Holmes_and_Watson

And these should follow the same route of declaration, scrutiny and regulation. In parallel with that we are now seeing legislation in process that changes the legality of donations to stop Reform getting their hands on them. It's not really false equivalency when both Labour (£4million) and the Conservatives (£10million) had no issue with individual, large sums being made to them, right up until they realised Reform could get large donations too. Those sums are 2023/24, when it was just fine. The main things I heard in about half an hour of radio this morning:- Such large sums distort democracy/ result in a paid for party - As above, both Donations from individuals is actively sought after, and endorsed. Combined donations from like minded people is fine too. Foreign Control/ Influence - Non-UK nationals aren't allowed to donate at all. I said NON-UK NATIONALS AREN'T ALLOWED TO DONATE AT ALL! that was for Nigel, who seems to be hard of hearing on that. It applies to siphoning it directly through relatives from overseas. The bill going through parliament looks to cap overseas donations from Non-UK based British citizens individuals to £100k. They are voters, but just not as trustworthy/eligible as voters here, apparently. They can donate though, so lots of murky £100ks seem okay. Mind you, it was only 2023, when they removed the 15 year limit for overseas UK citizens to get the vote, and donate. Both parties wanted to make sure their overseas donations kept rolling in,no matter how long those persons were away from the UK. Reform must have been a shock to that one. Both of Reforms big donors, look to be saying they will be based in the UK, for the purposes of these donations. But oh wait, the retrospective legislation is looking to limit the donations of people eligible to vote here, and in the UK, to a set amount over a few years upon their return. Not that there's anything wrong with their money. Just so that they don't come back to get round that £100k cap. That they are looking to make it retrospective, should be of interest to all the people told that it would be unfeasible/unfair for any other bit of legislation to be retrospective. It turns out it can be, if they want it to be. It's Crytpocurrency - Which, as dodgy as it is, has been round now for quite a long time. Strange that the governments only became concerned about it, in this context, when it was Reform that started sourcing large sums through it. I noted that 1 of them received a pardon from Trump for AML offences. I've not seen information to say that the personal wealth of these two, is also tainted. Reform says it's fine, and no one else in interviews has said anything except practice a halloween voice with "Ooooh Crypto." There's lots of enhanced diligence, but it's legal. Because that's the way our banking/legislative system allows it to be. So, when it comes down to it, they've had no issue with it until this. Speaking of due diligence, it's 2026 and the government are just getting around to introducing some basic measures to stop the truck wide gaps in their donations from entities too. Mind you, it's only been since 2001 that they had much of anything in this department. "Anyone could set up a business with high revenue without needing to demonstrate how they operate and make money, or whether they’re paying tax in the UK." Remember the near £11 billion in Covid fraud? Well, that had more checks than our two main parties were willing to undertake to stop them getting donations. Farage's recent attempts at getting a donation, were just through a single relative. Just wait until they see the nested shell company structures involved. Not that I think they'll be looking that closely. Not a coincidence that, and keeping that Covid fraud in mind which was a few years back now, that they're just getting round to this as Reform get backers. I'm annoyed that Farage has done more to force changes in transparency in political donations, than they would ever have introduced otherwise. That Labour and the Conservatives are clearly doing everything they can to build the changes around Reform as much as actual anti-money laundering says a lot about our politics. Grubby and pathetic.

