halesworth, who amongst other things attended NF meetings in the past.
www.s-light.demon.co.uk/presspack/bnp2.html ).

They are extreme right and fascist (even if they don't appear to be to tory supporters), they are simply pretending not to be right now because they think that type of deliberate lying concealment is a way to improve the level of their support.

As for being "more democratic" than the mainstream parties I'd like to hear why you believe this the case?

Sinn Fein are allowed to take part in our democracy and they have been involved with the IRA...i think they've done a lot worse than the British National Party, dont't you?

- What "a lot worse" have SF done?
Sinn Fein aren't the IRA, senior members may be or have been in the IRA but that does not make SF the IRA.

SF are the political wing of the IRA and they have been central to and a large part of the current political/peace process and progress......how is helping to create and sustain the peace not "a lot worse"?.

It's superficial but I don't think the comparison is valid.

An honest and logical policy of political 'freedom for all of Ireland' - whether one backs that or not - is wholly different to the illogic, deception and lies of the British nationalist, racist and fascist party.

At the end of the day, i wont be voting British National Party...ill be voting Conservative

- Nevermind, nobodies perfect.

but i will certainly not be telling people how they should vote.

- Who's doing that?

It a bit of to and fro over what is going on or what might go on and the parties involved.
Even the parties involved only ask for your vote.

I don't see anyone actually trying to tell anyone who to vote for (like as if anyone would listen to that kind of thing anyway).


[edit on 22-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

As for being "more democratic" than the mainstream parties I'd like to hear why you believe this the case?

Well, first of, policy for an English Parliament and a Federal Union for Great Britain does not ring the "fascist" bell in my ears. Secondly, you do know the party now admit jews to the party and one of their councilors is Jewish?, so the extreme neo-nazi views/elements have gone. Majority of far right parties cannot stand the BNP because they feel the BNP has gone "soft". The party openly supports the monarchy, and wish for the monarchy to maintain its postion as head of state and provide more influence over the country, yet again, not a fascist view.

Sinn Fein aren't the IRA, senior members may be or have been in the IRA but that does not make SF the IRA.

So when the ceasefire was negotiated (believe it was in early 1990s) with the head of the IRA, how come Gerry Adam's was flown in? hmmm

Nevermind, nobodies perfect

You really couldn't resist, could you

Who's doing that?

Oh, the BBC, Skynews, newspapers, etc

I think people are turning to these right wing parties for several reasons.
The UK is a small country with limited resources, with increases in the cost of living including energy and fuel cost rises and the shortage of cheap housing and huge immagration our supplies are running short.
So why give preferential treatment to people coming into the country when the needs of our own people are not being met (that's not a racist comment, I just mean the people who are already here including all colours and faiths).
And one thing I find disapointing is that some asian communitys are segregating themselves off from the rest of the community and not adapting to life in the UK. With the recent marches over cartoons I think the average "white" person is starting to feel isolated in their own country, which IMHO breeds racial tension in itself.

Originally posted by infinite
Well, first of, policy for an English Parliament

- It is the policy of the Labour party to have an English Parliament when the people of England ask for one.

Sadly they seem very reluctant to.
But it is their choice and not something this Labour government will impose upon them no matter that the party would prefer it.

a Federal Union for Great Britain

- Catchy name but what does that mean in practice?

Labour have already enabled devolution to Wale, Scotland and NI.
If England were interested in their own devolved Assembly/Parliament then we would already effectively have a 'FUGB', no?

('FUGB'......bl**dy hell don't tell me they have someone in there now with a sense of humour?!)

does not ring the "fascist" bell in my ears. Secondly, you do know the party now admit jews to the party and one of their councilors is Jewish?, so the extreme neo-nazi views/elements have gone.

- Well you can choose to believe those kind of PR movesare hugely significant if you like but I believe they are merely tactical changes - wholly unrepresentitive of the attitudes of their membership - to suit the mood.

Hell, you only have to talk to the tory 'ordinary membership' privately to see the kind of far-right guff mant of those people think right and proper, nevermind the BNP 'grassroots'!

It's the same old story.
They know they haven't a hope in hell as an openly racist and fascist party so they pretend to be good little democrats......until someone does an undercover exposé or two on them and shows all but the most wishful thinking what they are really like (as happens with that lot repeatedly and regularly).

