FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > House of Cards?
House of Cards?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next?" O dear, why only 800? | |||
 | |||
" ... 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next?" They can wipe out the law which says British motorists have all got to drive European built cars bodged from left hand drive designs, for a start. Plus any law which says buying real Japanese cars must be made as difficult as possible. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next?" Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? | |||
" Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? " He asked his friend Sam Blyth to lend Boris £800,000 | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? " Here we go modus operandi, technicality excuse and semantics based arguments incoming. It has been widely reported. My choice of word matches what has been used across multiple sources. Quibble all you want. Johnson got an £800k loan and Sharp helped then Sharp gets thanked with a top job. | |||
" Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? He asked his friend Sam Blyth to lend Boris £800,000" As you do. Wonder who is guarantor on the loan and whether the loan is interest free? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Here we go modus operandi, technicality excuse and semantics based arguments incoming. It has been widely reported. My choice of word matches what has been used across multiple sources. Quibble all you want. Johnson got an £800k loan and Sharp helped then Sharp gets thanked with a top job. " That's a bit unfair. Read the guardian article. The Guardian, you know, the Tories best friends. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister”. He added that he did not realise he had to declare the introduction during the recruitment process for the BBC job, saying: “I have always maintained the breach was inadvertent.” It is still not known who ultimately provided Johnson with the loan, which became public only after he left office." According to a language expert: 'It's just semantics' is a common retort people use when arguing their point. What they mean is that their argument or opinion is more valid than the other person's. It's a way to be dismissive of language itself as carrier for ideas. | |||
" Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? He asked his friend Sam Blyth to lend Boris £800,000 As you do. Wonder who is guarantor on the loan and whether the loan is interest free?" Did he? | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Here we go modus operandi, technicality excuse and semantics based arguments incoming. It has been widely reported. My choice of word matches what has been used across multiple sources. Quibble all you want. Johnson got an £800k loan and Sharp helped then Sharp gets thanked with a top job. " How did he help it? He introduced 2 people. What they do form then is their business. I'm not sure how he facilitated anything. | |||
| |||
" I'm not sure how he facilitated anything. " So why did he resign ? | |||
" I'm not sure how he facilitated anything. So why did he resign ?" People will resign because of public perception regardless of the facts of a matter. That is sadly the public court | |||
" I'm not sure how he facilitated anything. So why did he resign ? People will resign because of public perception regardless of the facts of a matter. That is sadly the public court " Indeed 'people' may well do that, however Sharp resigned because he twice breached the rules in relation to his appointment.. It's that simple.. | |||
| |||
" I'm not sure how he facilitated anything. So why did he resign ? People will resign because of public perception regardless of the facts of a matter. That is sadly the public court " Another Tory stooge bites the dust , he resigned because a report found that he ‘breached the code for public appointments’  | |||
| |||
| |||
" I'm not sure how he facilitated anything. So why did he resign ? People will resign because of public perception regardless of the facts of a matter. That is sadly the public court Indeed 'people' may well do that, however Sharp resigned because he twice breached the rules in relation to his appointment.. It's that simple.. Ira not that simple though is it, you write something that is although true, not quite the full story "Although this breach of the rules does not necessarily invalidate an appointment, Sharp said his position was no longer tenable and he had to quit."" In relation to the post I replied to I'm happy that what I put was both relevant and sufficient.. | |||
" I'm not sure how he facilitated anything. So why did he resign ? People will resign because of public perception regardless of the facts of a matter. That is sadly the public court Indeed 'people' may well do that, however Sharp resigned because he twice breached the rules in relation to his appointment.. It's that simple.. Ira not that simple though is it, you write something that is although true, not quite the full story "Although this breach of the rules does not necessarily invalidate an appointment, Sharp said his position was no longer tenable and he had to quit." In relation to the post I replied to I'm happy that what I put was both relevant and sufficient.. "You disagreed with the poster you were replying to, when in fact you were both correct, so no, it's not that simple. | |||
" I'm not sure how he facilitated anything. So why did he resign ? People will resign because of public perception regardless of the facts of a matter. That is sadly the public court Indeed 'people' may well do that, however Sharp resigned because he twice breached the rules in relation to his appointment.. It's that simple.. Ira not that simple though is it, you write something that is although true, not quite the full story "Although this breach of the rules does not necessarily invalidate an appointment, Sharp said his position was no longer tenable and he had to quit." In relation to the post I replied to I'm happy that what I put was both relevant and sufficient..
You disagreed with the poster you were replying to, when in fact you were both correct, so no, it's not that simple."Is for me, you do you .. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public." The BBC is watched by millions of people, what has Nick Brown go to do with Richard Sharps resignation? | |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public. The BBC is watched by millions of people, what has Nick Brown go to do with Richard Sharps resignation? "Ah the self appointed Forum Censor returns. And of course, people are free to watch the BBC if they wish. If people want to live their lives in the 1930's generally it's entirely a matter for them. | |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public. The BBC is watched by millions of people, what has Nick Brown go to do with Richard Sharps resignation?
Ah the self appointed Forum Censor returns.
And of course, people are free to watch the BBC if they wish. If people want to live their lives in the 1930's generally it's entirely a matter for them. "1930s? How do you know it’s rubbish if you never watch it? Btw, what happened to your other profile | |||
"An investigation by the commissioner for Public Appointments concluded the BBC chairman had broken the rules by creating a conflict of interest which hadn't been declared. This is fact, not merely the public's opinion. " But he didn't resign after this no? | |||
"An investigation by the commissioner for Public Appointments concluded the BBC chairman had broken the rules by creating a conflict of interest which hadn't been declared. This is fact, not merely the public's opinion. But he didn't resign after this no? " He resigned because of the findings of the report | |||
"Questions for Morley... you are an accountant so hoping this is your area of expertise. 1. If someone lends another person, say, £800k, if the recipient fails to pay that loan back in full is that classed as a taxable benefit? 2. If the £800k loan is interest free, are there any tax inplications? 3. Will HMRC requirement written evidence of a loan agreement laying out things such as the original loan amount, the amount payable (ie interest being charged), and the term over which the loan needs to be paid back?" It would be uop to a court to decide and how the loan was agreed. Typically a company can't give an individual an in perpetuity tax free laona nd do this every year.( this is tax evasion) But there's nothing stopping it being s loan originally then becoming so gift. But you should pay tax on that gift. It's not an easy question to answer. Do you have the written agreement on tne 800k? | |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public." No one from tbe commons can talk about it. Which is pretty damni g in itself given the parliamentary protection. I ca only assume its something heinous like p aedophilia or something if all sides are quiet and no one has released any details. | |||
"An investigation by the commissioner for Public Appointments concluded the BBC chairman had broken the rules by creating a conflict of interest which hadn't been declared. This is fact, not merely the public's opinion. But he didn't resign after this no? He resigned because of the findings of the report "How.. the findings were 2 months ago. That's a long wait. | |||
"An investigation by the commissioner for Public Appointments concluded the BBC chairman had broken the rules by creating a conflict of interest which hadn't been declared. This is fact, not merely the public's opinion. But he didn't resign after this no? He resigned because of the findings of the report
How.. the findings were 2 months ago.
That's a long wait."Yep, too long, but he has gone now | |||
"An investigation by the commissioner for Public Appointments concluded the BBC chairman had broken the rules by creating a conflict of interest which hadn't been declared. This is fact, not merely the public's opinion. But he didn't resign after this no? He resigned because of the findings of the report
How.. the findings were 2 months ago.
That's a long wait.
Yep, too long, but he has gone now "So he didn't necessarily resign because of it  | |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public. No one from tbe commons can talk about it. Which is pretty damni g in itself given the parliamentary protection. I ca only assume its something heinous like p aedophilia or something if all sides are quiet and no one has released any details. " Not like you to assume! Don’t you expect primary sources of evidence? Where are the charge sheets? The judgement? Wouldn’t what you said be considered slander or libellous? | |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public. No one from tbe commons can talk about it. Which is pretty damni g in itself given the parliamentary protection. I ca only assume its something heinous like p aedophilia or something if all sides are quiet and no one has released any details. Not like you to assume! Don’t you expect primary sources of evidence? Where are the charge sheets? The judgement? Wouldn’t what you said be considered slander or libellous?" That's why I said it was an assumption... Glad we cleared that up | |||
"An investigation by the commissioner for Public Appointments concluded the BBC chairman had broken the rules by creating a conflict of interest which hadn't been declared. This is fact, not merely the public's opinion. But he didn't resign after this no? He resigned because of the findings of the report
How.. the findings were 2 months ago.
That's a long wait.
