Ashcroft tells Coalition to 'turn off the golden taps and stop flooding the world with OUR money

[Sandman]

For some reason Cameron will not listen to the country, his own party,

or anyone else, on the size of our aid budget, now he knows how the

country feels, and he knows how the politicians and business men feel.

To ignore the overwhelming opinion, and still spout that it is right, makes

him unfit to run this country, the quicker he is kicked into the long grass

the better for all.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9547999/Lord-Ashcroft-tells-Coalition-to-turn-off-the-golden-taps-and-stop-flooding-the-developing-world-with-our-money.html

 

 

[tinman]

This is Camerons pet. Some here claim that this is all Labours fault
but we all know it's not. Cameron has decided to impose austerity on
the people that pay their taxes and spend their money on foreign aid
instead of on them.

The public school boy has no idea what so ever of the real world.
He's an out of touch arrogant fool thats lead both his party and the
country onto the road to destruction. It's little wonder his own
backbenchers are now making noises to have him replaced.

On 17 Sep, 16:43, Sandman <joere...@aol.com> wrote:
> For some reason Cameron will not listen to the country, his own party,
> or anyone else, on the size of our aid budget, now he knows how the
> country feels, and he knows how the politicians and business men feel.
> To ignore the overwhelming opinion, and still spout that it is right, makes
> him unfit to run this country, the quicker he is kicked into the long grass
> the better for all.
>

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9547999/Lord-Ashcroft-tells-...

[jar]

To be replaced by someone that agrees with his aid policies!!
No party politics here despite efforts to put the blame solely on Cameron but it demonstrates to me how little they take notice of those whose opinions they are supposed to represent
I've written to Cameron once and have made it clear that I couldn't support him whilst he followed this aid policy what makes it even more annoying is to find those given the job of distributing aid are making a fortune out of it. One in particular gave himself an £800.000 bonus.
Politicians have a lot of explaining to do

[jar]

It has been made clear that it is the fault of both parties. What part do you find so difficult to understand

[tinman]

How is it Labours fault that Cameron has decided to impose austerity
on the tax payer and give their money away in foreign aid. It's no
good you just posting over and over I don't understand with out you
backing anything up. Post something to show how Cameron increasing
foreign aid to £14 Billion by 2014 is anyone's fault but Cameron's.

[Jonksy]

The only tyhing you have made clear old man is the FACT that you are a tory indoctrinated twat..This is bugger all todo with labour your wankers have been in now for 2 years and nog aid has increased...So get over it and man up for once in your life you were fucking had jar..

[Jane]

On Monday, September 17, 2012 5:01:33 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

It has been made clear that it is the fault of both parties. What part do you find so difficult to understand

 

You mean that you have said that it's the fault of both Parties.  To the extent that it's the fault of both Parties in this disastrous coalition I agree. 

Otherwise, perhaps you'd like to respond to my question made some time ago on this issue - does Cameron head the current Gvt and make his own decions or not?

[Jonksy]

I agree with ashcroft Sandy the only thing I didn't agree with his statement was when he said OUR money, this is the guy who has done nothing but avoid paying taxes and as he is a tory donor he has been allowed to get away with it..

[jar]

That's the figures that Labour signed us up to and have endorsed tinman

[Sandman]

Did labour decide increase it by 50% when other countries are

keeping theirs the same or reducing it, giving aid,how much and

who to is the choice of the government of the day, to turn the tap

off is also the choice of the government of the day. Cameron is

the one ignoring the country, no one else.  

 

On Monday, 17 September 2012 17:01:33 UTC+1, jar wrote:

[jar]

You have no idea why Cameron has had to impose a period of austerity tinman. Is that really true? I suppose you could ask Darling.
Enough said

[tinman]

Labour have never said they would impose austerity on those working
and paying their taxes while at the same time increasing the foreign
aid bill. This is Cameron's doing no one else. Trying to blame
others just isn't going to cut it. Cameron has decided to rob his
own
country men and give the money away to foreigners.

[Jonksy]

Total BOLLOCKS OLD man...

[jar]

I'm sure you knew perfectly well that I correctly referred to both sides of the house but have your fun Jane

[Affa]

 

 

Of course Ashcroft is right, he's telling what many here have been saying for two years.

But this notion of taking care of people and business at home before giving Aid money or investing abroad was

one of Obama's pledges ........... in July the Senate killed of the Democrats bill to stop tax breaks for those outsourcing business.

Obama has tried introducing incentives to businesses that stay at home, designed restrictions, changes to visa laws, but the Republicans block them at every turn ........ outsourcing work and jobs continues, and for one obvious reason. There's more money to be made from outsourcing!

Business does not have a patriotic bone in its skeleton.

 

The same is true here.

Aid money opens doors for Tory donors, to promote overseas business ventures. Businesses that do not pay UK taxes on their overseas profits.

The tax payer here is robbed to pay for this facility  ......... hang the barstewards as traitors.

 

 

 

[jar]

Cameron regrettably is following the system that the previous gvt had agreed to. I'd like to see him turn it off but he would have a majority in the house against him

[jar]

Would it help you to be reminded that when chancellor promised exactly that and even sterner than mrs t austerity programme incidentally again soon after a Labour gvt

[jar]

Affa to make that work you are going to have to tell us that Labour introduced this programme. I doubt if they gave it to their zunion pals but hold on they give them millions for training purposes don't they then of course it comes back in donations perfect example of money laundering

[Affa]

On Monday, September 17, 2012 6:38:50 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 I doubt if they gave it to their zunion pals but hold on they give them millions for training purposes don't they then of course it comes back in donations perfect example of money laundering

 

I require proof of this, not indoctrinated hearsay. Proof that the Labour government funded the Unions with tax payers money.

Proof that any money provided for skills training was not used for skills training. Proof that any Union political funding was with laundered money.

 

The majority of Lanour donations from the Unions comes from voluntary donations made by Union members' wage packet, I know of nothing more democratic than ordinary people making individually small donations to the political party that they feel represents their best interests in government.