Majority of far right parties cannot stand the BNP because they feel the BNP has gone "soft".

- You mean the two dozen guys in combat 18 disagree with the tactics etc?

The party openly supports the monarchy, and wish for the monarchy to maintain its postion as head of state and provide more influence over the country, yet again, not a fascist view.

- The idea that you can't be a fascist with a rigid view of authority and subservience to a useful traditional hierarchy is a new one on me.....

...are you saying you think Franco wasn't a fascist when he attempted to use the Spanish Monarchy that way too?

So when the ceasefire was negotiated (believe it was in early 1990s) with the head of the IRA, how come Gerry Adam's was flown in? hmmm

- I think you are confusing the "flying in" episode with the ceasefire of 1972, where GA and Martin McGuinness were flown in, with others, to talk to Willie Whitelaw and the then tory government.

Undoubtedly they have been members of the IRA in the past (I never said otherwise) but that does not make SF and the IRA one and the same; no matter that parroting "SF/IRA" has been a little unionist 'tactic' for a long time.

You really couldn't resist, could you

- Well who could?
Anyhoo a little knockabout and not taking everything so deadly seriously helps keep things from getting too carried away wouldn't you say?

Oh, the BBC, Skynews, newspapers, etc

- I don't disagree that the media usually has it's editorial bias and slant on things (often IMO 'traditional', right-wing, unwelcome, rather blatant and distasteful IMO) but I don't think I can go along with the idea that they are actually telling people who to vote for.



[edit on 22-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Englishman_in_Spain
PS sminkey, I have no axe to grind with you personally

- Nor I you.

A healthy bit of to and fro on the boards is not something that should rouse anyone to such sillyness and much as I can 'get into it' and defend my POV with the best of them it's not something I take so seriously that I would ever take to heart
(did you know some people come here just to say outrageous things and to try and wind people up!?


I was shocked when I first found that out I can tell you.

It would seem that some of France's citizens are feeling the same way when it comes to taking a rightminded view.

www.canada.com...

I saw this article earlier, and not trying to change the thread to issues with France, but it seemed appropriate to place this here. I was born in Leeds but have always lived in Canada. Still have many relatives in Yorkshire who are very pleased with the turn of events in Britain.

People will only take so much, and when political correctness is continualy forced on citizens and impedes their own traditional values, this small voice will eventually roar.

Our own elections in Canada, proved this, as much as the leftwing, will blame the winning of the conservatives on the Canadian people only punishing the liberals for their corrupt ways, this is BS.

Minority or Majority, it doesn't matter. They were voted in simply because their policies and platform refelcted the view of the people.

Good for Britain, and good for France.

- It is the policy of the Labour party to have an English Parliament when the people of England ask for one.

if i recall, its been asked. 75% in a recent poll said they wanted one, but Blair rejected "English only votes"

news.bbc.co.uk...

AND Lord Falconer (Labour Lord) has said no to an English Parliament

news.bbc.co.uk...

Plus, the pressure from other parties (Tories and Lib Dems) are asking for constitutional arrangements for the English, so why cannot the Government make a decision?

Originally posted by infinite
if i recall, its been asked. 75% in a recent poll said they wanted one, but Blair rejected "English only votes"

news.bbc.co.uk...

- Not true, 'English only votes' at Westminster are not the same thing as an English Parliament.

They would be a constitutional disaster and probably lead to the eventual break-up of the UK.
People should quit kidding themselves, the UK Parliament is not going to become the English Parliament.
Not under this government. Ever.
End of debate.

AND Lord Falconer (Labour Lord) has said no to an English Parliament

news.bbc.co.uk...

- Your link is wrong, I think you want ed this one
news.bbc.co.uk...

.....and Lord Falconer is expressing his personal views here and not government's or the Labour parties' agreed policy (which is that England can have a separate English Parliament - not Westminster which is the UK Parliament - or regional assemblies when the English people ask in referendum).

Plus, the pressure from other parties (Tories and Lib Dems) are asking for constitutional arrangements for the English, so why cannot the Government make a decision?

- None of which accord with the government's policy of agreed devolution.