Yep, too long, but he has gone now
So he didn't necessarily resign because of it "He did , I agree with Gary Linekar ( a hero and BBCs biggest star) that the government should not appoint the next Chairman | |||
| |||
"Questions for Morley... you are an accountant so hoping this is your area of expertise. 1. If someone lends another person, say, £800k, if the recipient fails to pay that loan back in full is that classed as a taxable benefit? 2. If the £800k loan is interest free, are there any tax inplications? 3. Will HMRC requirement written evidence of a loan agreement laying out things such as the original loan amount, the amount payable (ie interest being charged), and the term over which the loan needs to be paid back? It would be uop to a court to decide and how the loan was agreed. Typically a company can't give an individual an in perpetuity tax free laona nd do this every year.( this is tax evasion) But there's nothing stopping it being s loan originally then becoming so gift. But you should pay tax on that gift. It's not an easy question to answer. Do you have the written agreement on tne 800k?" So you cannot answer even though you are an accountant? Disappointing. Of course I not have the written agreement, this was hypothetical. Are you saying HMRC would expect a written agreement? That was one of my questions! | |||
"Questions for Morley... you are an accountant so hoping this is your area of expertise. 1. If someone lends another person, say, £800k, if the recipient fails to pay that loan back in full is that classed as a taxable benefit? 2. If the £800k loan is interest free, are there any tax inplications? 3. Will HMRC requirement written evidence of a loan agreement laying out things such as the original loan amount, the amount payable (ie interest being charged), and the term over which the loan needs to be paid back? It would be uop to a court to decide and how the loan was agreed. Typically a company can't give an individual an in perpetuity tax free laona nd do this every year.( this is tax evasion) But there's nothing stopping it being s loan originally then becoming so gift. But you should pay tax on that gift. It's not an easy question to answer. Do you have the written agreement on tne 800k? So you cannot answer even though you are an accountant? Disappointing. Of course I not have the written agreement, this was hypothetical. Are you saying HMRC would expect a written agreement? That was one of my questions!" No I cannot answer a question on a contract I haven't seen bout how it would be accounted for financially For some reason this is surprising to you. | |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public. No one from tbe commons can talk about it. Which is pretty damni g in itself given the parliamentary protection. I ca only assume its something heinous like p aedophilia or something if all sides are quiet and no one has released any details. Not like you to assume! Don’t you expect primary sources of evidence? Where are the charge sheets? The judgement? Wouldn’t what you said be considered slander or libellous? That's why I said it was an assumption... Glad we cleared that up "Assumptions make a ASS of U and ME
I think you are on shaky ground making the leap to paedo territory. It could be for all manner of reasons but you went there! | |||
"Questions for Morley... you are an accountant so hoping this is your area of expertise. 1. If someone lends another person, say, £800k, if the recipient fails to pay that loan back in full is that classed as a taxable benefit? 2. If the £800k loan is interest free, are there any tax inplications? 3. Will HMRC requirement written evidence of a loan agreement laying out things such as the original loan amount, the amount payable (ie interest being charged), and the term over which the loan needs to be paid back? It would be uop to a court to decide and how the loan was agreed. Typically a company can't give an individual an in perpetuity tax free laona nd do this every year.( this is tax evasion) But there's nothing stopping it being s loan originally then becoming so gift. But you should pay tax on that gift. It's not an easy question to answer. Do you have the written agreement on tne 800k? So you cannot answer even though you are an accountant? Disappointing. Of course I not have the written agreement, this was hypothetical. Are you saying HMRC would expect a written agreement? That was one of my questions! No I cannot answer a question on a contract I haven't seen bout how it would be accounted for financially For some reason this is surprising to you. " Not even hypothetical? Again, would HMRC expect a written agreement for a loan of that size (or any loan for that matter) to prove it is a loan and not income or a gift? | |||
"Questions for Morley... you are an accountant so hoping this is your area of expertise. 1. If someone lends another person, say, £800k, if the recipient fails to pay that loan back in full is that classed as a taxable benefit? 2. If the £800k loan is interest free, are there any tax inplications? 3. Will HMRC requirement written evidence of a loan agreement laying out things such as the original loan amount, the amount payable (ie interest being charged), and the term over which the loan needs to be paid back? It would be uop to a court to decide and how the loan was agreed. Typically a company can't give an individual an in perpetuity tax free laona nd do this every year.( this is tax evasion) But there's nothing stopping it being s loan originally then becoming so gift. But you should pay tax on that gift. It's not an easy question to answer. Do you have the written agreement on tne 800k? So you cannot answer even though you are an accountant? Disappointing. Of course I not have the written agreement, this was hypothetical. Are you saying HMRC would expect a written agreement? That was one of my questions!" There wouldn't have to be a written agreement. You can enter an agreement verbally. But if you're charging interest you'd need to declare it. It would depend sif it was a loan from a company too. As that changes implications. | |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public. No one from tbe commons can talk about it. Which is pretty damni g in itself given the parliamentary protection. I ca only assume its something heinous like p aedophilia or something if all sides are quiet and no one has released any details. Not like you to assume! Don’t you expect primary sources of evidence? Where are the charge sheets? The judgement? Wouldn’t what you said be considered slander or libellous? That's why I said it was an assumption... Glad we cleared that up
Assumptions make a ASS of U and ME
I think you are on shaky ground making the leap to paedo territory. It could be for all manner of reasons but you went there! "If I recall a D notice was placed on the press which means, shut the f up. | |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public. No one from tbe commons can talk about it. Which is pretty damni g in itself given the parliamentary protection. I ca only assume its something heinous like p aedophilia or something if all sides are quiet and no one has released any details. Not like you to assume! Don’t you expect primary sources of evidence? Where are the charge sheets? The judgement? Wouldn’t what you said be considered slander or libellous? That's why I said it was an assumption... Glad we cleared that up
Assumptions make a ASS of U and ME
I think you are on shaky ground making the leap to paedo territory. It could be for all manner of reasons but you went there! "Did you miss the " something like" | |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public. No one from tbe commons can talk about it. Which is pretty damni g in itself given the parliamentary protection. I ca only assume its something heinous like p aedophilia or something if all sides are quiet and no one has released any details. Not like you to assume! Don’t you expect primary sources of evidence? Where are the charge sheets? The judgement? Wouldn’t what you said be considered slander or libellous? That's why I said it was an assumption... Glad we cleared that up
Assumptions make a ASS of U and ME
I think you are on shaky ground making the leap to paedo territory. It could be for all manner of reasons but you went there!
If I recall a D notice was placed on the press which means, shut the f up."It appears _irldn is having their " I read what I want to read" days. Not what is actually written. | |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public. No one from tbe commons can talk about it. Which is pretty damni g in itself given the parliamentary protection. I ca only assume its something heinous like p aedophilia or something if all sides are quiet and no one has released any details. " Usually these things leak so it must be pretty awful. I'm not sure that they are going to be able to keep it quiet until the General Election. Does seem to be a conspiracy of silence around his "disappearance". I hope he's still managing to do his constituency work and isn't taking all that cash for nothing. | |||
"Questions for Morley... you are an accountant so hoping this is your area of expertise. 1. If someone lends another person, say, £800k, if the recipient fails to pay that loan back in full is that classed as a taxable benefit? 2. If the £800k loan is interest free, are there any tax inplications? 3. Will HMRC requirement written evidence of a loan agreement laying out things such as the original loan amount, the amount payable (ie interest being charged), and the term over which the loan needs to be paid back? It would be uop to a court to decide and how the loan was agreed. Typically a company can't give an individual an in perpetuity tax free laona nd do this every year.( this is tax evasion) But there's nothing stopping it being s loan originally then becoming so gift. But you should pay tax on that gift. It's not an easy question to answer. Do you have the written agreement on tne 800k? So you cannot answer even though you are an accountant? Disappointing. Of course I not have the written agreement, this was hypothetical. Are you saying HMRC would expect a written agreement? That was one of my questions! No I cannot answer a question on a contract I haven't seen bout how it would be accounted for financially For some reason this is surprising to you. Not even hypothetical? Again, would HMRC expect a written agreement for a loan of that size (or any loan for that matter) to prove it is a loan and not income or a gift?" In all honesty. The tangents on the loan covenants mean there's about 20/30 different interpretations. | |||
"It amazes me that there are still people who actually watch the BBC or care what's happening there. Speaking of sleaze does anyone know what's going on with Labour's former Chief Whip Nick Brown? Suspended last year and nobody knows why, or what's going on. It seems a bit odd in a democracy that allegations serious enough to warrant suspension for seven months should be hidden from the public. No one from tbe commons can talk about it. Which is pretty damni g in itself given the parliamentary protection. I ca only assume its something heinous like p aedophilia or something if all sides are quiet and no one has released any details. Not like you to assume! Don’t you expect primary sources of evidence? Where are the charge sheets? The judgement? Wouldn’t what you said be considered slander or libellous? That's why I said it was an assumption... Glad we cleared that up
Assumptions make a ASS of U and ME
I think you are on shaky ground making the leap to paedo territory. It could be for all manner of reasons but you went there!
If I recall a D notice was placed on the press which means, shut the f up.
It appears _irldn is having their " I read what I want to read" days. Not what is actually written."Lolz nice try but no! | |||
| |||
"Questions for Morley... you are an accountant so hoping this is your area of expertise. 1. If someone lends another person, say, £800k, if the recipient fails to pay that loan back in full is that classed as a taxable benefit? 2. If the £800k loan is interest free, are there any tax inplications? 3. Will HMRC requirement written evidence of a loan agreement laying out things such as the original loan amount, the amount payable (ie interest being charged), and the term over which the loan needs to be paid back? It would be uop to a court to decide and how the loan was agreed. Typically a company can't give an individual an in perpetuity tax free laona nd do this every year.( this is tax evasion) But there's nothing stopping it being s loan originally then becoming so gift. But you should pay tax on that gift. It's not an easy question to answer. Do you have the written agreement on tne 800k? So you cannot answer even though you are an accountant? Disappointing. Of course I not have the written agreement, this was hypothetical. Are you saying HMRC would expect a written agreement? That was one of my questions! No I cannot answer a question on a contract I haven't seen bout how it would be accounted for financially For some reason this is surprising to you. Not even hypothetical? Again, would HMRC expect a written agreement for a loan of that size (or any loan for that matter) to prove it is a loan and not income or a gift? In all honesty. The tangents on the loan covenants mean there's about 20/30 different interpretations." Ah we are getting somewhere, I knew you’d come through. So if you do not pay but the full amount of the loan, does HMRC then consider it a gift or income and therefore taxable? | |||
| |||
"Questions for Morley... you are an accountant so hoping this is your area of expertise. 1. If someone lends another person, say, £800k, if the recipient fails to pay that loan back in full is that classed as a taxable benefit? 2. If the £800k loan is interest free, are there any tax inplications? 3. Will HMRC requirement written evidence of a loan agreement laying out things such as the original loan amount, the amount payable (ie interest being charged), and the term over which the loan needs to be paid back? It would be uop to a court to decide and how the loan was agreed. Typically a company can't give an individual an in perpetuity tax free laona nd do this every year.( this is tax evasion) But there's nothing stopping it being s loan originally then becoming so gift. But you should pay tax on that gift. It's not an easy question to answer. Do you have the written agreement on tne 800k? So you cannot answer even though you are an accountant? Disappointing. Of course I not have the written agreement, this was hypothetical. Are you saying HMRC would expect a written agreement? That was one of my questions! No I cannot answer a question on a contract I haven't seen bout how it would be accounted for financially For some reason this is surprising to you. Not even hypothetical? Again, would HMRC expect a written agreement for a loan of that size (or any loan for that matter) to prove it is a loan and not income or a gift? In all honesty. The tangents on the loan covenants mean there's about 20/30 different interpretations. Ah we are getting somewhere, I knew you’d come through. So if you do not pay but the full amount of the loan, does HMRC then consider it a gift or income and therefore taxable?" Not really you are asking a lot of variables without any possible confusion. If its a loan and interest is charged. You will likely not be able to gift it. I dont do personal tax and loans though. I do company financial reporting. To explain this to you This is like asking a gyno to do brain surgery | |||
"Now that Richard Sharp has some spare time on his hands I shall ask if he can organise me a huge "loan"." He didn't organise a loan. | |||
| |||
"Questions for Morley... you are an accountant so hoping this is your area of expertise. 1. If someone lends another person, say, £800k, if the recipient fails to pay that loan back in full is that classed as a taxable benefit? 2. If the £800k loan is interest free, are there any tax inplications? 3. Will HMRC requirement written evidence of a loan agreement laying out things such as the original loan amount, the amount payable (ie interest being charged), and the term over which the loan needs to be paid back? It would be uop to a court to decide and how the loan was agreed. Typically a company can't give an individual an in perpetuity tax free laona nd do this every year.( this is tax evasion) But there's nothing stopping it being s loan originally then becoming so gift. But you should pay tax on that gift. It's not an easy question to answer. Do you have the written agreement on tne 800k? So you cannot answer even though you are an accountant? Disappointing. Of course I not have the written agreement, this was hypothetical. Are you saying HMRC would expect a written agreement? That was one of my questions! No I cannot answer a question on a contract I haven't seen bout how it would be accounted for financially For some reason this is surprising to you. Not even hypothetical? Again, would HMRC expect a written agreement for a loan of that size (or any loan for that matter) to prove it is a loan and not income or a gift? In all honesty. The tangents on the loan covenants mean there's about 20/30 different interpretations. Ah we are getting somewhere, I knew you’d come through. So if you do not pay but the full amount of the loan, does HMRC then consider it a gift or income and therefore taxable? Not really you are asking a lot of variables without any possible confusion. If its a loan and interest is charged. You will likely not be able to gift it. I dont do personal tax and loans though. I do company financial reporting. To explain this to you This is like asking a gyno to do brain surgery " Oh you’ve only ever said you were an accountant so I didn’t know this wasn’t your area. Saying that though, you probably know more than the average Joe right as you do seem to know a lot of things. | |||
