The whiff is growing- £2k worth of football tickets for Mr Starmer

[Rusty Nails]

At least @Pale Rider , for all his other faults, knew the difference between a lie and a misrepresentation.

He also knew when to give up.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

He also knew when to give up.

I should give up having a different opinion because the majority of posters disagree? Why?

We keep being told how differing opinions are welcome, except of course when someone offers a different opinion, which is generally the starting point for pathetic name calling.

Maybe if you looked a little wider than your usual blinkers allow, you may see things from more than one direction.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I should give up having a different opinion because the majority of posters disagree? Why?

We keep being told how differing opinions are welcome, except of course when someone offers a different opinion, which is generally the starting point for pathetic name calling.

Maybe if you looked a little wider than your usual blinkers allow, you may see things from more than one direction.

Like anyone on this forum you are welcome to have any opinions you want, and the fact they are different to mine is not a problem, but the old saying about opinions and ar*eholes remains true, especially when they are based on prejudiced conjecture rather than evidence.

 

[icowden]

I also believe that David Lammy lied about his expenses, but we don't know why yet, as someone pointed out, he declared money before and after the ones he didn't.

So you believe without any evidence that he lied. You can't demonstrate why, or demonstrate any personal gain from this lie, but you still think it. DO you also believe the earth is flat?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

So you believe without any evidence that he lied

Except of course that he didn't tell the truth, which is another way of saying that a lie has been told.

If he had told the truth, then he would have declared the earnings when he declared the others, we know he didn't, so a lie was told. There is your evidence, unless you don't want to see it, which you clearly don't. This is a personal responsibility of MPs, most will give it to their staff to do, but the responsibility is theirs.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Except of course that he didn't tell the truth, which is another way of saying that a lie has been told.

If he had told the truth, then he would have declared the earnings when he declared the others, we know he didn't, so a lie was told. There is your evidence, unless you don't want to see it, which you clearly don't. This is a personal responsibility of MPs, most will give it to their staff to do, but the responsibility is theirs.

I must have missed the bit where he said he had declared them. He has said a mistake has been made. To make an error, or for your staff make one, is not a lie, despite your rather convoluted, clutching at straws definition of a lie.

The review of this situation by the Standards Committee will give us the answer, and not your "unblinkered" speculation.......or mine.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

I must have missed the bit where he said he had declared them. He has said a mistake has been made. To make an error, or for your staff make one, is not a lie, despite your rather convoluted, clutching at straws definition of a lie.

The review of this situation by the Standards Committee will give us the answer, and not your "unblinkered" speculation.......or mine.

You accuse me of clutching at straws!

Let's break this down...

Should he have declared them? Yes or No
Did he declare them? Yes or No
If he should have declared and did then he didn't lie about his earnings.
If he should have declared but didn't then he lied about his earnings.

Easy.

 

[Rusty Nails]

You accuse me of clutching at straws!

Let's break this down...

Should he have declared them? Yes or No
Did he declare them? Yes or No
If he should have declared and did then he didn't lie about his earnings.
If he should have declared but didn't then he lied about his earnings.

Easy

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your logic, which completely ignores the concept of an error by him or one of his staff, but as it's you:

Just to help you understand here are a couple of definitions of a lie:

"a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth."

"To say or write something that is not true in order to deceive"

Now go away and don't come back until you have done your English comprehension homework.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your logic, which completely ignores the concept of an error by him or one of his staff, but as it's you:

Just to help you understand here are a couple of definitions of a lie:

"a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth."

"To say or write something that is not true in order to deceive"

Now go away and don't come back until you have done your English comprehension homework.

You do know that a lie can also be not writing or saying in order to deceive don't you?

You know, like not writing down that you have received some cash when the instructions are you must write it down?

I guess I am ignoring that it could have been a mistake in the same way you are ignoring that it may have been a lie?

 

[Rusty Nails]

You do know that a lie can also be not writing or saying in order to deceive don't you?

You know, like not writing down that you have received some cash when the instructions are you must write it down?

I guess I am ignoring that it could have been a mistake in the same way you are ignoring that it may have been a lie?

Only if you are doing it to deceive, and not in error. HTH.

I am not ignoring that it may have been a lie, but, unlike you, just not saying it was, until the investigation has given its verdict.

P.S., About that homework...........

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Only if you are doing it to deceive, and not in error. HTH.

I am not ignoring that it may have been a lie, but, unlike you, just not saying it was, until the investigation has given its verdict.

P.S., About that homework...........

So you don't know if it was done to deceive, but you have told me lots of times it wasn't done to deceive! Make your mind up!

 

[Rusty Nails]

So you don't know if it was done to deceive, but you have told me lots of times it wasn't done to deceive! Make your mind up!

Have I? I thought I was saying, in response to your claims that it was a lie, that it could have been an error, explaining how that could have happened, and that I would prefer to wait until the results of the investigation are known.

If you can show me (hint: you can't) where I wasn't saying that then it is clear that I shall have to join you in the English comprehension homework.

 

[icowden]

So you don't know if it was done to deceive, but you have told me lots of times it wasn't done to deceive! Make your mind up!

So one of the key questions to answer to establish whether a deception was intended, is the motivation or gain for so doing. I cannot see any benefit to Mr Lammy of not declaring a small sum of money for a speech.

On the other hand if you are called Boris and have a limit of £30,000 to refurbish your flat, and you spend £112,000 to keep your current squeeze from blabbing he mouth off to the press about what a fornicating idiot you are and you ask Lord Brownlow to stump up £52,000 to help pay for it in return for promoting his interests, then fail to declare it and lie to parliament, we can see motivation and gain.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

So one of the key questions to answer to establish whether a deception was intended, is the motivation or gain for so doing. I cannot see any benefit to Mr Lammy of not declaring a small sum of money for a speech.

On the other hand if you are called Boris and have a limit of £30,000 to refurbish your flat, and you spend £112,000 to keep your current squeeze from blabbing he mouth off to the press about what a fornicating idiot you are and you ask Lord Brownlow to stump up £52,000 to help pay for it in return for promoting his interests, then fail to declare it and lie to parliament, we can see motivation and gain.

If he failed to declare this, can you just tell us what else he has also hidden which hasn't come to light yet?

 

[icowden]

If he failed to declare this, can you just tell us what else he has also hidden which hasn't come to light yet?

You really don't read well do you?
If he didn't hide the donation, then your question is pointless.
If it was hidden, why would he un-hide it?

I'll ask you again. What benefit did he derive from declaring it late?