The wealthy have no NEED to want to influence government other than greed. Business donations do not come from voters but from business' desire to limit their regulatory freedom and the burden of duty payments.

imo there is a huge morality difference between serving the wealthy and business profits as compared to looking out for ordinary people in work who have no other voice or means to represent them.

 

A party for the rich is a despicable state of affairs that no conscientious person should embrace!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Monday, September 17, 2012 6:03:39 PM UTC+1, tinman wrote:

Labour have never said they would impose austerity on those working
 and paying their taxes while at the same time increasing the foreign
 aid bill.

 

 

Oh yes they did.

[jar]

The person that made the Statement about it being a perfect example of money laundering is a matter of record and this wouldn't be the first time I have mentioned the fact on these boards. Once again if you don't like the facts you attempt to rubbish them.Go find them. I certainly wouldn't bother making them up

[jar]

A touch of realism would be good here affa. How would a Tory voter ensure his contribution went to his party and not Labour and if he insisted just how popular would he be.
So you would disenfranchise the rich would you affa you've gone so far along the road to the left you'd make a commissar blush

[Affa]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:36:28 AM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

A touch of realism would be good here affa. How would a Tory voter ensure his contribution went to his party and not Labour and if he insisted just how popular would he be.
So you would disenfranchise the rich would you affa you've gone so far along the road to the left you'd make a commissar blush

 

 

Anyone can opt out of making political donations through their Union subscriptions. Most apparently do.

To return to your allegation. I find no evidence of the truth of it, there is none.

I made three requests for proof, and you provide none other than you've "heard it said". Do I have to remind you

that all sorts of things are said that are not true, and this allegation is as false as any.

 

 

 

[tinman]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/346681/Cameron-under-more-foreign-aid-pressure-as-Tory-s-voice-their-outrage

All you have to do is read the comments at the bottom o the link to
realise Cameron is finished along with the whole Conservative party.
Argue all you like, pick the bones out of it all you like. But there
it is for all to see. The voters have had enough of Cameron and want
him and his party gone.

[Jonksy]

I wonder what the usual bullshit answer will be from the OLD man Tinny....LOL...I sugest you don your flak jacket mate...

[Jonksy]

I wonder if the OLD fool will aknowledge the FACT that when the caMoron had kissed enough lib dem arse to crawl into number 10 the aid budget then was just £7.5 billion..

 

On Tuesday, 18 September 2012 13:05:12 UTC+1, tinman wrote:

[Jonksy]

Should have read just £7 billion...

[jar]

The thought of a Union owned Labour gvt doesn't take long for me to decide ,you'll find out the answers soon enough if Labour did get. In to ruin this country once again.

[jar]

I've covered the points you make in your first para

[Jonksy]

Waffle Waffle....Wriggle Wriggle..

[jar]

The only way I am able to prove that it. Was said is likely to take me far more time than I'm prepared to give affa. The interesting point is what was the man referring to then. I'm prepared to believe I but I'm. Not surprised you won't.
Hopefully something will turn up I'm keeping my eyes open

[Trueblue]

On Tuesday, 18 September 2012 12:08:21 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:36:28 AM UTC+1, jar wrote:

To return to your allegation. I find no evidence of the truth of it, there is none.

 

 I did a simple Google and found loads Affa, Labour poured millions of taxpayers into the Unions coffers

 

[jar]

Thanks TB another example of facts that Affa doesn't like makes one a liar or worse. I didn't dream it up

[hedgehog]

LMAO. Now thats funny on so many levels. TB posts something with no
corroborating evidence and it's seized upon by another poster as proof
absolute. You can tell they're Tory voter can't you.

[Jonksy]

So in otherwords you did no such thing then locky the liar..

[hedgehog]

Not in so many words jon those are the very words.

Dumb, and his side kick dumber have struck again.

[jar]

Your post proves that the thread is way above your ability to understand what's being said as can. Be seen by the usual daft posts that ty and reassure each other instead of trying to address the subject under discussion

[tinman]

LOL. I bet he'll be posting the usual, no one but me understands. Or.
Its gone way over your head. I like his I'm not explaining it to you
one.

On Sep 18, 1:15 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> I wonder what the usual bullshit answer will be from the OLD man
> Tinny....LOL...I sugest you don your flak jacket mate...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 18 September 2012 13:05:12 UTC+1, tinman wrote:
>

> >http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/346681/Cameron-under-more-foreign...

[tinman]

Paul when your desperate enough you'll grab anything that floats by.
and they're getting bloody desperate.

[Jonksy]

LOL He is a card..Isn't he?

[ewill]

<<<Union behind BA strike receives £18m from taxpayers in 'money-
laundering' deal with Labour
The union behind the British Airways strike has received £18million
from taxpayers under Labour, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Charlie Whelan arrives at Downing Street. Photo: Alan Davidson/The
Picture Library Ltd
By Martin Beckford
10:00PM GMT 18 Mar 2010

Unite, and the two unions that formed it, received the public money
under two little-known funds to improve management and training for
its members.

It has been the biggest beneficiary of one of the schemes, the Union
Modernisation Fund, and received a sixth of all the money given out
under the Union Learning Fund.

The figures have led to fresh claims that Britain's biggest union has
taken over the Labour Party after donating almost £30million over the
past decade and employing a key adviser to Gordon Brown as its
political director.

It comes ahead of a planned three-day walkout by Unite members of BA's
cabin crew this weekend, which is set to cause travel chaos for
thousands of passengers.

Francis Maude, the Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, said: "This really
looks like money laundering - taxpayers' money is being funnelled into
Unite then put straight back into Labour's coffers.

"It's a real racket, with taxpayers' money being round-tripped into
Gordon Brown's re-election fund. We must have much greater
transparency on what unions are receiving from the Labour Government
in return for their backhanders."

Unite, which claims to have 2million members, was formed through a
merger of Amicus and the Transport & General Workers Union in 2007.