Justice

This smacks as contortionist levels of double standards from the traditional parties. The Representation of the People Bill is currently going through parliament. Part of that was to limit overseas UK citizens to £100 donation cap. There was talk of "protecting us from a scourge against democracy" as the reason. If I saw a scourge, I'd be stopping it completely. But £100k seems fine. That's not least because it allows certain backers of Labour and Conservatives to continue to donate, but primarily blocks the large overseas based Reform backers from giving more. That's by design. Since they were looking at this, and having an opportunity to stop distortions of democracy that both parties are safeguarding, it was a great time to look at funding across the board. After all, history shows the public gets whatever the ideological stance of the party, plus carved out parts of personal enrichment and prestige for their financial backers. Sadly All-Access Lord Ali was unavailable for comment. So I can just point out the one second it took the unions to wait for Labour to be in power for, before turning up with their agreed demands. The conservative party were Reform, and were delighted to operate on similar principles, or lack of principles, for all the time we've had a parliament up until now. From paying for peerages, to donations for staff,offices, clothing, to cash for questions, through declared but clearly not appropriate gifts and just general donations, this is our system. they've not changed any of that with the bill they've just had the opportunity to fix it. Asked about the very recent Lord Sainsbury's couple of hundred thousand donation to Burnham 'A Labour Party spokesperson said: "It's right that political campaigns are funded by the generous support of party donors, rather than via the public purse.' Now, we've had a peer saying that the Bill should be returned to parliament so that they can add in bits to stop the next bit of Reform funding. Now it's the amount that they are jealous of. Sorry, it's the amount that they feel is distorting democracy. Their nickel and dime chiseling around the edges of democracy, has been blown away by the size of Reform's donations. Remember, Lord Sainsbury donated sizeably to Burnham. Lord Sainsbury also donated over 4 million to Labour in 2024. The other Lord Sainsbury posthumously donated £10 million to the Conservatives in 2023. No rush to change the distortion of our democracy there. No terror of our system being for sale. And like all good politicians, it's never about what's right, it's about what suits them best. So, they are jumping up and down because it's cryptocurrency. A source so dodgy, yet strangely tolerated to a degree, because where there's grift, there's gold for all political persuasions. If the donors are found to have been funded illegally, or have convictions, fine. If not, then our main parties are reaping the rewards of the systems they were so desperate to set up, to keep themselves available for similar beneficiaries. Before the split, and before Badenoch's "toe the line or you're out" approach, this would have been a Conservative donation. Well, if they had lurched to the right as a ideological choice, rather than being led by the nose through opinion polls. It's Robert Jenrick sitting there saying how legitimate the donations are. On the Labour side, it's "oh look at the US style policies we're going to get. Democracy for sale." While determinedly not looking up to see the strings pulling their limbs. They haven;t done anything about having publicly funded politics, or limited entity or individual donations, because they've benefited from it. Like policy isn't influenced by dodgily funded think tanks, business and union leaders. No doubt any limit coming in, will cause the least amount of pain to their funding models, while kicking the ladder away from other parties. Considering how long football funding models, that achieve the same thing, have been in place, it's a wonder they didn't adopt it sooner. But then, there's was always a chance they would be the ones getting the donation. So, couldn't stop that, could they?

Agreed. Pleased for him. He was looking sharp, before this move. Auxerre getting the benefits.

If they got to pick and chose who they'd bother rescuing, where would they stop? They'd go out for ships in distress. That's tradition. But people on holiday inflatables? Pedalos (no Portmouth, pedalos before you riot)? Give in to pressure and not assist anyone coming form the direction of France (with other directions to be added)? People with poor fashion choices? The elderly? Just anyone if there's something good on the telly?

He was asked at Rangers what it was that those inside saw. And sure enough, he couldn't answer it then either. 🙂 Still, the process is back underway with a win today. Not seen highlights yet. Losing 3 goals and needing to get 4 is unsustainable. Fortunately, we know how careful he is to change his defensive approach, when points are needed.

An impressive scoreline, with an impressive closing spell, where Bristol just couldn't keep up with us. However, before that they had plenty of the ball, and plenty of that within our final third. Yes, we defended well in the main. But we had the odd slip up , as you'd expect from any team, and they had a few chances that needed a more clinical finishers to put away today. Ballard should be pleased with a lot of his work, bar the final shot, today. But we did enough when defending, and Larin made all the difference in the when it came to being clinical. Great to have such a centre forward with us. Matsuki's work rate also made a big difference. A number of others were quieter, but then did really good things such as JWP, Azaz and Leo. A quieter home game, where we didn't have it our own way until later on. But we worked well, with the subs doing fine too. Perhaps that extra fresh energy helped with the later goals today.

Hen

Ball

Likewise, I'm very relieved it has failed. And that's with a huge amount of respect and empathy to a lot of individual cases. For something of this magnitude, it was disappointing that for all of the concerns and previously suggested amendments, an identical bill was proposed simply as a procedural measure to prevent the Lords blocking it.

Since my solution to the immigration crisis is the, very traditional, invasion of France, such reminders and petty actions are all part of the plan. 🙂

War

Uses formula to determine which SaintsWeb poster is touchy about using Excel and having meetings...oh, hi Gloucester. 🙂

I wonder what happens when the balaclavas are banned. Will the protestors switch to niqabs and burkas? Can't see the government banning them.

Road