Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Abernathy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 4:08 pm Come on. You can’t have a Prime Minister called Darren.

Not long now before lollipop men are*.

*A reference to a song by popular beat combo Half Man Half Biscuit.

Annelise Dodds on Sky News this morning stressing that Labour's recovery plan is a ten-year, two term mission.

A lot of people are making hay out of this

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -mandelson

Blair felt under pressure to ban foxhunting after donation, says Mandelson
Former Labour MP who now sits in the Lords claims 1997 manifesto commitment went further than then party leader wanted

Peter Mandelson, the peer and former Labour MP, said the former prime minister included a commitment to hold a free vote on hunting with dogs in Labour’s 1997 manifesto after receiving money from an animal welfare fund.

Blair has said the foxhunting ban, which was finally enacted in 2004, was one of the policies he most regrets. Debate has since raged about whether the ban should be repealed, with the Conservative party previously having promised to hold a free vote on whether to do so while Labour say they will tighten loopholes in the ban.

Mandelson was speaking during a discussion on whether political donations can affect policy on the Times Radio podcast How to Win an Election.

He said: “I can offer you an example from 1997 where an organisation – it was a fund to do with the welfare of animals – got pretty transactional with us. It was the first and last time I remember this.

For fuck's sake - are they going to spend the rest of their lives apologising for every single progressive measure they introduced? Banning foxhunting was popular and right.

Guardian overreach.
Who are these senior figures and what evidence have they produced to back this claim?
How many rural people hunt foxes and what proportion are former Labour voters?

Senior Labour figures believe the hunting ban created a rift between the party and rural voters for a generation.

That's more senior advisers overreach in fairness.

I have no idea if this is serious research from senior advisers or an anecdote from Peter Mandelson (He met someone over a brandy at the Berkeley Hunt annual ball who once voted Labour and he said..). Likely the latter.

I see from Xitter that Rachel Reeves has stated her intention of 'clamping down' on Candy Shops. From the comments there seems to be a general impression that these shops, as well as Turkish barbers and nail bars, are some sort of money laundering or otherwise illegal operation.

I knew nothing of this - can anyone elucidate, please?

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 12:01 pm I see from Xitter that Rachel Reeves has stated her intention of 'clamping down' on Candy Shops. From the comments there seems to be a general impression that these shops, as well as Turkish barbers and nail bars, are some sort of money laundering or otherwise illegal operation.

I knew nothing of this - can anyone elucidate, please?

Candy Shops sell overpriced and usually American sweets. Private Eye did an investigation a couple of years ago about the number of them opening in London tourist areas. Nail bars and in particular Turkidh barbers are similar - they're springing up on every high street and hardly get any custom. In all cases they're reckoned to be fronts for money laundering or other criminal activity.

I get that - but how does the money laundering thing work? I can't see that a barber will take that much cash as to make it worth the bother - or am I missing something?

I don’t know anything about money laundering, but, aesthetically, those Candy Shops are an offensive blot on the landscape.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 12:26 pm I get that - but how does the money laundering thing work? I can't see that a barber will take that much cash as to make it worth the bother - or am I missing something?

The principle upon which the retail money laundering works is to falsify the cash takings. One claims to have had, say, 100 cash customers at 25€ a head. That means that 2500€ of illicit cash is pumped in to the business, it is banked and declared for taxation purposes, and hey presto, the money is now freshly laundered.

It is reasonably low-risk, just so long as the authorities haven't cottoned-on and are not filming or otherwise gathering evidence from afar.

Is it worth the bother, or is there an 'economy of scale' going on?

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 1:27 pm Is it worth the bother, or is there an 'economy of scale' going on?

Fifty haircuts a day at £20 a time means five or six grand a week laundered, plus the occasional legit business.

Doesn't seem much. Or would one 'firm' have a number of such barbershops under their wing?

It would seem an easy thing to bust.

Takeaway joints regularly get busted for H&S violations and simply relaunch under a new name and with another family member on the licence.

And yes, any business dealing mainly in cash with a fast turnover of customers, if so inclined, would find it easy to blur the money trail.

Police concentrate resources on the launderers rather than their small fry outlet accomplices. Or professionals and property developers. Branch bank managers and builder merchants are more weary of punters dropping large amounts of cash since anti terror legislation has tightened up on money laundering opportunities.
Do Mr Bigs even handle suitcases full of physical cash anymore?

With the takeaway places, it's more about distribution than laundering. Pizza delivery, house special side, sir?

Yeah.
Lost a kid I taught to that, rival gang took him out...

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 3:50 pm Doesn't seem much. Or would one 'firm' have a number of such barbershops under their wing?

It would seem an easy thing to bust.

I know little of Economics, but #1 son studied the subject.
Some popular writers (eg Freakonomics) have spotted the similarities between organised crime and the franchising model.
Lots of local, nominally independent street operations, with a share or profits kicked upstairs to a Paulie figure.

The crime family model ensures that business continues if the kingpin gets jailed (Unless the successor is a Fredo character).
The street level characters are expendable, mainly protected to ensure no other kingpin moves in on the turf.

Laundering through small business works for the street level operations.
It's also a nice job for the gangster's wife who "Thought he was a legitimate businessman".

It follows that the higher echelons of the business will have bigger and more sophisticated laundering methods.
Property would seem a natural one.
* Acquire some shops on a run-down high street.
* Have your operative open the laundering storefronts, and pay you rent (That's part of your kick back covered).
* Repeat the process and sell the improved shops for a significant payday.

Back in the day, one of the original fronts was the 24 hour laundromat (Hence the name).
Within living memory, minicab firms were popular.
Both have advantages of providing an ever-available base of operations, and a logistic network for moving low volume, high value goods.