Electoral Commission figures show it has long been Labour's most
important donor, giving £29,541,155 since January 2001.

The union is accused by the Tories of assuming power and influence
over the party it "bankrolls", getting left-wing policies implemented
in law and winning support from ministers for its campaigns and
industrial disputes.

Unite's political director, Charlie Whelan, has returned to the heart
of Mr Brown's spin operation as an unofficial aide, having previously
served as his special adviser. He is regularly seen in Downing Street
and has a Westminster pass.

Several Unite officials have been selected as Labour candidates for
the forthcoming general election, including Jack Dromey, who is
married to the party's deputy leader, Harriet Harman.

But this newspaper has established that the union has also received
large amounts of taxpayers' money, amounting to more than half of its
donations to Labour.

Since 1998, Unite, Amicus and the TGWU have received £17,396,498 under
the Union Learning Fund, 17 per cent of the total money handed out by
the Government.

The Union Learning Fund was set up in 1998 in order to encourage union
reps and members to improve their education and training.

Now administered by a body called Unionlearn with the help of the
Trades Union Congress, it hands out more than £15m a year to unions
who bid for local projects. Its aim is to help unions improve the
skills and education of their members, particularly by training Union
Learning Reps who encourage colleagues in the workplace to take up new
courses and gain qualifications.

Mr Brown announced increased funding for the scheme at the TUC
conference in September 2007, just months after he became Prime
Minister, calling it "the biggest transformation of trades unions
since the growth of the shop steward movement".

But details of where the money goes are not published while annual
evaluation reports ceased several years ago.

An analysis commissioned by the Government but carried out by York
Consulting in 2006 found there was no framework "against which the
employment/economic impact can be measured" and that "unions do not
collate monitoring data in a form which is consistent and which is
accurate and reliable".

It stated: "Although the evaluation has tried to generate 'evidence'
from unions of the impact of the ULF particularly on their strategic
development, it is difficult to substantiate the majority of claims
from unions against other sources.

"Unions, are to a large extent, dependent upon external funding. ULF
has been a major part of that funding. Therefore, statement
demonstrating a positive impact, could typically be expected. In
addition, employers can only offer a first hand estimate of the value
and impact of ULF on their workforce. There has been no attempt
currently to develop quantifiable impact analysis indicators."

Unite has been given £382,469 under the Union Modernisation Fund since
2006. This is higher than the amount received by any other union
including Unison (£345,832), which represents public sector workers;
Usdaw (£291,075), the shop workers' body; and the GMB (£257,476).

The Union Modernisation Fund is administered by Lord Mandelson's
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. In total, it has given
out more than £7m since it was set up in 2006.

It is intended to help the unions train reps, make their management
structures better and reach out to new and younger members through the
internet. Unions must put in bids for grants for specific projects,
and match the sum with their own cash.

Opposition parties have claimed it is a "bung" to groups that support
Labour both politically and financially.

The unions that formed Unite were also given public funds under the
Partnership at Work Fund in the early years of New Labour. Amicus
worked on a project to tackle bullying in the workplace, called
Dignity at Work, which was backed by BA and which received £1m from
ministers.

A spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills
said: "Since the Union Learning Fund began in 1998 it has provided
£17,396,498 to Unite, Amicus and the TGWU.

"This figure is 17% of the total fund, although Unite and Amicus
actually represent 25% of the TUC.

"In the last 12 years the Government has supported over 800,000
ordinary workers through the ULF, helping them access training that
meets their needs and those of their employers."

Tom Wilson, director of unionlearn, said: "Almost three quarters of a
million people have benefited directly from the Union Learning Fund,
which has made learning and training possible for them in the past 12
years. A major part of the ULF's work is improving basic literacy,
numeracy and computer skills in the workforce. We work with thousands
of businesses to invest in their employees. Evidence shows that ULF
money encourages employers to additionally invest in training. ULF has
been held up to Ofsted inspection and all ULF projects are subject to
independent audit.">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<
Taxpayers' money spent on union salaries
Whitehall departments are spending millions of pounds of taxpayers'
money paying the salaries of trade union officials.

Several ministries said they effectively employ full-time union
representatives at public expense Photo: GETTY
By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
8:00AM GMT 20 Mar 2010

Ministries and Government agencies spent more than £17 million paying
staff to carry out "trade union activities" last year.

Some departments are paying staff to work full-time on trade union
business.

And some full-time civil servants spend three days a work carrying out
union activities and still receive a full salary from the Government.

Public spending on union activities was disclosed in official figures
released to MPs.

The Ministry of Justice said it paid its staff to carry out 43,208
days of trade union activity in 2008/09. The estimated total salary
cost to the taxpayer was £6.5 million.


HM Revenue and Customs paid its staff for 48,902 days of union
activity during, at a cost of £5,918,065

In the current financial year, the Department for Work and Pensions
has budgeted to pay its staff to carry out 42,460 days of trade union
activity, at an estimated cost of more than £5 million.

Several ministries said they effectively employ full-time union
representatives at public expense.

The Department of Children, Schools and Families pays the salaries of
four members of staff engaged in "national full-time trade union
activity". Their annual wage bill is £118,000.

The Department of Communities and Local Government employs two full
time union workers at a cost of £95,000. It also spent £192,000 paying
part-time union workers for their union activities.

The Department for International Development said it has one full-time
staff member "allocated to undertake trade union activities" and paid
£30,000 to £35,000

At the Treasury, one senior official spends three days a week on trade
union activity.

Other Government bodies that confirmed they are paying for union
activity include the Crown Prosecution Service, which spent £535,915
last year, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, which spent £37,212,
and the Royal Parks, which spent £29,333.

The total annual bill for trade union activity in Whitehall is likely
to be significantly higher than £17 million, because several
ministries and agencies have refused to provide figures for their
spending.

The union representatives being paid by the Government are understood
to be from a number of unions.

Many are members of the Public and Commercial Services Union and
Prospect. Some based outside Whitehall are believed to be members of
Unite, the union behind the British Airways strike.