So what that the opposition parties "pressure" and "ask" for other arrangements?
That's their job to propose other arrangements as they see fit and if the gov agrees with their view it will happen and if not it won't, such is life when you are not the majority party of government.

The fact remains that if people want either regional assemblies or an English Parliament it can happen but the English show absolutely no sign of wanting those arrangements to date.
Even though they continue to elect a Labour government.



[edit on 22-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

It seems that, certainly in east London, Britons have indeed turned to the BNP in large numbers as predicted;

www.sky.com...

This result must be better than the BNP could have dared to expect.

It will be interesting to see whether this pattern is repeated in other similar areas of the country. Whatever anyone says about 'protest votes', a 'protest vote' is still a vote. It could be argued equally legitimately that the votes that removed the Tories from office and put Tony Blair into Number 10 were 'protest votes'. This is democracy in action.

Clearly the indigenous population in this area have said;"Enough is enough!"

Is anybody listening? We shall see soon enough.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by Englishman_in_Spain]

[edit on 5-5-2006 by Englishman_in_Spain]

Well the BNP got a few, but not too many seats, but the Conservatives certainly got quite a bit, eh?

Will this be a wake up call for Blair and his sleazy cronies to change? No way, why would he ditch the arrogance and self righetousness that has served him so well all these years? His ego wouldn't allow it.

If anyone insists on imagining that -

The party..... now has 44 (council) seats in England. Before Thursday's local elections it held about 20 of 22,000.

news.bbc.co.uk...

- is honestly a case of "Britons turning to the extreme right in large numbers" I suppose there is little anyone can do to challenge such nonsense.

I would, however, ask how this assessment would fit in with 'The Green Party's' (far better starting situation and) results -

The Greens have hailed their gains of 18 seats overnight and say they expect more to come on Friday.
Among their successes was the first election of a Green candidate in Bristol, and a record nine councillors for the party in Norwich.

On the four seat gain in Norwich, councillor Rupert Read said the result was "extraordinary". They pushed the Tories into fourth place in Liverpool.

The party already had 72 councillors in England, and had targeted 100.

news.bbc.co.uk...

- But I suppose wild and silly claims about The Greens just doesn't have the impact of ridiculous claims about the far right, hmmmm?

90+ seat Green Party v 44 seat BNP, how does that fit with this absurd notion then, eh?

=============================================================

Originally posted by chebobthe Conservatives certainly got quite a bit, eh?

- Compared to Labour's local election results in the 1980's and 1990's under a tory government the tory result wasn't so good (Labour took 46% of the votein 1994/95).

Of course it was a bad night for Labour (same % of the vote in 2004......so you work out how significant that is considering they went on to win in May 2005) but it was hardly catastrophic either......and certainly not the utter disaster some want to claim it.

Will this be a wake up call for Blair and his sleazy cronies to change?

- Well he has just carried out the biggest reshuffle of his Cabinet since becoming PM.

......and "sleazy"?!

Feel free to point out the Labour Cabinet Ministers up before a court, found guilty by a jury and sentenced to prison.
That's real "sleaze", that's actual corruption......and it is utterly absent from this government's record.

Much as I know all about making a great big deal out of local elections - when it was Labour facing years and years of tory central government the tendency was make out they were important way beyond their actual significance - the fact remains, they are only local elections, they are nothing remotely like a general election (as the tory party understood only too well during their time in office).

A Sky News projection suggested that the Conservatives would have a 10-seat majority in the House of Commons if last night's figures were repeated in a general election.

politics.guardian.co.uk...

- So there you are, on Labour's worst night (in the local elections) in years and on the night of the tory parties' best results in over a decade (and with all the unrepresentitive-ness a local election brings along with a turnout far below the level seen in a general election) they get a projected 10 seat majority.

There's the high-water mark of the tory fantasy (sorry to set it against the pertinent facts ).



[edit on 5-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Reshuffled the cabinet? As someone else put it, it's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

As for the Sleaze label....what can they expect, when they berated the tories for the very same reasons? I couldn't care less about who Prescott is "having", certainly not while we've got the problems Charles Clarke has left behind, amongst others.

I'm glad people aren't settling for a sub standard Labour on the slide just because they are "scared of the Tories".