| |||
"From what i remember. It wasn't a loan but a credit facility. ( again different accounting) It wouldn't be a gift We don't knkw if that credit facility was for boris or a company( different accounting) It doesn't appear tk be a gift(different accounting) We don't know if interest is charged( different accounting) We don't know if it's over seas( different accounting) If you'd like to answer some of the above with facts of the arrangement we can get somehwere _irldn" If I knew all that in relation to Johnson/Sharp etc I wouldn’t be discussing it on a swinger website! I am talking hypotheticals of course. | |||
| |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next?" 1. Good. Consequences for corruption. 2. Good. Probably because we wanted most of the EU laws that were introduced anyway. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? " Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? | |||
"You can gift up to £3k a year tax free. Slightly less than £800k. " You can gift anyone any amount of money you want, with no tax payable. If it's a lot, HMRC will want proof that it's a gift, and not a disguised payment. If you die within 7 years, the recipient may find that they have inheritance tax liabilities. HMRC guidance is that gifts of £3,000 or less are unlikely to be investigated. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter?" Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter?" Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first? | |||
"You can gift up to £3k a year tax free. Slightly less than £800k. You can gift anyone any amount of money you want, with no tax payable. If it's a lot, HMRC will want proof that it's a gift, and not a disguised payment. If you die within 7 years, the recipient may find that they have inheritance tax liabilities. HMRC guidance is that gifts of £3,000 or less are unlikely to be investigated." The problem is having read about it. It wasnr a gift. Nor a loan. But a credit facility. I would assume given it was a crediy facility of 800k it would jabe been between 2 companies. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote." It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. | |||
"You can gift up to £3k a year tax free. Slightly less than £800k. You can gift anyone any amount of money you want, with no tax payable. If it's a lot, HMRC will want proof that it's a gift, and not a disguised payment. If you die within 7 years, the recipient may find that they have inheritance tax liabilities. HMRC guidance is that gifts of £3,000 or less are unlikely to be investigated. The problem is having read about it. It wasnr a gift. Nor a loan. But a credit facility. I would assume given it was a crediy facility of 800k it would jabe been between 2 companies. " So while in office our Prime Minister, the top public servant in the land, who is paid out of the public purse and provided with grace and favour homes, needed a credit facility that can only really be provided between companies, so did Johnson set up a company, and does that mean he then paid himself using dividends raised against company debt? All sounds totally legit to me. Doesn’t compromise him in any way. Clearly Johnson’s financial circumstances have put him in a compromised position where people can call in favours and exert influence. You happy with that? | |||
"So while in office our Prime Minister, the top public servant in the land, who is paid out of the public purse and provided with grace and favour homes, needed a credit facility that can only really be provided between companies, so did Johnson set up a company, and does that mean he then paid himself using dividends raised against company debt?" You're making a fair few assumptions there. Are you really sure that you are looking at this from an unbiased viewpoint? | |||
"You can gift up to £3k a year tax free. Slightly less than £800k. You can gift anyone any amount of money you want, with no tax payable. If it's a lot, HMRC will want proof that it's a gift, and not a disguised payment. If you die within 7 years, the recipient may find that they have inheritance tax liabilities. HMRC guidance is that gifts of £3,000 or less are unlikely to be investigated. The problem is having read about it. It wasnr a gift. Nor a loan. But a credit facility. I would assume given it was a crediy facility of 800k it would jabe been between 2 companies. So while in office our Prime Minister, the top public servant in the land, who is paid out of the public purse and provided with grace and favour homes, needed a credit facility that can only really be provided between companies, so did Johnson set up a company, and does that mean he then paid himself using dividends raised against company debt? All sounds totally legit to me. Doesn’t compromise him in any way. Clearly Johnson’s financial circumstances have put him in a compromised position where people can call in favours and exert influence. You happy with that?" I think if k remember the details of the case this was being g organised for him because when he became PM. His annual salary dripped from 800k to 150k to be pm. He was in the middle of a divorce and had outgoings he couldn't maintain. Either it highlights how little we pay PMs or the sacrifice BJ was being asked to make financially to lead the country. Typically you can't pay dividends via debt. I agree. I dont like the idea of people lending the PM money especially if they had no prior relationship. Should PMs then for example get a salary akin to the average of their last 3 years earnings before taking up office. And then should that match inflation as those striking demand? | |||
"So while in office our Prime Minister, the top public servant in the land, who is paid out of the public purse and provided with grace and favour homes, needed a credit facility that can only really be provided between companies, so did Johnson set up a company, and does that mean he then paid himself using dividends raised against company debt? You're making a fair few assumptions there. Are you really sure that you are looking at this from an unbiased viewpoint?" Not at all I was responding to the other poster who put forward the point on credit facility and companies. | |||
"You can gift up to £3k a year tax free. Slightly less than £800k. You can gift anyone any amount of money you want, with no tax payable. If it's a lot, HMRC will want proof that it's a gift, and not a disguised payment. If you die within 7 years, the recipient may find that they have inheritance tax liabilities. HMRC guidance is that gifts of £3,000 or less are unlikely to be investigated. The problem is having read about it. It wasnr a gift. Nor a loan. But a credit facility. I would assume given it was a crediy facility of 800k it would jabe been between 2 companies. So while in office our Prime Minister, the top public servant in the land, who is paid out of the public purse and provided with grace and favour homes, needed a credit facility that can only really be provided between companies, so did Johnson set up a company, and does that mean he then paid himself using dividends raised against company debt? All sounds totally legit to me. Doesn’t compromise him in any way. Clearly Johnson’s financial circumstances have put him in a compromised position where people can call in favours and exert influence. You happy with that? I think if k remember the details of the case this was being g organised for him because when he became PM. His annual salary dripped from 800k to 150k to be pm. He was in the middle of a divorce and had outgoings he couldn't maintain. Either it highlights how little we pay PMs or the sacrifice BJ was being asked to make financially to lead the country. Typically you can't pay dividends via debt. I agree. I dont like the idea of people lending the PM money especially if they had no prior relationship. Should PMs then for example get a salary akin to the average of their last 3 years earnings before taking up office. And then should that match inflation as those striking demand? " I think MPs, Ministers, Prime Minister should all be paid more (although I would drastically reduce and far more closely monitor and restrict expenses). I think if the salary isn’t adequate then don’t take the job. Free market and all! If Johnson chose to take a huge pay cut, then that is on him. If money was his driver then don’t go for the job (and we all know the money really comes after you leave office, look at Blair and Johnson himself AND the PM pension!) | |||
"You can gift up to £3k a year tax free. Slightly less than £800k. You can gift anyone any amount of money you want, with no tax payable. If it's a lot, HMRC will want proof that it's a gift, and not a disguised payment. If you die within 7 years, the recipient may find that they have inheritance tax liabilities. HMRC guidance is that gifts of £3,000 or less are unlikely to be investigated. The problem is having read about it. It wasnr a gift. Nor a loan. But a credit facility. I would assume given it was a crediy facility of 800k it would jabe been between 2 companies. So while in office our Prime Minister, the top public servant in the land, who is paid out of the public purse and provided with grace and favour homes, needed a credit facility that can only really be provided between companies, so did Johnson set up a company, and does that mean he then paid himself using dividends raised against company debt? All sounds totally legit to me. Doesn’t compromise him in any way. Clearly Johnson’s financial circumstances have put him in a compromised position where people can call in favours and exert influence. You happy with that? I think if k remember the details of the case this was being g organised for him because when he became PM. His annual salary dripped from 800k to 150k to be pm. He was in the middle of a divorce and had outgoings he couldn't maintain. Either it highlights how little we pay PMs or the sacrifice BJ was being asked to make financially to lead the country. Typically you can't pay dividends via debt. I agree. I dont like the idea of people lending the PM money especially if they had no prior relationship. Should PMs then for example get a salary akin to the average of their last 3 years earnings before taking up office. And then should that match inflation as those striking demand? I think MPs, Ministers, Prime Minister should all be paid more (although I would drastically reduce and far more closely monitor and restrict expenses). I think if the salary isn’t adequate then don’t take the job. Free market and all! If Johnson chose to take a huge pay cut, then that is on him. If money was his driver then don’t go for the job (and we all know the money really comes after you leave office, look at Blair and Johnson himself AND the PM pension!)" I'm not sure the salary is even a thought for anyone thinking of the PM job. Inflation rate to the ego, is far more valuable  | |||
"You can gift up to £3k a year tax free. Slightly less than £800k. You can gift anyone any amount of money you want, with no tax payable. If it's a lot, HMRC will want proof that it's a gift, and not a disguised payment. If you die within 7 years, the recipient may find that they have inheritance tax liabilities. HMRC guidance is that gifts of £3,000 or less are unlikely to be investigated. The problem is having read about it. It wasnr a gift. Nor a loan. But a credit facility. I would assume given it was a crediy facility of 800k it would jabe been between 2 companies. So while in office our Prime Minister, the top public servant in the land, who is paid out of the public purse and provided with grace and favour homes, needed a credit facility that can only really be provided between companies, so did Johnson set up a company, and does that mean he then paid himself using dividends raised against company debt? All sounds totally legit to me. Doesn’t compromise him in any way. Clearly Johnson’s financial circumstances have put him in a compromised position where people can call in favours and exert influence. You happy with that? I think if k remember the details of the case this was being g organised for him because when he became PM. His annual salary dripped from 800k to 150k to be pm. He was in the middle of a divorce and had outgoings he couldn't maintain. Either it highlights how little we pay PMs or the sacrifice BJ was being asked to make financially to lead the country. Typically you can't pay dividends via debt. I agree. I dont like the idea of people lending the PM money especially if they had no prior relationship. Should PMs then for example get a salary akin to the average of their last 3 years earnings before taking up office. And then should that match inflation as those striking demand? I think MPs, Ministers, Prime Minister should all be paid more (although I would drastically reduce and far more closely monitor and restrict expenses). I think if the salary isn’t adequate then don’t take the job. Free market and all! If Johnson chose to take a huge pay cut, then that is on him. If money was his driver then don’t go for the job (and we all know the money really comes after you leave office, look at Blair and Johnson himself AND the PM pension!)" Of the salary isn't adequate don't take the job. Quite the viewpoint with ongoing strikes. An eye opening docuseries for me was inside Westminster. The sheer volume of of and work they get through as mps is amazing. Agreed on expenses. Bin off 2nd homes.the modern world means they aren't needed. Nor are airport when Samsung google suffice at 1/3rd cost. | |||
"You can gift up to £3k a year tax free. Slightly less than £800k. You can gift anyone any amount of money you want, with no tax payable. If it's a lot, HMRC will want proof that it's a gift, and not a disguised payment. If you die within 7 years, the recipient may find that they have inheritance tax liabilities. HMRC guidance is that gifts of £3,000 or less are unlikely to be investigated. The problem is having read about it. It wasnr a gift. Nor a loan. But a credit facility. I would assume given it was a crediy facility of 800k it would jabe been between 2 companies. So while in office our Prime Minister, the top public servant in the land, who is paid out of the public purse and provided with grace and favour homes, needed a credit facility that can only really be provided between companies, so did Johnson set up a company, and does that mean he then paid himself using dividends raised against company debt? All sounds totally legit to me. Doesn’t compromise him in any way. Clearly Johnson’s financial circumstances have put him in a compromised position where people can call in favours and exert influence. You happy with that? I think if k remember the details of the case this was being g organised for him because when he became PM. His annual salary dripped from 800k to 150k to be pm. He was in the middle of a divorce and had outgoings he couldn't maintain. Either it highlights how little we pay PMs or the sacrifice BJ was being asked to make financially to lead the country. Typically you can't pay dividends via debt. I agree. I dont like the idea of people lending the PM money especially if they had no prior relationship. Should PMs then for example get a salary akin to the average of their last 3 years earnings before taking up office. And then should that match inflation as those striking demand? " I'd suggest if you can't make ends meet, you don't redecorate. Lee Anderson would be able to help Boris budget of he is struggling. Imo we need to know full details of this arrangement and that there was a real commercial interest in offering credit (or whatever) to the PM... It strikes me as .... Concerning. And worrying that it was facilitated thru semi official routes and a PM would accept a private line from a stranger. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts." When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?"