Union representatives have had a statutory right to "reasonable paid

time off" to carry out trade union duties since 1975.

Labour gave union representatives more rights to paid time off in
2002, passing a new law allowing union members paid time off for union
training courses.

The Daily Telegraph disclosed yesterday Unite and its component unions
have been given £18 million by the Government for training courses
from its Union Learning Fund.

Mark Wallace of the Taxpayers' Alliance said union representatives
should not get public money for their union work.

He said: "There is no reason why taxpayers should subsidise the trade
unions at all, and this multi-million pound bill must be stopped. The
unions are explicitly political organisations, and they should make do
with what money they can raise from their members.

"Many taxpayers will be horrified to learn that their money is being
used to fund the unions and their big-state, high tax message. It is
bad enough that they are issuing threats of strike action, but having
to pay for the people organising the strikes adds insult to injury."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Why does our money go to trade unions?35



Darren Rutland Campaign





Another shocking story of public sector staff working for unions at
the taxpayers' expense has emerged today. Dominic Raab MP has found
out that £7 million of our cash has been wasted on 1,200 Home Office
employees, police officers and border guards to work for trade unions
and Police Federations.

This is a disgraceful misuse of public money, not least because £7
million is a huge sum. Mr Raab goes on to calculate that an extra 300
officers could be paid for with the money going to trade unions. With
necessary spending reductions being made, the policing budget savings
are among the most controversial. But there's money being wasted on
funding union work. This shows that there are easy savings to make
that won't damage frontline policing.

Many UK Border Agency staff are represented by the Public and
Commercial Services Union, who recently assisted in organising a
national 24-hour strike against the cuts. Taxpayers should not be
paying for staff to do union work, particularly when unions play such
a blatant political role.

This is just another in a string of recent stories on this topic -
last week it was revealed that almost half a million pounds of
taxpayers' money is given to trade union officials representing
Edinburgh City Council staff. A member of that council has called for
an investigation by the council's leader following the release of
figures detailing the £473,965 cost. It is an especially alarming
figure seeing as it is more than double the amount spent on union work
by Glasgow City Council, even though it is a smaller city.

Previous work from the TaxPayers' Alliance has shown that during the
2009-10 financial year, almost 2,500 full time equivalent public
sector employees undertook trade union duties while being paid with
our cash. If union officials who work for public bodies wish to
undertake their union responsibilities, it must be in their own time,
and should not be at taxpayers' expense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<Introduction
Britain"s trade unions have threatened to unleash waves of industrial
action and trade union barons are relishing their generation"s
opportunity to engage in an ideologically driven and dogmatic attack
on the Government and the wider British public.
But behind their rhetoric, trade unions have become less relevant to
the British workforce. Membership numbers are now at their lowest
levels since the Second World War and the proportion of public sector
and private sector workers who are trade union members is in decline.
Barely half of all public sector workers are trade union members and
most have not voted for strike action on 30 November 2011.
Reform is now needed to protect the country from these misguided
attempts by a minority to hold the country to ransom. However, reforms
to trade union laws must go further than examining strike ballot
thresholds.
Action needs to be taken to stop the systemic way that some trade
unions abuse taxpayer funded resources. Facility time which should be
provided to support trade union representatives fulfil essential
duties is being abused by trade unions who are using these paid leave
arrangements to bolster their campaigning activities. Unison has
issued instructions to its members to get "as many activities as
possible covered by your paid facility time."
Although officials are being caught red handed abusing facility time
arrangements, one SPVA official from the PCS union has been
disciplined for producing anti-cuts materials with public resources.
Local government and council taxpayers are also severely affected by
these unsavoury practices. Camden Council, for example, allows trade
unions, including Unison and the GMB, to use a disused Council
property, which should have been earmarked for disposal, rent free
with taxpayers footing the bill for the utilities they use. This is
despite the new Unison headquarters being located with a few minutes"
walk. But this generosity is repaid with these taxpayer funded
facilities being used by an anti-cuts campaign.
Facility time is now five times higher in the civil service than in
the private sector as trade unions pillage the pockets of hard-pressed
British taxpayers to the tune of tens of millions of pounds a year.
This must stop and stricter controls and more transparency are now
needed.
Trade unions using taxpayer funded resources inappropriately are a
contagion that has spread far and wide. In just one year unions have
been bankrolled with £21.5 million from the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills to employ over 170 staff to promote learning and
a further £7 million from the Skills Funding Agency to pay for trade
union representatives to gain diplomas and other qualifications in
trade union campaigning and other similar courses. A further amount of
up to £11 million over the last three years has also been given to the
unions from the European Social Fund. Some of these funds have been
abused by the trade unions and used to fund
3
political and campaigning publications leading the TUC being forced to
repay over £20,000. When unemployment is rising, this money would be
far more effectively spent on providing thousands of new
apprenticeship places and on education and training for those in need.
Trade unions have also benefitted enormously from the Union
Modernisation Fund, where there is little to prevent taxpayer funded
resources from being used to support political campaigning. This is
unacceptable and taxpayers" money should be clawed back.
Another area for immediate reform is over trade union membership forms
and the political levy. Under consumer protection laws, a business
would not be allowed to sell products or services without giving
buyers certain information and they would not be able to charge for
services without informing their consumers and gaining their consent.
But this is exactly what some trade unions do to bolster their
political funds without the explicit consent of their unsuspecting
members.
Both the GMB and PCS unions, with a total combined membership of over
900,000 include political fund contributions in their membership
subscriptions but nowhere on their memberships forms are applicants
informed of this or given the chance to opt-in or opt-out. Their
political funds could be swollen by this inappropriate practice and
the law needs to be changed to close the legal loophole in trade union
law that allows them to get away with this. If consumer protection
laws do apply in these circumstances, then these unions should face
investigation
The Unison union, which does give members the chance to opt-in to a
political fund on its application, could be in breach of existing
trade unions by discriminating against those who chose not to make a
contribution to political funds. Almost half a million members do not
pay into the political fund but despite this their membership
subscription rate remains unaffected. Effectively the Unison union is
not fulfilling its legal obligation to reduce their subscription rates
by the amount of the political levy and as a result could be pocketing
an extra £3 million a year from those members. This practice is
thoroughly unacceptable, needs to be investigated and action taken to
stop>>>
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/uniondossier.pdf

On 18 Sep, 13:52, jar <jar...@aol.com> wrote:

[Jonksy]

LOL When are you going to come up wuith something NEW OLD man? It's not exactly rocket science to see through yours and locky's bullshit..