Originally posted by chebob
Reshuffled the cabinet? As someone else put it, it's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

- You'll be citing Claire Short as a fair representitive of feeling within the Labour party next .

Frank Dobson has his views (as do a small minority within the Labour party) but so what?
Gordon Brown will use Tony Blair as a lightning rod and not rush to take-over, what for?
The general election is years away and getting up the noses of the small faction on the 'left' goes down well with the voters.

As for the Sleaze label....what can they expect, when they berated the tories for the very same reasons?

- I don't think so.

Much has been made of this old JP speech -

"They [the Tories] are up to their necks in sleaze.

The best slogan he could think up for their conference next week is 'Life's better under the Tories'. Sounds to me like one of Steven Norris's chat up lines.

Can you believe that this lot is in charge? Not for long, eh? Then after 17 years of this Tory government, they have the audacity to talk about morality. Did you hear John Major on the Today programme? - calling for ethics to come back into the political debate? I'm told some Tory MPs think ethics is a county near Middlesex. It's a bit hard to take: John Major - ethics man.

The Tories have redefined unemployment they have redefined poverty. Now they want to redefine morality.
For too many Tories, morality means not getting caught.Morality is measured in more than just money.
It's about right and wrong. We are a party of principle. We will earn the trust of the British people. We've had enough lies. Enough sleaze.

- Besides a very mild passing reference to Norris I don't see this as a massive dig at tory sex scandals at all.
The 'morality' he is referring to is not sexual morality IMO.

Personally I find private sexual behaviour a very lame line of attack and it was never the "sleaze" I thought of when all that was dogging the then tory government.

.....but is that it?
A single speech with a very tenuous link to sex?

certainly not while we've got the problems Charles Clarke has left behind, amongst others.

- You'll find this problem pre-dates CC by a long way.
You only know about it because this government bothered addressing the problem and collecting the stats (hardly a great 'platform' for tory attacks).

You may dispute the 'quality' of the effort but Labour is the only party to have made any effort over this issue at all.

I'm glad people aren't settling for a sub standard Labour on the slide just because they are "scared of the Tories".

- You can take whatever comfort you need to from the local election results (God knows Labour did over those long long years out of office) but they tell you practically nothing about what is likely to happen in the general election in 2009/10 (......and you do know that for the tory party to win an outright majority then they are needing yet another record 'never happened before, not even in 1945 or 1997' swing, hmmmm?
Still, I wouldn't want to spoil your daydreams, hmmmm )

I haven't got daydreams of a Tory government, that's for sure

It's not just Prescott, and it's not just "that" speech. Tessa Jowell, the bird faced weirdo who was too "ditty" to understand her husband was up to no good ( ), David Blunkett the walking catastrophe, the cash for peerages, and plenty of other things have turned Labour from "whiter than white" to a dirty shade of gray.

And the use of statistics to show that "we only think crime is worse because we record more" is the kind of beauracratic clap-trap that is making people distrust the current government. Try giving the statistics excuse to the people who are being affected by crime, violent crime in particular, because the police and the Home Office have lost touch with reality. It doesn't wash, because it's just hiding behind statistics.

Bobbies on the beat, blah blah blah.....there's no point going over it, people aren't happy with the way crime is handled, among other things, and the Labour sympathizers are getting fewer and fewer, from my personal "real life" observations.

Can the Tories do better? Probably not, but people want someone to try, not do what Labour does and make policies that look good in the Tabloids, but do little in the real world. It's a shame it has to revolve around "Tory or Labour", and it's the reason we always settle for sub standard government. IMO there needs to be a big reform, and that'll be my last word on the subject.






[edit on 5-5-2006 by chebob]

Originally posted by chebob
Tessa Jowell, the bird faced weirdo who was too "ditty" to understand her husband was up to no good (

)

- No; like many many people in the UK one partner took the lead in the finances when it came to the their money arrangements.

She didn't sign a loan application as she didn't borrow any money. As an occupying spouse she has to consent to any charge on the property.
Dozens of people do this every day whenever a spouse takes out a business loan.
It was a bridging loan in respect of his business.
This was done regularly.
She would have had no reason to inquire into the underlying transactions, indeed they may have been covered by client confidentiality.
They own one house jointly and he owns a second in his own right.
He is indeed a wealthy man.