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you?  | |||
"Questions for Morley... you are an accountant so hoping this is your area of expertise. 1. If someone lends another person, say, £800k, if the recipient fails to pay that loan back in full is that classed as a taxable benefit? " If the loan was still a debt then it would definitely still not be taxable. If the debt was forgiven then it's more tricky but the outstanding amount could be considered a benefit in kind. " 2. If the £800k loan is interest free, are there any tax implications? " Yes. An amount equivalent to what would have been payed in interest at a reasonable interest rate would be considered a benefit in kind and tax would be due on that amount. " 3. Will HMRC requirement written evidence of a loan agreement laying out things such as the original loan amount, the amount payable (ie interest being charged), and the term over which the loan needs to be paid back?" Normally no. You don't normally have to declare loans as loans are not considered income. However it would be useful to have this information to hand. It's possible that an HMRC investigation might want to know how your bank account suddenly went up by £800K when you only declared income of £130k. | |||
"The laws that are being wiped will be laws that are very specific to being part of the EU and will no longer serve any purpose. Other laws that only refer to the EU will be rewritten to remove the EU reference." All laws that referred to the EU have already been changed. That was done by May's European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This act took a 'snapshot' of EU law as it applied to the UK at the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020 and provided for it to continue to apply in domestic law. There is no legal need to make further changes to retained EU law to remove references to the EU. | |||
"The laws that are being wiped will be laws that are very specific to being part of the EU and will no longer serve any purpose. Other laws that only refer to the EU will be rewritten to remove the EU reference. All laws that referred to the EU have already been changed. That was done by May's European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This act took a 'snapshot' of EU law as it applied to the UK at the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020 and provided for it to continue to apply in domestic law. There is no legal need to make further changes to retained EU law to remove references to the EU." They have been identified not all have changed, or have been repealed. RUEL has been underway for sometime with 2400 pieces of EU law known and a further 1000 identified. The deadline for the changes is 31st Dec 2023, however an extension exists to 2026. If you are interested in what is outstanding or has been changed a RUEL document exists and shows each government departments input. | |||
"The laws that are being wiped will be laws that are very specific to being part of the EU and will no longer serve any purpose. Other laws that only refer to the EU will be rewritten to remove the EU reference. All laws that referred to the EU have already been changed. That was done by May's European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This act took a 'snapshot' of EU law as it applied to the UK at the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020 and provided for it to continue to apply in domestic law. There is no legal need to make further changes to retained EU law to remove references to the EU. They have been identified not all have changed, or have been repealed. RUEL has been underway for sometime with 2400 pieces of EU law known and a further 1000 identified. The deadline for the changes is 31st Dec 2023, however an extension exists to 2026. If you are interested in what is outstanding or has been changed a RUEL document exists and shows each government departments input. " I'm sorry but you're wrong. Whether this EU Retained Law is a good or bad thing isn't the point. The point is is that there is no legal reason to change any of the retained EU laws to remove references to the EU as this has already been catered for by May's 2018 EU Withdrawal Act, often missed named "The Great Repeal Bill". I'm sure if you look back in this politics thread to around that time you'll find posts about it. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you? "He didn't facilitate anything. The report evern acknowledges that Honestly just read up on something for once in your life. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy." Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed." Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions? | |||
| |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you?
He didn't facilitate anything. The report evern acknowledges that
Honestly just read up on something for once in your life."Semantics again Morley. What does “facilitate” mean? transitive verb. : to make easier : help bring about. By introducing Blyth his actions enabled (facilitated) the loan to happen. Without Sharp’s involvement it would not have happened. Sharp did not declare this during the process to appoint him as BBC Chair and that was considered a serious error of judgement as it represented a conflict of interest. Sharp has given £400k to the Conservatives. He once managed Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs and is also a friend of Johnson. Sharp became involved after having dinner with his friend, Sam Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson's in Nov 2020. Blyth asked for Sharp's advice. Sharp agreed to help. He went to meet Simon Case to discuss the matter in Downing St, and then brokered the introduction for Blyth and Johnson. Simon Case told Sharp to cease his involvement in the matter and shortly after the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team told Johnson to stop talking to Sharp. However, by then, Johnson had already selected Sharp as his candidate for the £160k-a-year role of BBC Chair. The BBC job application says: "You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest". Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in the appointment. However, Sharp did not tell the panel, nor MPs on his pre-hearing. Also, Richard Sharp is only one part in this story. We still don't know how Blyth ended up on an FCDO candidates list to become British Council chief executive? And we still don't know which bank Johnson secured the loan from (ie who actually provided the money)? | |||
| |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?"Are you saying that. Introducing 2 people is facilitating? Is that what you're going with? I'm glad you're off reading things now though Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was. Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation. Where is it in the report he facilitated then? We await. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you?
He didn't facilitate anything. The report evern acknowledges that
Honestly just read up on something for once in your life.
Semantics again Morley.
What does “facilitate” mean?
transitive verb. : to make easier : help bring about.
By introducing Blyth his actions enabled (facilitated) the loan to happen. Without Sharp’s involvement it would not have happened. Sharp did not declare this during the process to appoint him as BBC Chair and that was considered a serious error of judgement as it represented a conflict of interest.
Sharp has given £400k to the Conservatives. He once managed Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs and is also a friend of Johnson.
Sharp became involved after having dinner with his friend, Sam Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson's in Nov 2020. Blyth asked for Sharp's advice. Sharp agreed to help. He went to meet Simon Case to discuss the matter in Downing St, and then brokered the introduction for Blyth and Johnson.
Simon Case told Sharp to cease his involvement in the matter and shortly after the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team told Johnson to stop talking to Sharp. However, by then, Johnson had already selected Sharp as his candidate for the £160k-a-year role of BBC Chair.
The BBC job application says: "You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest". Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in the appointment. However, Sharp did not tell the panel, nor MPs on his pre-hearing.
Also, Richard Sharp is only one part in this story. We still don't know how Blyth ended up on an FCDO candidates list to become British Council chief executive? And we still don't know which bank Johnson secured the loan from (ie who actually provided the money)?"So you think in introducing 2 people he facilitated theoan himself? What an odd way of trying to pin boris johnson and another 3rd party organising a loan with a 4th party On a 2nd party. Again feels ree to highlight in the report where it said he facilitated the loan I'll wait. | |||
| |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you?
He didn't facilitate anything. The report evern acknowledges that
Honestly just read up on something for once in your life.
Semantics again Morley.
What does “facilitate” mean?
transitive verb. : to make easier : help bring about.
By introducing Blyth his actions enabled (facilitated) the loan to happen. Without Sharp’s involvement it would not have happened. Sharp did not declare this during the process to appoint him as BBC Chair and that was considered a serious error of judgement as it represented a conflict of interest.
Sharp has given £400k to the Conservatives. He once managed Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs and is also a friend of Johnson.
Sharp became involved after having dinner with his friend, Sam Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson's in Nov 2020. Blyth asked for Sharp's advice. Sharp agreed to help. He went to meet Simon Case to discuss the matter in Downing St, and then brokered the introduction for Blyth and Johnson.
Simon Case told Sharp to cease his involvement in the matter and shortly after the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team told Johnson to stop talking to Sharp. However, by then, Johnson had already selected Sharp as his candidate for the £160k-a-year role of BBC Chair.
The BBC job application says: "You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest". Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in the appointment. However, Sharp did not tell the panel, nor MPs on his pre-hearing.
Also, Richard Sharp is only one part in this story. We still don't know how Blyth ended up on an FCDO candidates list to become British Council chief executive? And we still don't know which bank Johnson secured the loan from (ie who actually provided the money)?
So you think in introducing 2 people he facilitated theoan himself?
What an odd way of trying to pin boris johnson and another 3rd party organising a loan with a 4th party
On a 2nd party.
Again feels ree to highlight in the report where it said he facilitated the loan
I'll wait."what word should be used ? Facilitate works in general speak, even if it may have a more technical accounting term. Either which way is suspect everyone on this thread kbwos what it is meant represent and is responding as such. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you?
He didn't facilitate anything. The report evern acknowledges that
Honestly just read up on something for once in your life.
Semantics again Morley.
What does “facilitate” mean?
transitive verb. : to make easier : help bring about.
By introducing Blyth his actions enabled (facilitated) the loan to happen. Without Sharp’s involvement it would not have happened. Sharp did not declare this during the process to appoint him as BBC Chair and that was considered a serious error of judgement as it represented a conflict of interest.
Sharp has given £400k to the Conservatives. He once managed Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs and is also a friend of Johnson.
Sharp became involved after having dinner with his friend, Sam Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson's in Nov 2020. Blyth asked for Sharp's advice. Sharp agreed to help. He went to meet Simon Case to discuss the matter in Downing St, and then brokered the introduction for Blyth and Johnson.