[jar]

Be interesting to see what Jusing Greening will do here for her immediate revelation would show that Mitchell is what I've always believed him to be in that he does what he thinks is right and ignores others advice he would have gone down well in the Brown gvt.
What amazes me is all the criticisms of this wastefull vanity project have only been seized upon since 2010 when we have known its been going on for some considerable time before then. Th only thing that's altered is that these consultants and aid to India etc has come to the surface

[jar]

It's clear by your posts that this is an accurate description look at them they have to resort to insults laughing at how clever you think you are, repeating what others have said etc etc. I rest my case

[jar]

That is what prompted the statement that what Labour were doing was the best example of money laundering you could expect to see .it ensured that the money once received by the Unions would be transferred into donations to the Labour party.
So Affa what would you be telling us if the Tories had a similar scheme?

[Jonksy]

But youdon'y have a case OLD man you just have a series of insults and evasive bullshit.

[tinman]

Here is the whole link.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/uniondossier.pdf

A slightly more balanced view would suggest it's more a case of
government and unions working together.

[tinman]

All it is really is an attempt to divert away from Cameron blunder on
foreign aid.

[tinman]

CAMERON UNDER MORE FOREIGN AID PRESSURE AS TORY'S VOICE THEIR OUTRAGE

With head lines this hitting the press everyday I suppose finding any
diversion is helpful.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/346681/Cameron-under-more-foreign-aid-pressure-as-Tory-s-voice-their-outrage

[ewill]

I already supplied the link had you read the post- thought it's nice
of you to repeat it so that the dozy who missed it first time get a
second bite at the cherry

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[tinman]

It's just a pity you failed to divert this thread instead of starting
a new one isn't it.

> ...
>
> read more »

[jar]

Divert Cameron's view on Foreign aid tinman? Which poster would you be referring to? It wouldn't be me and that's for sure. Please tell us who you have in mind

[jar]

Take it like a man tinman? You have to be able to swim when you venture down the deep end

[ewill]

Nope

I simply supplied the evidence to prove that those who various lefties
had accused of lying were in fact posting the truth.

[Affa]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:52:10 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

Thanks TB another example of facts that Affa doesn't like makes one a liar or worse. I didn't dream it up

 

 

TB is lying, and you automatically respond by accusing others.

There is no proof of this allegation that Labour gave tax payers money to the Unions, and that the Unions handed it back as party donations. ........ period.

 

Want a simple fact? The Law prevents it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:20:27 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

Nope

I simply supplied the evidence to prove that those who various lefties
had accused of lying were in fact posting the truth.

You posted a load of right wing rhetoric with no proof at all that Unionlearn money has been redirected to political funding.

It is ALL speculation with a malicious intent, and nothing more.

 

Any Union that wishes to donate money to a political fund. The rules (in law) prevent the practice alledged.

 

The political fund rules

A trade union which operates a political fund must have political fund rules. These too have to be approved by the Certification Officer. The trade union’s political fund rules will specify how money is collected for the political fund, and the amount to be paid into the fund by the members who contribute to it.

A trade union must pay for party political activities from its political fund, and must not use money from its other accounts for this purpose.

The Cerification Officer is an Home Office appointment - Duties;

• Maintaining a list of trade unions and employers' associations.
• Receiving, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and keeping available for public inspection annual returns from trade unions and employers' associations.
• Determining complaints concerning trade union elections, certain other ballots and certain breaches of trade union rules.
• Ensuring observance of statutory requirements governing mergers between trade unions & between employers' associations.
• Overseeing the political funds and the finances of trade unions and employers associations.
• Certifying the independence of trade unions.

They have access and scrutiny of the accounts. Political Donations must come from the Political Fund account which is the subscriptions it receives from members that opt into making these donations. Unionlearn money can only be spent on the skills training of members - something business used to do and now rarely does.

The accusation is that the Unions broke the law - I have not read one person make that claim. Do you?

A rightwing blog site that avoides slabder by merely 'speculating' thatwrong doing occurs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

The rules (in
law)<<

Which law?

On 18 Sep, 19:38, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:20:27 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:
>
> > Nope
>
> > I simply supplied the evidence to prove that those who various lefties
> > had accused of lying were in fact posting the truth.
>
> You posted a load of right wing rhetoric with no proof at all that
> Unionlearn money has been redirected to political funding.
> It is ALL speculation with a malicious intent, and nothing more.
>
> Any Union that wishes to donate money to a political fund. The rules (in
> law) prevent the practice alledged.
>
> The political fund rules
>
> A trade union which operates a political fund must have political fund

> rules. These too have to be approved by the *Certification Officer*. The

[Affa]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:58:10 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

The rules (in
law)<<

Which law?

The law reforms introduced by Margaret Thatcher -  Trade Union Act 1984

Amended in 1992 .

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52

Unison comes in for a lot of bad press through its links to the Labour Party. What they do not report is that members can opt in to pay donations to the Political Fund, but take this one step further. They have two parts to their political fund. A member can specify that he wants donations to go towards supporting the Labour party, or elect that donations do not go to the Labour party.

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:29:06 PM UTC+1, Affa wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:52:10 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

Thanks TB another example of facts that Affa doesn't like makes one a liar or worse. I didn't dream it up

 

 

TB is lying, and you automatically respond by accusing others.