You can try and twist it however you like but no charges have ever been brought and no corruption demonstrated at all......even the Italian end of this has gone very quiet.

David Blunkett the walking catastrophe

- What, the sad blind guy who fell for the wrong woman and thought (cos she told him so) that her unborn child was his and wanted to be involved in it's upbringing!?
That's your idea of 'sleaze'?

Weird, I always thought the b*st*rd was the guy who tried to duck his responsibilities.

the cash for peerages

- Pure allegation, all under proper Police investigation but meanwhile not a bit of which has been proven.

and plenty of other things have turned Labour from "whiter than white" to a dirty shade of gray.

- Well I keep hearing this but all of it is either pure opinion with no fact or as 'thin' as can be.

It might (at times) 'look bad' but in each case when looked at without a partisan eye there is no actual wrong-doing the public would have a genuine interest in.

None of this adds up to anyone standing before a court, convicted by a jury or sentenced for several years to prison, hmmm?

And the use of statistics to show that "we only think crime is worse because we record more" is the kind of beauracratic clap-trap that is making people distrust the current government.

- That is not what is going on.

The use of statistics to demonstrate some historical perspective is not "bureaucratic clap trap" it is a perfectly valid and a proper part of debate used by all political parties and the people too.

I suppose when you don't like the facts or prefer ignorance to inconvenient fact that's about all that's left to try and use.

Try giving the statistics excuse to the people who are being affected by crime, violent crime in particular, because the police and the Home Office have lost touch with reality. It doesn't wash, because it's just hiding behind statistics.

- No-one is hiding behind statistics (the problem in this case - CC and the prisoner deportation row - is quite clearly obviously the reverse of that, for goodness sakes).

But it is perfectly valid to point out that it is only thanks to this government collecting the stats that we know anything about this in the first place!

people want someone to try, not do what Labour does and make policies that look good in the Tabloids, but do little in the real world.

- Then you'll be disappointed when the people vote decisively and Labour wins the next general election?

IMO there needs to be a big reform, and that'll be my last word on the subject.

- If you ever feel like describing this 'popular' big reform I'll be all ears.



[edit on 5-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- No; like many many people in the UK one partner took the lead in the finances when it came to the their money arrangements.

She didn't sign a loan application as she didn't borrow any money. As an occupying spouse she has to consent to any charge on the property.
Dozens of people do this every day whenever a spouse takes out a business loan.
It was a bridging loan in respect of his business.
This was done regularly.
She would have had no reason to inquire into the underlying transactions, indeed they may have been covered by client confidentiality.


[edit on 5-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

I can tell you, as a former bank senior executive, that she would have had to take independent legal advice upon the insistence of the lender, and prove she had done so and fully understood the legal implications of what she was signing, before the lending institution would have released funds.

This is specifically designed to prevent spouses saying 'I didn't know what I was signing' when they mortgage their property. So no excuses there I am afraid.

Originally posted by Englishman_in_Spain
I can tell you, as a former bank senior executive, that she would have had to take independent legal advice upon the insistence of the lender, and prove she had done so......

.....This is specifically designed to prevent spouses saying 'I didn't know what I was signing' when they mortgage their property. So no excuses there I am afraid.

- Well if this is true (in all cases and the circumstances are as described) then you had better get in touch with the British Police, the Italian Police and the Parliamentary Standards Committee at Westminster. They'll all be dying to hear these revelations cos they all seem to have missed this.

Me?
I'll take their word for it when they say there is no case to answer.

I certainly won't be taking an outrageously biased tabloid (or broadsheet equivelent like the Telegraph) like the Mail's word for it when they claim to describe all the details of the case.

Anyhoo.....

.......so, you have no comment on the performance of 'The Green Party' last night and how that compares to your original and groslly exaggerated claims about "Britons turning to the extreme right in large numbers", hmmmm?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
[
.......so, you have no comment on the performance of 'The Green Party' last night and how that compares to your original and groslly exaggerated claims about "Britons turning to the extreme right in large numbers", hmmmm?

None necessary, the figures speak for themselves, the people have spoken. Today Barking, tomorrow.......