Simon Case told Sharp to cease his involvement in the matter and shortly after the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team told Johnson to stop talking to Sharp. However, by then, Johnson had already selected Sharp as his candidate for the £160k-a-year role of BBC Chair.
The BBC job application says: "You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest". Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in the appointment. However, Sharp did not tell the panel, nor MPs on his pre-hearing.
Also, Richard Sharp is only one part in this story. We still don't know how Blyth ended up on an FCDO candidates list to become British Council chief executive? And we still don't know which bank Johnson secured the loan from (ie who actually provided the money)?
So you think in introducing 2 people he facilitated theoan himself?
What an odd way of trying to pin boris johnson and another 3rd party organising a loan with a 4th party
On a 2nd party.
Again feels ree to highlight in the report where it said he facilitated the loan
I'll wait.what word should be used ? Facilitate works in general speak, even if it may have a more technical accounting term.
Either which way is suspect everyone on this thread kbwos what it is meant represent and is responding as such. "Introduced a man to another man who facilitated offered boris johnson credit. Facilitate an 800k loan What we know. It wasn't a loan it was a line of credit It wasn't 800k Sharp didnt facilitate it. | |||
| |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you?
He didn't facilitate anything. The report evern acknowledges that
Honestly just read up on something for once in your life.
Semantics again Morley.
What does “facilitate” mean?
transitive verb. : to make easier : help bring about.
By introducing Blyth his actions enabled (facilitated) the loan to happen. Without Sharp’s involvement it would not have happened. Sharp did not declare this during the process to appoint him as BBC Chair and that was considered a serious error of judgement as it represented a conflict of interest.
Sharp has given £400k to the Conservatives. He once managed Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs and is also a friend of Johnson.
Sharp became involved after having dinner with his friend, Sam Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson's in Nov 2020. Blyth asked for Sharp's advice. Sharp agreed to help. He went to meet Simon Case to discuss the matter in Downing St, and then brokered the introduction for Blyth and Johnson.
Simon Case told Sharp to cease his involvement in the matter and shortly after the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team told Johnson to stop talking to Sharp. However, by then, Johnson had already selected Sharp as his candidate for the £160k-a-year role of BBC Chair.
The BBC job application says: "You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest". Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in the appointment. However, Sharp did not tell the panel, nor MPs on his pre-hearing.
Also, Richard Sharp is only one part in this story. We still don't know how Blyth ended up on an FCDO candidates list to become British Council chief executive? And we still don't know which bank Johnson secured the loan from (ie who actually provided the money)?
So you think in introducing 2 people he facilitated theoan himself?
What an odd way of trying to pin boris johnson and another 3rd party organising a loan with a 4th party
On a 2nd party.
Again feels ree to highlight in the report where it said he facilitated the loan
I'll wait.what word should be used ? Facilitate works in general speak, even if it may have a more technical accounting term.
Either which way is suspect everyone on this thread kbwos what it is meant represent and is responding as such.
Introduced a man to another man who facilitated offered boris johnson credit.
Facilitate an 800k loan
What we know.
It wasn't a loan it was a line of credit
It wasn't 800k
Sharp didnt facilitate it."he introduced Boris to a way of getting out of a financial pickle. Again, loan or credit. 800k or 80k. I dont think it matters too much if people believe this action meant BJ owed him a favour. And that's the bit they take issue with. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you?
He didn't facilitate anything. The report evern acknowledges that
Honestly just read up on something for once in your life.
Semantics again Morley.
What does “facilitate” mean?
transitive verb. : to make easier : help bring about.
By introducing Blyth his actions enabled (facilitated) the loan to happen. Without Sharp’s involvement it would not have happened. Sharp did not declare this during the process to appoint him as BBC Chair and that was considered a serious error of judgement as it represented a conflict of interest.
Sharp has given £400k to the Conservatives. He once managed Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs and is also a friend of Johnson.
Sharp became involved after having dinner with his friend, Sam Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson's in Nov 2020. Blyth asked for Sharp's advice. Sharp agreed to help. He went to meet Simon Case to discuss the matter in Downing St, and then brokered the introduction for Blyth and Johnson.
Simon Case told Sharp to cease his involvement in the matter and shortly after the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team told Johnson to stop talking to Sharp. However, by then, Johnson had already selected Sharp as his candidate for the £160k-a-year role of BBC Chair.
The BBC job application says: "You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest". Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in the appointment. However, Sharp did not tell the panel, nor MPs on his pre-hearing.
Also, Richard Sharp is only one part in this story. We still don't know how Blyth ended up on an FCDO candidates list to become British Council chief executive? And we still don't know which bank Johnson secured the loan from (ie who actually provided the money)?
So you think in introducing 2 people he facilitated theoan himself?
What an odd way of trying to pin boris johnson and another 3rd party organising a loan with a 4th party
On a 2nd party.
Again feels ree to highlight in the report where it said he facilitated the loan
I'll wait.what word should be used ? Facilitate works in general speak, even if it may have a more technical accounting term.
Either which way is suspect everyone on this thread kbwos what it is meant represent and is responding as such.
Introduced a man to another man who facilitated offered boris johnson credit.
Facilitate an 800k loan
What we know.
It wasn't a loan it was a line of credit
It wasn't 800k
Sharp didnt facilitate it.he introduced Boris to a way of getting out of a financial pickle.
Again, loan or credit. 800k or 80k. I dont think it matters too much if people believe this action meant BJ owed him a favour. And that's the bit they take issue with. "How did he introduce boris? He introduced Blyth to Case. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you?
He didn't facilitate anything. The report evern acknowledges that
Honestly just read up on something for once in your life.
Semantics again Morley.
What does “facilitate” mean?
transitive verb. : to make easier : help bring about.
By introducing Blyth his actions enabled (facilitated) the loan to happen. Without Sharp’s involvement it would not have happened. Sharp did not declare this during the process to appoint him as BBC Chair and that was considered a serious error of judgement as it represented a conflict of interest.
Sharp has given £400k to the Conservatives. He once managed Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs and is also a friend of Johnson.
Sharp became involved after having dinner with his friend, Sam Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson's in Nov 2020. Blyth asked for Sharp's advice. Sharp agreed to help. He went to meet Simon Case to discuss the matter in Downing St, and then brokered the introduction for Blyth and Johnson.
Simon Case told Sharp to cease his involvement in the matter and shortly after the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team told Johnson to stop talking to Sharp. However, by then, Johnson had already selected Sharp as his candidate for the £160k-a-year role of BBC Chair.
The BBC job application says: "You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest". Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in the appointment. However, Sharp did not tell the panel, nor MPs on his pre-hearing.
Also, Richard Sharp is only one part in this story. We still don't know how Blyth ended up on an FCDO candidates list to become British Council chief executive? And we still don't know which bank Johnson secured the loan from (ie who actually provided the money)?
So you think in introducing 2 people he facilitated theoan himself?
What an odd way of trying to pin boris johnson and another 3rd party organising a loan with a 4th party
On a 2nd party.
Again feels ree to highlight in the report where it said he facilitated the loan
I'll wait.what word should be used ? Facilitate works in general speak, even if it may have a more technical accounting term.
Either which way is suspect everyone on this thread kbwos what it is meant represent and is responding as such.
Introduced a man to another man who facilitated offered boris johnson credit.
Facilitate an 800k loan
What we know.
It wasn't a loan it was a line of credit
It wasn't 800k
Sharp didnt facilitate it.he introduced Boris to a way of getting out of a financial pickle.
Again, loan or credit. 800k or 80k. I dont think it matters too much if people believe this action meant BJ owed him a favour. And that's the bit they take issue with.
How did he introduce boris?
He introduced Blyth to Case.
"with the intention of case making the formal intros. He played a part that meant Boris was helped financially. Do you agree with that? | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you?
He didn't facilitate anything. The report evern acknowledges that
Honestly just read up on something for once in your life.
Semantics again Morley.
What does “facilitate” mean?
transitive verb. : to make easier : help bring about.
By introducing Blyth his actions enabled (facilitated) the loan to happen. Without Sharp’s involvement it would not have happened. Sharp did not declare this during the process to appoint him as BBC Chair and that was considered a serious error of judgement as it represented a conflict of interest.
Sharp has given £400k to the Conservatives. He once managed Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs and is also a friend of Johnson.
Sharp became involved after having dinner with his friend, Sam Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson's in Nov 2020. Blyth asked for Sharp's advice. Sharp agreed to help. He went to meet Simon Case to discuss the matter in Downing St, and then brokered the introduction for Blyth and Johnson.
Simon Case told Sharp to cease his involvement in the matter and shortly after the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team told Johnson to stop talking to Sharp. However, by then, Johnson had already selected Sharp as his candidate for the £160k-a-year role of BBC Chair.
The BBC job application says: "You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest". Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in the appointment. However, Sharp did not tell the panel, nor MPs on his pre-hearing.
Also, Richard Sharp is only one part in this story. We still don't know how Blyth ended up on an FCDO candidates list to become British Council chief executive? And we still don't know which bank Johnson secured the loan from (ie who actually provided the money)?
So you think in introducing 2 people he facilitated theoan himself?
What an odd way of trying to pin boris johnson and another 3rd party organising a loan with a 4th party
On a 2nd party.
Again feels ree to highlight in the report where it said he facilitated the loan
I'll wait.what word should be used ? Facilitate works in general speak, even if it may have a more technical accounting term.
Either which way is suspect everyone on this thread kbwos what it is meant represent and is responding as such.
Introduced a man to another man who facilitated offered boris johnson credit.
Facilitate an 800k loan
What we know.
It wasn't a loan it was a line of credit
It wasn't 800k
Sharp didnt facilitate it.he introduced Boris to a way of getting out of a financial pickle.
Again, loan or credit. 800k or 80k. I dont think it matters too much if people believe this action meant BJ owed him a favour. And that's the bit they take issue with.
How did he introduce boris?
He introduced Blyth to Case.
with the intention of case making the formal intros.
He played a part that meant Boris was helped financially. Do you agree with that?
"Not at all. Some 1 asked if it was possible to be put I cpntact with he pm. He went to the pm adviser said some 1 wanted to get in contact with you. Adviser said. Here's the number they can contact us on. That's it. That's the full role he played. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you?
He didn't facilitate anything. The report evern acknowledges that
Honestly just read up on something for once in your life.
Semantics again Morley.
What does “facilitate” mean?
transitive verb. : to make easier : help bring about.
By introducing Blyth his actions enabled (facilitated) the loan to happen. Without Sharp’s involvement it would not have happened. Sharp did not declare this during the process to appoint him as BBC Chair and that was considered a serious error of judgement as it represented a conflict of interest.
Sharp has given £400k to the Conservatives. He once managed Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs and is also a friend of Johnson.
Sharp became involved after having dinner with his friend, Sam Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson's in Nov 2020. Blyth asked for Sharp's advice. Sharp agreed to help. He went to meet Simon Case to discuss the matter in Downing St, and then brokered the introduction for Blyth and Johnson.
Simon Case told Sharp to cease his involvement in the matter and shortly after the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team told Johnson to stop talking to Sharp. However, by then, Johnson had already selected Sharp as his candidate for the £160k-a-year role of BBC Chair.
The BBC job application says: "You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest". Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in the appointment. However, Sharp did not tell the panel, nor MPs on his pre-hearing.
Also, Richard Sharp is only one part in this story. We still don't know how Blyth ended up on an FCDO candidates list to become British Council chief executive? And we still don't know which bank Johnson secured the loan from (ie who actually provided the money)?
So you think in introducing 2 people he facilitated theoan himself?
What an odd way of trying to pin boris johnson and another 3rd party organising a loan with a 4th party
On a 2nd party.
Again feels ree to highlight in the report where it said he facilitated the loan
I'll wait.what word should be used ? Facilitate works in general speak, even if it may have a more technical accounting term.
Either which way is suspect everyone on this thread kbwos what it is meant represent and is responding as such.
Introduced a man to another man who facilitated offered boris johnson credit.
Facilitate an 800k loan
What we know.
It wasn't a loan it was a line of credit
It wasn't 800k
Sharp didnt facilitate it.he introduced Boris to a way of getting out of a financial pickle.
Again, loan or credit. 800k or 80k. I dont think it matters too much if people believe this action meant BJ owed him a favour. And that's the bit they take issue with.
How did he introduce boris?
He introduced Blyth to Case.
with the intention of case making the formal intros.
He played a part that meant Boris was helped financially. Do you agree with that?
Not at all.
Some 1 asked if it was possible to be put I cpntact with he pm.
He went to the pm adviser said some 1 wanted to get in contact with you.
Adviser said.
Here's the number they can contact us on.
That's it.
That's the full role he played.
""Mr Sharp also informed the former Prime Minister, before he was interviewed, that he was going to meet the Cabinet Secretary so as to attempt to introduce to him a person who had made a suggestion that he might assist the former Prime Minister with his personal finances" Hmmm. Seems like he knew more detail than you believe he did. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Eh? He hasnt acknowledged he facilitated the loan. Read the report and watch his resignation . You really are this piss poor aren't you. Do you ever reply on here having looked anything up first?
He made the introduction. He said that he did.
The fact that he didn't think that doing this for the guy was in any way who recommended him was in any way compromising is either a blatant lie or so naïve that he shouldn't be considered for the job because he's too thick.
You really do get stroppy when you're called out on the fact that all of your "knowledge" comes from only one source, don't you?
He didn't facilitate anything. The report evern acknowledges that
Honestly just read up on something for once in your life.
Semantics again Morley.
What does “facilitate” mean?
transitive verb. : to make easier : help bring about.
By introducing Blyth his actions enabled (facilitated) the loan to happen. Without Sharp’s involvement it would not have happened. Sharp did not declare this during the process to appoint him as BBC Chair and that was considered a serious error of judgement as it represented a conflict of interest.
Sharp has given £400k to the Conservatives. He once managed Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs and is also a friend of Johnson.
Sharp became involved after having dinner with his friend, Sam Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson's in Nov 2020. Blyth asked for Sharp's advice. Sharp agreed to help. He went to meet Simon Case to discuss the matter in Downing St, and then brokered the introduction for Blyth and Johnson.
Simon Case told Sharp to cease his involvement in the matter and shortly after the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team told Johnson to stop talking to Sharp. However, by then, Johnson had already selected Sharp as his candidate for the £160k-a-year role of BBC Chair.
The BBC job application says: "You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest". Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in the appointment. However, Sharp did not tell the panel, nor MPs on his pre-hearing.
Also, Richard Sharp is only one part in this story. We still don't know how Blyth ended up on an FCDO candidates list to become British Council chief executive? And we still don't know which bank Johnson secured the loan from (ie who actually provided the money)?
So you think in introducing 2 people he facilitated theoan himself?
What an odd way of trying to pin boris johnson and another 3rd party organising a loan with a 4th party
On a 2nd party.
Again feels ree to highlight in the report where it said he facilitated the loan
I'll wait.what word should be used ? Facilitate works in general speak, even if it may have a more technical accounting term.
Either which way is suspect everyone on this thread kbwos what it is meant represent and is responding as such.
Introduced a man to another man who facilitated offered boris johnson credit.
Facilitate an 800k loan
What we know.
It wasn't a loan it was a line of credit
It wasn't 800k
Sharp didnt facilitate it.he introduced Boris to a way of getting out of a financial pickle.
Again, loan or credit. 800k or 80k. I dont think it matters too much if people believe this action meant BJ owed him a favour. And that's the bit they take issue with.
How did he introduce boris?
He introduced Blyth to Case.
with the intention of case making the formal intros.
He played a part that meant Boris was helped financially. Do you agree with that?
Not at all.
Some 1 asked if it was possible to be put I cpntact with he pm.
He went to the pm adviser said some 1 wanted to get in contact with you.
Adviser said.
Here's the number they can contact us on.
That's it.
That's the full role he played.
"Mr Sharp also informed the former Prime Minister, before he was interviewed, that he was going to meet the Cabinet Secretary so as to attempt to introduce to him a person who had made a suggestion that he might assist the former Prime Minister with his personal finances"
Hmmm. Seems like he knew more detail than you believe he did. "Not really. Hes the transcript from the committee Chair: So your meeting with Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, was purely to discuss whether he would speak to Sam Blyth. Richard Sharp: Yes. It was to tell him that I had spoken to Mr Blyth, and that Mr Blyth wanted to explore ways that he could help the Prime Minister, and therefore he asked to be introduced to the Cabinet Secretary. At that meeting, I raised with Mr. Blyth the fact that I had submitted my application to be the Chair of the BBC and that therefore, to avoid a conflict, or a perception of conflict, I could have—and we agreed—no further participation in whatever transpired whatsoever, and I didn’t. Q243 Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency? Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr. Blyth—had learned from me was that that was an entirely appropriate thing to do in the context, despite the fact that he was a family member, and I should also say that I had mentioned to him that he was a foreigner. Therefore, there are a lot of issues that needed to be addressed that could prevent him from providing any support whatsoever, and the best people to address that with would be the Cabinet Office—hence he rang me up asking me to put him in touch with Mr Case. Q244 Chair: All of that seems fine, but I am still not clear why you needed to go and have a meeting with Simon Case to say, “There’s this guy who wants to help the Prime Minister | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"CBA to quote. 235... As a result of press reports that he had read in September, he raised with me, at that time, his concern that his cousin, the Prime Minister, was reported in these press reports to have some difficulties. Mr Blyth raised with me the fact that he was interested in feeling out whether he should do something to help Q240 ...Following that, towards the end of November, I received a call from Mr Blyth saying that he was interested in exploring with the Cabinet Office what possibly he could do to help his cousin, and he asked me if I would put him in touch with the Cabinet Secretary. That was a phone call I received from him at that time. You seem to be taking an angle not described in the report and, again, not taken by any individual themself. " So then he didn't facilitate a loan. He put one person in touch with another person. From there they went through the official guidance on how minister refeive financial aid. So no he didnt facilitate a loan | |||
"CBA to quote. 235... As a result of press reports that he had read in September, he raised with me, at that time, his concern that his cousin, the Prime Minister, was reported in these press reports to have some difficulties. Mr Blyth raised with me the fact that he was interested in feeling out whether he should do something to help Q240 ...Following that, towards the end of November, I received a call from Mr Blyth saying that he was interested in exploring with the Cabinet Office what possibly he could do to help his cousin, and he asked me if I would put him in touch with the Cabinet Secretary. That was a phone call I received from him at that time. You seem to be taking an angle not described in the report and, again, not taken by any individual themself. So then he didn't facilitate a loan. He put one person in touch with another person. From there they went through the official guidance on how minister refeive financial aid. So no he didnt facilitate a loan" I thought we had moved on from that. he knowingly helped get Boris financiak help of some kind. Again, I'm not sure he ever denied this. | |||
| |||
"CBA to quote. 235... As a result of press reports that he had read in September, he raised with me, at that time, his concern that his cousin, the Prime Minister, was reported in these press reports to have some difficulties. Mr Blyth raised with me the fact that he was interested in feeling out whether he should do something to help Q240 ...Following that, towards the end of November, I received a call from Mr Blyth saying that he was interested in exploring with the Cabinet Office what possibly he could do to help his cousin, and he asked me if I would put him in touch with the Cabinet Secretary. That was a phone call I received from him at that time. You seem to be taking an angle not described in the report and, again, not taken by any individual themself. So then he didn't facilitate a loan. He put one person in touch with another person. From there they went through the official guidance on how minister refeive financial aid. So no he didnt facilitate a loan" Why did he resign ? | |||
"CBA to quote. 235... As a result of press reports that he had read in September, he raised with me, at that time, his concern that his cousin, the Prime Minister, was reported in these press reports to have some difficulties. Mr Blyth raised with me the fact that he was interested in feeling out whether he should do something to help Q240 ...Following that, towards the end of November, I received a call from Mr Blyth saying that he was interested in exploring with the Cabinet Office what possibly he could do to help his cousin, and he asked me if I would put him in touch with the Cabinet Secretary. That was a phone call I received from him at that time. You seem to be taking an angle not described in the report and, again, not taken by any individual themself. So then he didn't facilitate a loan. He put one person in touch with another person. From there they went through the official guidance on how minister refeive financial aid. So no he didnt facilitate a loanI thought we had moved on from that. he knowingly helped get Boris financiak help of some kind. Again, I'm not sure he ever denied this. " He did deny it. It's there in the minutes. | |||
"It is pointless arguing with Morleyman as we all know only he is right and everyone else is wrong. And by everyone else I really do mean EVERYONE else. Including highly experienced investigative journalists and ethics committee members etc. If this was all innocent and above board, if there was no hint of cronyism, then Sharp would not have had to resign. But Morley will argue over semantics and individual words and in the process ignore dictionary definitions of those words. " Semantics is getting the minutes from the discussion. Showing he never facilitated a loan. | |||
| |||
"CBA to quote. 235... As a result of press reports that he had read in September, he raised with me, at that time, his concern that his cousin, the Prime Minister, was reported in these press reports to have some difficulties. Mr Blyth raised with me the fact that he was interested in feeling out whether he should do something to help Q240 ...Following that, towards the end of November, I received a call from Mr Blyth saying that he was interested in exploring with the Cabinet Office what possibly he could do to help his cousin, and he asked me if I would put him in touch with the Cabinet Secretary. That was a phone call I received from him at that time. You seem to be taking an angle not described in the report and, again, not taken by any individual themself. So then he didn't facilitate a loan. He put one person in touch with another person. From there they went through the official guidance on how minister refeive financial aid. So no he didnt facilitate a loanI thought we had moved on from that. he knowingly helped get Boris financiak help of some kind. Again, I'm not sure he ever denied this. He did deny it. It's there in the minutes. " which bit? I see him focussing on financial advice. And not knowing BJs financial affairs. But I don't see him denying he didn't know why Blyth wanted the introduction. He admits Blyth raised it with him that he wanted to help. And later arranged him to meet Case. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await."You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help: 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan. Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem. Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that? | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?"Whatever any one in here thinks about it is irrelevant. He didn't facilitate a loan | |||
| |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?"I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan. As the committee mi uses testify. I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp. Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
"There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them. He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson. Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do? 'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.' 'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.' https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances. You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course."How set up the introduction? Have you read the minutes of tne committee? That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting. Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency. I'm sorry where did he day this? Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency? Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr. You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy Remember we have the full transcript. He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances. Again Categorically NOT what is in the transcript. Have you read it? This is getting embarrassing now. Infact he says this _asyuk "I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter." So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs. So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs. Again what is bojos debt to Sharp? What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course.
How set up the introduction?
Have you read the minutes of tne committee?
That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting.
Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency.
I'm sorry where did he day this?
Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency?
Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy
Remember we have the full transcript.
He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances.
Again
Categorically NOT what is in the transcript.
Have you read it?
This is getting embarrassing now.
Infact he says this _asyuk
"I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter."
So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs.
So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs.
Again what is bojos debt to Sharp?
What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript.
"did he know that Blyth wanted to help Boris with his finances ? | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course.
How set up the introduction?
Have you read the minutes of tne committee?
That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting.
Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency.
I'm sorry where did he day this?
Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency?
Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy
Remember we have the full transcript.
He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances.
Again
Categorically NOT what is in the transcript.
Have you read it?
This is getting embarrassing now.
Infact he says this _asyuk
"I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter."
So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs.
So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs.
Again what is bojos debt to Sharp?
What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript.
did he know that Blyth wanted to help Boris with his finances ?""Chair: When you say “nothing”, presumably you knew because— Richard Sharp: All I knew was press reports. Chair: Press reports that he had financial issues, and you were facilitating— Richard Sharp: Yes, I had no interest in providing him with financial advice— Chair: Somebody who would help him. Richard Sharp: My interest was to introduce Mr Blyth to Mr Case, because Mr Blyth wanted to help the Prime Minister, and I wanted to ensure, at his request, that there was a process by which all the rules could be followed appropriately. Q251 Chair: Did you ever give informal advice, as a friend of Boris Johnson, about— Richard Sharp: No. Chair: No? Richard Sharp: No, no. Our relationship is broadly professional, and it has been broadly professional, rather than personal." | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course.
How set up the introduction?
Have you read the minutes of tne committee?
That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting.
Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency.
I'm sorry where did he day this?
Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency?
Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy
Remember we have the full transcript.
He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances.
Again
Categorically NOT what is in the transcript.
Have you read it?
This is getting embarrassing now.
Infact he says this _asyuk
"I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter."
So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs.
So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs.
Again what is bojos debt to Sharp?
What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript.
"Interesting attempt at a diversion. Here's why he had to leave according to the House of Commons Committee report. Not "public opinion": "4 Conclusions 27. Mr Sharp recognised the need to be open and transparent over facilitating an introduction of the then Prime Minister to Mr Blyth regarding the £800,000 loan guarantee and brought this to the attention of the Cabinet Secretary. However, he failed to apply the same standards of openness and candour in his decision not to divulge this information during the interview process or to this committee during the pre-appointment hearing. 28. The public appointments process can only work effectively if all those involved are open and transparent. Richard Sharp chose to tell the then Prime Minister both of his application to Chair the BBC and of his involvement in the arrangement of a loan for the Mr Johnson but decided not to tell either the appointment panel or this Committee about his actions. The Prime Minister, the panel and this Committee are all integral to the appointment process for the Chair of the BBC, but only Mr Johnson was fully aware of Mr Sharp’s potential conflict at the time the appointment was made. The Government, and all those involved in the public appointments process must ensure that the future public appointments process is not clouded by partial disclosure 30. In deciding not to recuse himself from involvement in Sam Blyth’s loan to the then Prime Minister nor to reveal his involvement to either this Committee or the appointments panel, Mr Sharp decided to leave our Committee without the full facts we required to make an informed judgement on his suitability as a candidate. There can be no question that Mr Sharp’s decision not to divulge his involvement in the loan guarantee denied this Committee the opportunity to fulfil its scrutiny role when he appeared before it. 32. Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become involved in the facilitation of a loan to the then Prime Minister while at the same time applying for a job that was in that same person’s gift, and then to fail to disclose this material relationship, were significant errors of judgement, which undermine confidence in the public appointments process and could deter qualified individuals from applying for such posts. Mr Sharp’s failure to disclose his actions to the panel and the Committee, although he believed this to be completely proper, constitute a breach of the standards expected of individuals applying for such public appointments. The booklet ‘Public Appointments, Probity & conflicts of interest: a guide for candidates’, which candidates are signposted to read, specifically cites ‘Perception of rewards for past contributions or favours’ as one of the issues that could lead to real or apparent conflicts of interest." I'm sure you will try to find something to quibble over although it does seem to uses the phrase "facilitation of a loan" | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course.
How set up the introduction?
Have you read the minutes of tne committee?
That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting.
Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency.
I'm sorry where did he day this?
Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency?
Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy
Remember we have the full transcript.
He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances.
Again
Categorically NOT what is in the transcript.
Have you read it?
This is getting embarrassing now.
Infact he says this _asyuk
"I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter."
So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs.
So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs.
Again what is bojos debt to Sharp?
What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript.
did he know that Blyth wanted to help Boris with his finances ?
"Chair: When you say “nothing”, presumably you knew because—
Richard Sharp: All I knew was press reports.
Chair: Press reports that he had financial issues, and you were facilitating—
Richard Sharp: Yes, I had no interest in providing him with financial advice—
Chair: Somebody who would help him.
Richard Sharp: My interest was to introduce Mr Blyth to Mr Case, because Mr Blyth wanted to help the Prime Minister, and I wanted to ensure, at his request, that there was a process by which all the rules could be followed appropriately.
Q251 Chair: Did you ever give informal advice, as a friend of Boris Johnson, about—
Richard Sharp: No.
Chair: No?
Richard Sharp: No, no. Our relationship is broadly professional, and it has been broadly professional, rather than personal.""that's not answered the question I asked. I'd say q235 does tho. | |||
| |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation." Words do have different meanings in different dictionaries, ie, law dictionaries the word facilitate may have a completely different meaning to what is the norm, blacks law dictionary is a typical example.  | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. Words do have different meanings in different dictionaries, ie, law dictionaries the word facilitate may have a completely different meaning to what is the norm, blacks law dictionary is a typical example. "Indeed but this has not been a legal discussion, it has been common parlance and the words widely and universally used in all reporting in media of all political bias. Arguing over the word “facilitate” was an attempt at diversion. That semantics and technicality argument seems to happen a lot. | |||
| |||
| |||
"In fairness, it would be beyond stupid to repeal 4000 laws in one go. The c800 and any other laws are probably the ones they can pragmatically repeal now." There’s that for sure but there is also the very high probability that the vast majority of laws suit the UK just fine so why bother changing them! | |||
"In fairness, it would be beyond stupid to repeal 4000 laws in one go. The c800 and any other laws are probably the ones they can pragmatically repeal now. There’s that for sure but there is also the very high probability that the vast majority of laws suit the UK just fine so why bother changing them!" Sovereignty | |||
"In fairness, it would be beyond stupid to repeal 4000 laws in one go. The c800 and any other laws are probably the ones they can pragmatically repeal now." stupid is as stupid does. Good to see the Lords prevent stupidity. Do we know what's on the 800? | |||
"In fairness, it would be beyond stupid to repeal 4000 laws in one go. The c800 and any other laws are probably the ones they can pragmatically repeal now.stupid is as stupid does. Good to see the Lords prevent stupidity. Do we know what's on the 800?" No because the first rule of Brexit Club is you don’t talk about Brexit. The second rule of Brexit Club is you don’t talk about Brexit! | |||
"In fairness, it would be beyond stupid to repeal 4000 laws in one go. The c800 and any other laws are probably the ones they can pragmatically repeal now. There’s that for sure but there is also the very high probability that the vast majority of laws suit the UK just fine so why bother changing them!" I would largely agree that if they suit the UK then no point in change unless there is some legal problem with laws relating to and including the words EU. I'm not a lawyer so just a guess. Without reviewing the laws how would they know if they suit the UK or not. If improvements can be made to make laws even better, should they be changed or just put up with them regardless | |||
"In fairness, it would be beyond stupid to repeal 4000 laws in one go. The c800 and any other laws are probably the ones they can pragmatically repeal now.stupid is as stupid does. Good to see the Lords prevent stupidity. Do we know what's on the 800?" You can see all the laws that have either been amended, repealed or about to be by searching RUEL document gov | |||
"In fairness, it would be beyond stupid to repeal 4000 laws in one go. The c800 and any other laws are probably the ones they can pragmatically repeal now.stupid is as stupid does. Good to see the Lords prevent stupidity. Do we know what's on the 800? No because the first rule of Brexit Club is you don’t talk about Brexit. The second rule of Brexit Club is you don’t talk about Brexit!" The laws that were specific EU laws will be gone and those that mention the EU will be changed to remove the reference in most cases. | |||
"In fairness, it would be beyond stupid to repeal 4000 laws in one go. The c800 and any other laws are probably the ones they can pragmatically repeal now. There’s that for sure but there is also the very high probability that the vast majority of laws suit the UK just fine so why bother changing them! I would largely agree that if they suit the UK then no point in change unless there is some legal problem with laws relating to and including the words EU. I'm not a lawyer so just a guess. Without reviewing the laws how would they know if they suit the UK or not. If improvements can be made to make laws even better, should they be changed or just put up with them regardless" The Civil Service have had a dedicated team reviewing every single law. That is how they came to the conclusion that around 800 or the 4000+ needed to change. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course.
How set up the introduction?
Have you read the minutes of tne committee?
That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting.
Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency.
I'm sorry where did he day this?
Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency?
Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy
Remember we have the full transcript.
He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances.
Again
Categorically NOT what is in the transcript.
Have you read it?
This is getting embarrassing now.
Infact he says this _asyuk
"I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter."
So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs.
So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs.
Again what is bojos debt to Sharp?
What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript.
did he know that Blyth wanted to help Boris with his finances ?
"Chair: When you say “nothing”, presumably you knew because—
Richard Sharp: All I knew was press reports.
Chair: Press reports that he had financial issues, and you were facilitating—
Richard Sharp: Yes, I had no interest in providing him with financial advice—
Chair: Somebody who would help him.
Richard Sharp: My interest was to introduce Mr Blyth to Mr Case, because Mr Blyth wanted to help the Prime Minister, and I wanted to ensure, at his request, that there was a process by which all the rules could be followed appropriately.