There is no proof of this allegation that Labour gave tax payers money to the Unions,

 

I take it you failed to comprehend Elaines comprehensive post

[jar]

Affa give up these things happened and I remember the occasion very well .as I said this is you standard reaction to the unpalatable truth. I can understand your motives as it shows Labour up once again for its disgraceful practices
If I find n problems in criticising Camon and Co why can't you acknowledge the truth and if you find I necessary to question detailed figures why do doubt those that don't believe your versions

[Affa]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:32:20 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

 

 

 

TB is lying, and you automatically respond by accusing others.

There is no proof of this allegation that Labour gave tax payers money to the Unions,

 

I take it you failed to comprehend Elaines comprehensive post

 

 

A post full of innuendo, speculation, opinion, and no proof what so ever.

 

There are laws and rules, scrutiny and accounting to prevent what is alledged. Mrs T brought in the legislation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonksy]

We all know what your word is worth OLD man...You couldn't even prove your own bullshit over in-flight chopper refuelling...Or name the body that supposedly banned it..

[Affa]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:40:47 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 you find I necessary to question detailed figures why do doubt those that don't believe your versions

 

Read Elaine's post ........ example -

Union behind BA strike receives £18m from taxpayers in 'money-
laundering' deal with Labour
The union behind the British Airways strike has received £18million
from taxpayers under Labour, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Since 1998, Unite, Amicus and the TGWU have received £17,396,498 under
the Union Learning Fund,

The Union Learning Fund was set up in 1998 in order to encourage union
reps and members to improve their education and training.

for more than

 

A clear suggestion that the £18ml (over eleven years) was redirected to the Labour Party. That isn't true Jar, and if you thought about it

a second you see it CAN'T be true.

 

It infers it, but doesn't actually say it. Because it can't say it!

Skills training for employees was traditionally taken up by employers - that few do so now has caused the Unions, AND Government to finance training and education. And for this they are accused of 'laundering'.

It's despicable politicking ......... you should be ashamed for having repeated it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:43:24 PM UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

I take it you failed to comprehend Elaines comprehensive post

 

 

A post full of innuendo, speculation, opinion, and no proof what so ever.

 

A post full of undeniable facts all of which can backed up leaving you paddling up the creek with nothing but indoctrinated socialist bullshit

[Affa]

 Here's a tester for for you .......... post a single FACT from the post that proves the Unions used government money to fund the labour party.

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:01:57 PM UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

 Here's a tester for for you .......... post a single FACT from the post that proves the Unions used government money to fund the labour party.

 

Errrr, it was Labour using taxpayers to fill the Unions coffers allowing the unions to launder that money back into the Labour Parties Coffers

 

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

the all important word in s71 is ''unless''

[Affa]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:27:27 AM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

 

the all important word in s71 is ''unless''

 

 

Explain it Elaine. Are you saying that these regulations do not work?

Earlier I told Jar that the £18ml (over eleven years) under the training and education assist could not be redirected back as Labout paert political donations - do you say it could and was? Or any part of it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

I've already explained it cf s71 , s73 -your comment << > Earlier I

told Jar that the £18ml (over eleven years) under the training

> and education assist *could not* be redirected back as Labout paert
> political donations>> is incorrect if s71 applies

the operative word in the section is ''unless''

On 19 Sep, 01:03, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:27:27 AM UTC+1, ewill wrote:
> > the all important word in s71 is ''unless''
>
> Explain it Elaine. Are you saying that these regulations do not work?
> Earlier I told Jar that the £18ml (over eleven years) under the training

> and education assist *could not* be redirected back as Labout paert

[Affa]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:30:34 AM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

 

I've already explained it cf s71 , s73 -your comment

 

 

I asked, ' 

Explain it Elaine. Are you saying that these regulations do not work?

Earlier I told Jar that the £18ml (over eleven years) under the training and education assist could not be redirected back as Labout party political donations - do you say it could and was? Or any part of it?

 

You gave a none answer,

 

To recap - this diversion occurred because Jar made the comment that the last Labour government used tax payers money to give to the Unions who then handed that money back to the Labour Party Organisation. This I said was an unfounded allegation of mischief and a lie.

Others have entered the exchange, and not one piece of evidence exists to substantiate this malicious gossip - for that's what it is.

 

btw Unionlearn is still opperating, still recieving government funding.

Over the past 12 years, more than 28,000 union learning representatives (ULRs) have been trained and 230,000 people are being given training and learning opportunities through their union every year.

Unionlearn is also responsible for providing education and training opportunities for workplace reps and professionals via TUC Education. Each year more than 50,000 trade union members enrol in trade union education courses organised by the TUC.

Union learning is growing fast; almost every union is now involved in union learning, supported by unionlearn, helping hundreds of thousands of learners at all levels, from basic numeracy and literacy to degree level qualifications.

As I keep repeating, this is necessary and valuable work ........ even the CBI agree. Perhaps the CBI could do it better, do it cheaper, do it without government funding. Perhaps pigs could fly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

You gave a none answer, >>

I gave a complete factual answer citing the legislation ( ie law)you
claimed prevented unions from making political donations with all of
their funds. I made no comment on regulations - I was not aware of
regulations being in question.

The fact you don't understand the answer is really your own personal
issue, not mine

But in simple language so that even die hard lefties can understand
it: unions cannot use funds( source of funds is irrelevant) for
political objectives UNLESS they have agreed to do so . Such agreement
must be renewed at least once a decade.

It's all in the legislation you claimed stopped them funding political
objectives

The rest of your post is irrelevant

On 19 Sep, 12:24, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:30:34 AM UTC+1, ewill wrote:
> > I've already explained it cf s71 , s73 -your comment
>
> I asked, '
> Explain it Elaine. Are you saying that these regulations do not work?
> Earlier I told Jar that the £18ml (over eleven years) under the training

> and education assist *could not* be redirected back as Labout party

[Affa]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:39:14 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

You gave a none answer, >>


I gave a complete factual answer citing the legislation ( ie law)you
claimed prevented unions from making political donations with all of
their funds.

The fact you don't understand the answer is really your own personal
issue, not mine

 

Oh but I do understand the issue and you 'do not give a complete factual answer'.

