ml1dch Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 12 minutes ago, choffer said: A “dreadful miscarriage of justice” according to his pal. The most superfluous "rispin Bl" in history. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Davkaus Posted April 11, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted April 11, 2022 (edited) 37 minutes ago, choffer said: A “dreadful miscarriage of justice” according to his pal. It'd be good if he clarified why this is a miscarriage of justice, to explain why convicting a (at the time) 34 year old man who has sexual contact with a 15 year old is a ruling that has dreadful wider implications for LGBT+ muslims, rather than having wider implications for nonces. Edited April 11, 2022 by Davkaus 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 27 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: Bernie Ecclestone struck a deal with HMRC. Starbucks, stuck a deal with HMRC, there are plenty of companies who have avoided paying owed tax. Huge companies do it all the time, as they as good as blackmail the government that they will take there business abroad, which is a big reason they don't tax them more or take windfall taxes. The Ecclestone case is even older than the Vodafone case. Companies cannot now negotiate with HMRC. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 12 minutes ago, Davkaus said: It'd be good if he clarified why this is a miscarriage of justice, to explain why convicting a (at the time) 34 year old man who had sex with a 15 year old is a ruling that has dreadful wider implications for LGBT+ muslims, rather than having wider implications for nonces. He wasn't accused of having sex with him. Probably important from a not getting sued point of view to be accurate. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 (edited) 31 minutes ago, choffer said: A “dreadful miscarriage of justice” according to his pal. WTF is Blunt waffling on about. He is suggesting he was convicted for being Muslim and/or LGBT. He wasn't. He was found guilty of being a sex offender. Edited April 11, 2022 by markavfc40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 1 minute ago, markavfc40 said: WTF is Blunt waffling on about. He is suggesting he was convicted for being Muslim and/or LGBT. He wasn't. He was found guilty of being a sex offender. Yep. And apparently not just one person's word on it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 11, 2022 Moderator Share Posted April 11, 2022 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 Important to state it was the sexual assault of a child, not child rape. Blunt needs to spell this out, loudly and repeatedly. His friend was convicted, found guilty, of sexual assault of a minor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 1 minute ago, chrisp65 said: Important to state it was the sexual assault of a child, not child rape. Blunt needs to spell this out, loudly and repeatedly. His friend was convicted, found guilty, of sexual assault of a minor. And allegedly two other people, though I don't think he's been prosecuted for that (yet?). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 1 hour ago, Risso said: You can't be paid dividends as a director unless you're a shareholder as well. People running a legitimate company are perfectly entitled to take dividends. They've risked their time and money to start a business and the lower rate of dividend tax was originally supposed to at least partly reflect that. The advnatage is absolutely minimal these days though. Too many people like BBC employees abused the system, so the tax rate was increased to help change their behaviour, when legislation like IR35 didn't work. The advantage isn't absolutely minimal at all - what makes you think this? One of my best mates is comfortably thousands of pounds better off a year as he pays himself a very basic salary (to avoid income tax and NICs both personal and company-based) and draws down the rest in dividends... which also have a tax free element and are also taxed at a lower rate. It's a massive difference between what a "normal salaried" person would take home on the same "wage", not absolutely minimal at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Important to state it was the sexual assault of a child, not child rape. Blunt needs to spell this out, loudly and repeatedly. His friend was convicted, found guilty, of sexual assault of a minor. According the court reports, his defence was that he was only discussing the best types of pornography with the child. To emphasise, not an accusation against him - the defence that he thought was the best change of er...getting off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 6 minutes ago, Davkaus said: And allegedly two other people, though I don't think he's been prosecuted for that (yet?). The one person he assaulted was in Pakistan, again after drinking. I think that’s partly Blunt’s claim, that being gay, being muslim, and drinking alcohol could put his friend in danger. Curiously, Blunt doesn’t appear to think sexual assault of a child would also be a problem for his friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 1 minute ago, ml1dch said: According the court reports, his defence was that he was only discussing the best types of pornography with the child. To emphasise, not an accusation against him - the defence that he thought was the best change of er...getting off. Who amongst us hasn’t given a child a few drinks and then discussed porn whilst giving them a little groin squeeze? Blunt needs to turn this in to a big campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 25 minutes ago, bobzy said: The advantage isn't absolutely minimal at all - what makes you think this? One of my best mates is comfortably thousands of pounds better off a year as he pays himself a very basic salary (to avoid income tax and NICs both personal and company-based) and draws down the rest in dividends... which also have a tax free element and are also taxed at a lower rate. It's a massive difference between what a "normal salaried" person would take home on the same "wage", not absolutely minimal at all. I’m not an expert, but the profit is first taxed at 19%, then taxed again as dividend tax when taken out of the company. Don’t the two taxes added together roughly equal income tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 39 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: The one person he assaulted was in Pakistan, again after drinking. I think that’s partly Blunt’s claim, that being gay, being muslim, and drinking alcohol could put his friend in danger. Curiously, Blunt doesn’t appear to think sexual assault of a child would also be a problem for his friend. Yeah, I mean, plenty of sympathy here from me for gay people from Muslim backgrounds or in Muslim-majority countries, and sympathy too for Muslims who like a drop to drink as well. It's the whole sexually molesting kids bit that no one has sympathy for, and that rather seems like the key bit of the story. Blunt claims that this conviction relies on outdated stereotypes of LGBT Muslims, but he should instead have gotten angry at his mate for sadly reinforcing exactly those stereotypes. His statement is outrageous, and I don't see how he cannot have the whip removed. On a related issue, I also see this story: Tory MP tried to gag media over schoolboy sexual assault 'A Tory MP found guilty of sexually assaulting a schoolboy tried to gag the media the same day he tweeted in support of press freedom. Imran Ahmad Khan attempted to stop key details of the case – including his name, the age of his victim, his own homosexuality, and even his fondness for a gin and tonic – coming into the public domain. The 48-year-old was thwarted in his bid for secrecy unprecedented in a case not involving national security following two expensive legal challenges from media organisations. The full details of how the story finally came to be told can be reported for the first time after he was found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy after a party in 2008. The victim came forward days after Khan was elected in 2019 and gave three video-recorded interviews to police – two in December 2019 and one in February last year, when he drove almost 200 miles from his home during the pandemic’s second wave. Khan was sent a questionnaire by Staffordshire Police rather than being interviewed under caution at a station because of “Covid protocols in place at the time”, providing written answers on May 7, 2020. Neither Staffordshire Police nor the Crown Prosecution Service informed the media or the public when Khan was charged by postal requisition – the point at which suspects in criminal cases are routinely named. His first appearance at Westminster Magistrates’ Court by videolink on June 3 last year did not appear on the public or press lists. Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring granted the MP an interim anonymity order ahead of another unlisted hearing, which the CPS refused to confirm was taking place as well as what charge Khan was facing. On June 17 last year, the day Khan argued in court he should be granted anonymity, he retweeted then foreign secretary Dominic Raab’s message about “press freedom” in Hong Kong. Khan had previously spoken in the Commons against Extinction Rebellion’s efforts to “constrain press freedom” after the protest group blocked a newspaper printing press. His lawyers said that as a serving MP there were concerns about his safety and argued he should not be named in court because it would breach his right to life (Article 2), protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment” (Article 3) and right to a private life (Article under the European Convention of Human Rights. The application included statements from former British diplomat and intelligence officer Richard Barrett and former senior RAF officer Afzal Ashraf, a letter from DUP MP Jim Shannon on House of Commons paper and openly available information about Ahmadi Muslims.' more at link, including another subsequent attempt to prevent media reporting of the case: https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/uk_today_homepage/20061030.tory-mp-tried-gag-media-schoolboy-sexual-assault/ Seems like maybe there should be some questions to Jim Shannon MP as well. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 11, 2022 Moderator Share Posted April 11, 2022 Do we know if Khan ever said anything about the ECHR? I'm assuming as he's a Tory, he would have been against it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 Johnson has just read Blunts statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 4 hours ago, Dodgyknees said: People still blame Labour and immigrants and I can’t see that changing. Most of those people never voted Labour anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted April 12, 2022 Share Posted April 12, 2022 Blunt's now withdrawn and deleted his statement. So now he's just a Tory who thinks that child sexual abuse is fine, rather than one who says that it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 12, 2022 Share Posted April 12, 2022 11 hours ago, mjmooney said: He thought he was going to be the next Prime Minister. That's history books level fame. Ego trip. Yep, people like him are attracted to the status and the power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts