Mailwatch(ed) Forum

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 8:58 pm

Oboogie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 7:46 pm What claims and who is making them?

Claims are in that very sentence. I will usually not repost from Twitter these days as it is usually either from a completely irrelevant account, a confirmation of bias, or both.

John Sopel has been flexing his fingers and cracking his knuckles, mind. Not explicitly and certainly not without weight.

Well as Sharp wasn't anything to do with the BBC at the time, they're easily rebutted.

That is not what is being reported. Sharp was seemingly nominated for the BBC by Johnson within weeks of the former greasing the thick end of a million quid for the latter. Sharp was expressly and explicitly requested to declare any actual or potentially perceived conflict of interest.

He chose not to.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:27 pm That is not what is being reported. Sharp was seemingly nominated for the BBC by Johnson within weeks of the former greasing the thick end of a million quid for the latter. Sharp was expressly and explicitly requested to declare any actual or potentially perceived conflict of interest.

He chose not to.

Correct. So how does that mean that the BBC are the bad guys picking on poor Boris - which is the line Johnson is peddling this morning?
There is no evidence that any BBC employee was involved in, or had knowledge of, the corruption between Johnson, Sharp and Case, the BBC are in fact victims in this as they've been lumbered with a Chair who was appointed because he's Johnson's cousin and he brokered him a loan of £800k. Trying to twist this into an excuse to attack the BBC is a hell of a reach.

Sunak has announced an independent enquiry.
Zahawi has agreed to cooperate (jolly decent of him).

Meanwhile, Doug Barrowman and Michelle Mone have invested in an offshore whitewash manufacturer.

Samanfur wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:03 pm Kuenssberg's guests this morning were the head of Tesco, IDS, and "LBC presenter and journalist" Rachel Johnson, who reckoned that we should go easy on Zahawi, because doing your taxes is really difficult.

Fair and balanced.

R. Johnson was there to keep the heat on Zahawi and shift blame from her greaseball brother onto Simon Case, who is B. Johnson’s bus underside throwee du jour.

I can only assume if Boris isn’t re-elevated to the highest office in the land pre-election that Sunak will be in for an absolute landslide of shit-shovelling from his increasingly bitter blancmange predecessor, whose sole purpose in life now (other than lining his pockets and going on tours of the rapidly dwindling number of places where he’s popular) is making himself and his tenure look marginally less bad by ruining those that came along after.

"LBC presenter and journalist" Rachel Johnson

That strange sort of journalist who's never had to do local court reporting or doorstepping once in their career.

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:53 pm Sunak has announced an independent enquiry.
Zahawi has agreed to cooperate (jolly decent of him).

Meanwhile, Doug Barrowman and Michelle Mone have invested in an offshore whitewash manufacturer.

So, to take the reverse, if he didn't 'agree' would the enquiry happen?

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:27 pm

"LBC presenter and journalist" Rachel Johnson

That strange sort of journalist who's never had to do local court reporting or doorstepping once in their career.

She is a journalist in much the same way as I am a stuntman.

It's now clear Zahawi hadn't told Sunak the full story before he went out to defend him in Parliament?

Sacking offence, you'd think. Apparently not. How can Sunak possibly keep his party in order, if this is the standard?

I like the irony that YouGov have carried out a survey which found that 51% of people think that Zahawi should be sacked and only 12% saying he should keep his job.

But how can this be? It's a well known #FACT that Zahawi personally rigs all YouGov polls...

Your local plumber uses the high street accountant to make sure his VAT is in order and he’s collecting the right PAYE and NI from his employees, you may be forgiven for thinking there may be the odd bit of “careless” at this level, but the stuff Zahawi was playing with, would have serious financial suits and investment bankers running it all the way. To paraphrase the so called Prime Minister; you’d be idiots to think this was an accident

There don't seem to be any tax advisors formally involved, as far as we can tell. Either he's a man who does his own research on the internet, or he asked an advisor who said "Fuck off, Nadhim, not putting my name to that".

As said elsewhere; you don’t become as rich as Zahawi by being careless

Looks like Sunak might be "pre-empting the enquiry" after all. As he must. If you don't get sacked for misleading the PM so that he makes an arse of himself at PMQs, then he's got very little authority left. Tory MPs might as well stand next to him wearing "I'm with Stupid" T-shirts on, for all the sanction they'd face.

It gets better. There may have been a second dispute between Zahawi and HMRC.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:11 pm Tory MPs might as well stand next to him wearing "I'm with Stupid" T-shirts on, for all the sanction they'd face.

Given the current state of things, that arrow would be better if it rotated and would need to be spinning like a fan.

I'm experiencing something of a moral dilemma. I'm signed up to YouGov, and take part, when they want me to, in their polls and surveys. Over several years, I've trousered about £150 in reward points (considerably less than Zahawi). I've always known that Zahawi was involved, along with Stephan Shakespeare and Peter Kellner, in setting You Gov up, but I put it to one side because I thought it was worthwhile, and helped by persistent Trot idiocy that insisted ludicrously that all YouGov's polling was "fixed" because of Zahawi's initial involvement, and because it reflected the reality that Jeremy Corbyn was about as popular as syphillis.

With the revelation that Zahawi not only made squillions of pounds from the You Gov setup, but attempted to evade the payment of due tax on it and to cover it up by threatening legitimate journalists, I have pause for thought as to whether I should continue to contribute to You Gov's business. Perhaps I should bale out?

But would there be any point ?

Help me out, please, fellow Mailwatchers.

Easier in the old days when eschewing the creative output of Savile and Rolf Harris was both easy and painless.

I'd say carry on using it, as now (hopefully) he'll be paying his bloody taxes. Either that or continue to use it, but ironically.

Personally, I would continue as normal. No blame can be attached to the thousands of people who take part in the polls. The actions of the founder of the company are not the responsibility of the "employees". And the rewards you get will be legit. Dodgy businessmen like to have a veneer of respectability.