What you fail to say is that 'Unless the members are balloted and must agree to such political donations' (every ten years).

Nore do you acknowledge that if this agreement is made then a 'separate Fund' must be established and consented to by the Government's Certification Officer, who DOES Regulate how these funds are prescribed.

The 'law' made by the Thatcher government was intended to prevent what this allegation purports takes place ....

The answer I sought from you was whether or not you believe that the sums quoted as being 'laundered' could possibly have been redirected to the Labour Party ......... you as yet have not answered.

 

 

 

 

[tinman]

I know it you know the whole board knows it Affa. But when your
desperate you do desperate things. If that means jumping onto a band
wagon before seeing where it's going then thats what some posters here
will do.

[ewill]

Jeez

You claimed the law says that unions can't give political donations

I asked which law

You cited an Act

That act does not support your assertion which I've then explained in
words of few syllables

The rest of your post is still completely irrelevant to that fact and
you do not understand the role of a certification officer

On 19 Sep, 13:10, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:39:14 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:
>
> > You gave a none answer, >>
>
> > I gave a complete factual answer citing the legislation ( ie law)you
> > claimed prevented unions from making political donations with all of
> > their funds.
>
> The fact you don't understand the answer is really your own personal
>
> > issue, not mine
>
> Oh but I do understand the issue and you 'do not give a complete factual
> answer'.

> What you fail to say is that '*Unless* the members are balloted and must

> agree to such political donations' (every ten years).
> Nore do you acknowledge that if this agreement is made then a 'separate
> Fund' must be established and consented to by the Government's
> Certification Officer, who DOES Regulate how these funds are prescribed.
> The 'law' made by the Thatcher government was intended to prevent what this
> allegation purports takes place ....
> The answer I sought from you was whether or not you believe that the sums
> quoted as being 'laundered' could possibly have been redirected to the
> Labour Party ......... you as yet have not answered.
>
>
>

[Affa]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 3:49:20 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

 

Jeez

You claimed the law says that unions can't give political donations

 

Don't be so silly.

 

I asked which law

You cited an Act

 The Act that stiplates how Union Political Funds are monitored, and regulated, to prevent misuse of monies not 'Certified' as political funding donations.

The role of the Cerification Officer is to ensure the alledged practice cannot occur.

• Maintaining a list of trade unions and employers' associations.
• Receiving, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and keeping available for public inspection annual returns from trade unions and employers' associations.
• Determining complaints concerning trade union elections, certain other ballots and certain breaches of trade union rules.
• Ensuring observance of statutory requirements governing mergers between trade unions & between employers' associations.
• Overseeing the political funds and the finances of trade unions and employers associations.
• Certifying the independence of trade unions.

 

 

 

That act does not support your assertion which I've then explained in
words of few syllables

 

 

It does!

 

[ewill]

There is absolutely no point in me continuing an exchange with someone
who refuses to understand how to read a very clear piece of
legislation dispationately and who simply tries to obfuscate and
regurgitate irrelevancies at every opportunity for reasons best known
to their own personal prejudices.

Your problem , not mine. I'm finished.

[GBur3]

International aid should be completely shut down - not another penny
leaves this country for anything. If there should be a tsunami the
height of a skyscraper in some God forsaken, parched and troubled
region of the world, we might consider sending a few quid (although
private donations should probably take care of it - no need to involve
tax £s)

On Sep 17, 4:43 pm, Sandman <joere...@aol.com> wrote:
> For some reason Cameron will not listen to the country, his own party,
> or anyone else, on the size of our aid budget, now he knows how the
> country feels, and he knows how the politicians and business men feel.
> To ignore the overwhelming opinion, and still spout that it is right, makes
> him unfit to run this country, the quicker he is kicked into the long grass
> the better for all.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9547999/Lord-Ashcroft-tells-...

[Affa]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:55:01 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

Your problem , not mine. I'm finished.

 

You're done for.

I claim victory in the argument, and hope Jar has followed this exchange and realises that it wasn't his fault he swallowed a lie. It's the

pattern of deceit and spin that dominate propaganda filth to blame.

A scandalous state of affairs that has not lessened in these days of supposed openness and false pretence of integrity.

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:36:30 PM UTC+1, GBur3 wrote:

 

International aid should be completely shut down -

 

 

Most definitely! Universally.

The World Bank exists as a safety net for the real sufferers. Giving Aid money to countries like India. Pakistan, and China is unjustifiable.

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 12:24:25 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

 

I asked, ' 

Explain it Elaine. Are you saying that these regulations do not work?

Earlier I told Jar that the £18ml (over eleven years) under the training and education assist could not be redirected back as Labout party political donations - do you say it could and was? Or any part of it?

 

The answer is quite obvious, if the Unions have no money for training they have no money for political donations

[Affa]

 The issue is whether Government assistance towards Union organised training costs can be diverted back as Labour party donations (as alledged). The law, the Certification Officer, the system prevents this.

Union members subscribe to the Union, typically <£3 pw for someone on less than £20kpa. Members can 'opt in'  to allow part of their contribution to used for political lobbying and or party donations. This amount is set, and form a separate Political Fund account. The bulk of their subscription is used to support the Union and its defined objectives - which will include training courses.

 

btw government assistance is still operational. The coalition has NOT cut the Union Learning Fund, rather it has said that Adult Education investment is vitally important. Would you expect this if the allegation were true?

 

The political fund rules (DirectGov)

A trade union which operates a political fund must have political fund rules. These too have to be approved by the Certification Officer. The trade union’s political fund rules will specify how money is collected for the political fund, and the amount to be paid into the fund by the members who contribute to it.

A trade union must pay for party political activities from its political fund, and must not use money from its other accounts for this purpose.

The Certification Officer is a Government Office.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, 20 September 2012 14:07:08 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

 The issue is whether Government assistance towards Union organised training costs can be diverted back as Labour party donations (as alledged).

 

The issue is why should the taxpayer fund Unions training costs, it removes a cost the Union should bear thus freeing money for other purposes like political donations

[tinman]

The issue is why the hell is Cameron increasing foreign aid to 11.5
Billion by 2014.

[Affa]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:20:05 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

 

 The issue is whether Government assistance towards Union organised training costs can be diverted back as Labour party donations (as alledged).

 

The issue is why should the taxpayer fund Unions training costs, it removes a cost the Union should bear thus freeing money for other purposes like political donations

 

 

 You have stopped insisting that the allegation of misuse of Union Learn monies to support the Labour Party took place.

Now you argue that by assisting Trade Unions to provide skills training courses (which also aides the business), they indirectly facilitate political donations, which is also untrue.

The rules, the system, allow Union members to decide whether or not part of their Union subscriptions are used for political purposes.

Members that consent to a political subscription have that money place in a separate account, and only that account can be used for making political donations. This is the choice members make. This is the Law (Thatcher's law).

 

The coalition have increased funding to Union Learn ....... they do not agree with your objections. Unionlearn head the development in adult skills training.

 

The Minister of State for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning John Hayes (Con) said that unionlearn was a 'powerful tool' in improving the skills vital for economic growth and recovery.

Addressing delegates at unionlearn's annual conference he said: 'Unionlearn has an essential role to play in ensuring that workplace learning is delivered to a high standard, and that people know where they can go to get good quality learning.

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, 20 September 2012 15:10:17 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:20:05 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

 

 The issue is whether Government assistance towards Union organised training costs can be diverted back as Labour party donations (as alledged).

 

The issue is why should the taxpayer fund Unions training costs, it removes a cost the Union should bear thus freeing money for other purposes like political donations

 

 

 You have stopped insisting that the allegation of misuse of Union Learn monies to support the Labour Party took place.

 

No I haven't, Labour put in place this corrupt use of taxpayers money to ensure it received it back.

[Affa]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:18:02 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

 

 You have stopped insisting that the allegation of misuse of Union Learn monies to support the Labour Party took place.

 

No I haven't, Labour put in place this corrupt use of taxpayers money to ensure it received it back.

 In-spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary you still spout the venom with malicious intent. You allege corruption when in fact it is the allegation itself that exhibits a corrupt purpose. I've resisted calling anyone a liar thus far. I break that resistance. you are a liar.

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, 20 September 2012 16:47:25 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 In-spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary

 

Have Labour given taxpayers money to the Unions or Not, the evidence is 100% conclusive they have, Case PROVEN.

[Affa]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:00:46 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

On Thursday, 20 September 2012 16:47:25 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 In-spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary

 

Have Labour given taxpayers money to the Unions or Not, the evidence is 100% conclusive they have, Case PROVEN.t - 

So does this Government - are you also accusing Cameron of funding the Labour Party?

[Affa]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:00:46 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

 

Have Labour given taxpayers money to the Unions or Not, the evidence is 100% conclusive they have, Case PROVEN.

The Government Department for Business, Innovation & Skills also gives monies and other assistance (rate rebates, tax exemptions etc) to businesses that provide adult training. The Labour government did too.

Are they funding the Conservative party which gets the majority of its funding from business?

 

[GBur3]

Jesus Christ Pete. Just focus on the issue at hand.

Is it true that his vileness gives away huge amounts of taxpayers cash
to foreigners, whilst forcing austerity at home? And if so, shouldn't
this stop immediately?

[jar]

Now you see them in action any fact that doesn't suit is rubbishe except the ones they come up with. Like the mess they made of this country facts have to be rubbished and the poster accused of . What this money laundering is telling us just shows what Labour is all about

[Affa]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:59:28 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

What this money laundering is telling us just shows what Labour is all about

Why persist in lie when you know it is a lie? 

[GBur3]

This thread is about international aid and the present government.
Will you at least admit that Cameron is wrong?

[jar]

Does it occur to you Affa thatEw having shown you in detail what was going on has just got fed up with trying to explain the obvious you don like it that's clear.
Your claiming victory would compare with a boxer that's. Failed to get up after he's been counted out but you don't give up do, unfortunately as EW pointed out the tactics of avoidance are noticeable

[GBur3]

Jar, consider this:

Under labour: The government puts money into the public sector and it
comes back to the party by way of the unions.

Under the tories: The government privatises public bodies and enacts
policies favourable to big business, with cash rewards flowing back
into the party from big business.

Both gain financially out of their pet projects - which makes sense
really because political parties are in business to serve certain
groups of people. If they do so, they get rewarded. Simple really.

Now, back on to the main issue here - nog aid (as some would choose to
call it)

[Affa]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:09:07 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

Does it occur to you Affa thatEw having shown you in detail what was going on has just got fed up with trying to explain the obvious you don like it that's clear.

It should occur to you, as it does Ewill, that this whole allegation is unfounded, malicious innuendo and supposition of the worst sort.

There is not a grain of truth in any of these allegations, and I do assert the fact as a 'victory' of truth over 'lies'.

 

[jar]

You should have the courage to accept its truth it's far too detailed to be as you describe and as I said I'd heard iT before and you wanted proof . You got that proof but didn't like it

[Affa]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:32:18 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

You should have the courage to accept its truth it's far too detailed to be as you describe and as I said I'd heard iT before and you wanted proof . You got that proof but didn't like it

Have you completely missed the point that there are laws, rules, and a givernment watchdog overseeing that it cannot happen?

As for Elain's (long) post - read it carefully. There is neither proof of the allegation nore an expressed assertion of it. They simply say that the Unions are taking government money, and the unions donate money to the Labour party (I do not argue that is not true) ........ and infer that it is the same money. Which is completely untrue.

The money the government provide to support Union organised training course is used for that purpose. The money the Unions donate to the Labour party comes from a political fund which is maintained by union members that opt in to make a political donation.

[Jonksy]

Its very simple Affa that all these fucking old tories have left...They can't exactly come on here and say how much better it all is now can they?