Q251 Chair: Did you ever give informal advice, as a friend of Boris Johnson, about—
Richard Sharp: No.
Chair: No?
Richard Sharp: No, no. Our relationship is broadly professional, and it has been broadly professional, rather than personal."that's not answered the question I asked.
I'd say q235 does tho. "Go for it. What do you think does | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation." So.how did he make the credit facility easier? | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier?" You are reading this as an accountant not a normal person! If Sharp had done linked people up or made introductions the loan (or whatever it is) would not have happened. That is facilitation and that word was deemed good enough to be included in the report conclusions. It isn’t the loan that is the problem, it is that it was not declared as part of the process and was required to be. It creates a potential conflict of interest (and indebtedness) between the Prime Minister and the Chair of the BBC. And as I said earlier, Blyth also found his way onto the shortlist for the top job at the Business Council after being involved in the “loan”. | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? You are reading this as an accountant not a normal person! If Sharp had done linked people up or made introductions the loan (or whatever it is) would not have happened. That is facilitation and that word was deemed good enough to be included in the report conclusions. It isn’t the loan that is the problem, it is that it was not declared as part of the process and was required to be. It creates a potential conflict of interest (and indebtedness) between the Prime Minister and the Chair of the BBC. And as I said earlier, Blyth also found his way onto the shortlist for the top job at the Business Council after being involved in the “loan”." Autocorrect edit... If Sharp had not linked people up | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier?" It doesn't matter what you think or choose to try to debate. The conclusions of the Commons Committee are their for you to read and then try to ignore. They're in this thread | |||
"In fairness, it would be beyond stupid to repeal 4000 laws in one go. The c800 and any other laws are probably the ones they can pragmatically repeal now. There’s that for sure but there is also the very high probability that the vast majority of laws suit the UK just fine so why bother changing them! I would largely agree that if they suit the UK then no point in change unless there is some legal problem with laws relating to and including the words EU. I'm not a lawyer so just a guess. Without reviewing the laws how would they know if they suit the UK or not. If improvements can be made to make laws even better, should they be changed or just put up with them regardless The Civil Service have had a dedicated team reviewing every single law. That is how they came to the conclusion that around 800 or the 4000+ needed to change." Sounds reasonable enough to me. | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? You are reading this as an accountant not a normal person! If Sharp had done linked people up or made introductions the loan (or whatever it is) would not have happened. That is facilitation and that word was deemed good enough to be included in the report conclusions. It isn’t the loan that is the problem, it is that it was not declared as part of the process and was required to be. It creates a potential conflict of interest (and indebtedness) between the Prime Minister and the Chair of the BBC. And as I said earlier, Blyth also found his way onto the shortlist for the top job at the Business Council after being involved in the “loan”." No I am reading it fine. He didn't facilitate a loan. Because he never made anything easier. | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? It doesn't matter what you think or choose to try to debate. The conclusions of the Commons Committee are their for you to read and then try to ignore. They're in this thread "Yes the committee agrees with me. Which is why they didn't say he facilitated a loan. Which is why when you said the committee said other things. I pointed you directly to the minutes that contradicted you. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course.
How set up the introduction?
Have you read the minutes of tne committee?
That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting.
Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency.
I'm sorry where did he day this?
Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency?
Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy
Remember we have the full transcript.
He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances.
Again
Categorically NOT what is in the transcript.
Have you read it?
This is getting embarrassing now.
Infact he says this _asyuk
"I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter."
So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs.
So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs.
Again what is bojos debt to Sharp?
What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript.
did he know that Blyth wanted to help Boris with his finances ?
"Chair: When you say “nothing”, presumably you knew because—
Richard Sharp: All I knew was press reports.
Chair: Press reports that he had financial issues, and you were facilitating—
Richard Sharp: Yes, I had no interest in providing him with financial advice—
Chair: Somebody who would help him.
Richard Sharp: My interest was to introduce Mr Blyth to Mr Case, because Mr Blyth wanted to help the Prime Minister, and I wanted to ensure, at his request, that there was a process by which all the rules could be followed appropriately.
Q251 Chair: Did you ever give informal advice, as a friend of Boris Johnson, about—
Richard Sharp: No.
Chair: No?
Richard Sharp: No, no. Our relationship is broadly professional, and it has been broadly professional, rather than personal."that's not answered the question I asked.
I'd say q235 does tho.
Go for it.
What do you think does"did he know that Blythe wanted to help with Boris with his finances ... "As a result of press reports that he had read in September, he raised with me, at that time, his concern that his cousin, the Prime Minister, was reported in these press reports to have some difficulties. Mr Blyth raised with me the fact that he was interested in feeling out whether he should do something to help" That to me suggest he did know and therefore may have anticipated that is why blythe later wanted a meeting to be arranged Rather than doing a blind introduction with no inkling of what the agenda may be. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course.
How set up the introduction?
Have you read the minutes of tne committee?
That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting.
Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency.
I'm sorry where did he day this?
Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency?
Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy
Remember we have the full transcript.
He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances.
Again
Categorically NOT what is in the transcript.
Have you read it?
This is getting embarrassing now.
Infact he says this _asyuk
"I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter."
So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs.
So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs.
Again what is bojos debt to Sharp?
What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript.
did he know that Blyth wanted to help Boris with his finances ?
"Chair: When you say “nothing”, presumably you knew because—
Richard Sharp: All I knew was press reports.
Chair: Press reports that he had financial issues, and you were facilitating—
Richard Sharp: Yes, I had no interest in providing him with financial advice—
Chair: Somebody who would help him.
Richard Sharp: My interest was to introduce Mr Blyth to Mr Case, because Mr Blyth wanted to help the Prime Minister, and I wanted to ensure, at his request, that there was a process by which all the rules could be followed appropriately.
Q251 Chair: Did you ever give informal advice, as a friend of Boris Johnson, about—
Richard Sharp: No.
Chair: No?
Richard Sharp: No, no. Our relationship is broadly professional, and it has been broadly professional, rather than personal."that's not answered the question I asked.
I'd say q235 does tho.
Go for it.
What do you think doesdid he know that Blythe wanted to help with Boris with his finances ...
"As a result of press reports that he had read in September, he raised with me, at that time, his concern that his cousin, the Prime Minister, was reported in these press reports to have some difficulties. Mr Blyth raised with me the fact that he was interested in feeling out whether he should do something to help"
That to me suggest he did know and therefore may have anticipated that is why blythe later wanted a meeting to be arranged
Rather than doing a blind introduction with no inkling of what the agenda may be. "Read your quote. Does it say he wanted to help him with his finances.? It says about oress reports and difficulties. He felt he could reach out and help. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course.
How set up the introduction?
Have you read the minutes of tne committee?
That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting.
Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency.
I'm sorry where did he day this?
Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency?
Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy
Remember we have the full transcript.
He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances.
Again
Categorically NOT what is in the transcript.
Have you read it?
This is getting embarrassing now.
Infact he says this _asyuk
"I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter."
So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs.
So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs.
Again what is bojos debt to Sharp?
What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript.
Interesting attempt at a diversion. Here's why he had to leave according to the House of Commons Committee report. Not "public opinion":
"4 Conclusions
27. Mr Sharp recognised the need to be open and transparent over facilitating an introduction of the then Prime Minister to Mr Blyth regarding the £800,000 loan guarantee and brought this to the attention of the Cabinet Secretary. However, he failed to apply the same standards of openness and candour in his decision not to divulge this information during the interview process or to this committee during the pre-appointment hearing.
28. The public appointments process can only work effectively if all those involved are open and transparent. Richard Sharp chose to tell the then Prime Minister both of his application to Chair the BBC and of his involvement in the arrangement of a loan for the Mr Johnson but decided not to tell either the appointment panel or this Committee about his actions. The Prime Minister, the panel and this Committee are all integral to the appointment process for the Chair of the BBC, but only Mr Johnson was fully aware of Mr Sharp’s potential conflict at the time the appointment was made. The Government, and all those involved in the public appointments process must ensure that the future public appointments process is not clouded by partial disclosure
30. In deciding not to recuse himself from involvement in Sam Blyth’s loan to the then Prime Minister nor to reveal his involvement to either this Committee or the appointments panel, Mr Sharp decided to leave our Committee without the full facts we required to make an informed judgement on his suitability as a candidate. There can be no question that Mr Sharp’s decision not to divulge his involvement in the loan guarantee denied this Committee the opportunity to fulfil its scrutiny role when he appeared before it.
32. Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become involved in the facilitation of a loan to the then Prime Minister while at the same time applying for a job that was in that same person’s gift, and then to fail to disclose this material relationship, were significant errors of judgement, which undermine confidence in the public appointments process and could deter qualified individuals from applying for such posts. Mr Sharp’s failure to disclose his actions to the panel and the Committee, although he believed this to be completely proper, constitute a breach of the standards expected of individuals applying for such public appointments. The booklet ‘Public Appointments, Probity & conflicts of interest: a guide for candidates’, which candidates are signposted to read, specifically cites ‘Perception of rewards for past contributions or favours’ as one of the issues that could lead to real or apparent conflicts of interest."
I'm sure you will try to find something to quibble over although it does seem to uses the phrase "facilitation of a loan" "Never saw thus. Point 27. Facilitated a meeting.. didn't facilitste a loan. Your own evidence undoes you again easy uk. | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? It doesn't matter what you think or choose to try to debate. The conclusions of the Commons Committee are their for you to read and then try to ignore. They're in this thread
Yes the committee agrees with me.
Which is why they didn't say he facilitated a loan.
Which is why when you said the committee said other things.
I pointed you directly to the minutes that contradicted you.
"This is a mildly hilarious denial of reality: "Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become involved in the facilitation of a loan to the then Prime Minister while at the same time applying for a job that was in that same person’s gift, and then to fail to disclose this material relationship, were significant errors of judgement, which undermine confidence in the public appointments process and could deter qualified individuals from applying for such posts." They literally said that he was involved in the FACILITATION of a loan. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course.
How set up the introduction?
Have you read the minutes of tne committee?
That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting.
Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency.
I'm sorry where did he day this?
Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency?
Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy
Remember we have the full transcript.
He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances.
Again
Categorically NOT what is in the transcript.
Have you read it?
This is getting embarrassing now.
Infact he says this _asyuk
"I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter."
So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs.
So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs.
Again what is bojos debt to Sharp?
What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript.
did he know that Blyth wanted to help Boris with his finances ?
"Chair: When you say “nothing”, presumably you knew because—
Richard Sharp: All I knew was press reports.
Chair: Press reports that he had financial issues, and you were facilitating—
Richard Sharp: Yes, I had no interest in providing him with financial advice—
Chair: Somebody who would help him.
Richard Sharp: My interest was to introduce Mr Blyth to Mr Case, because Mr Blyth wanted to help the Prime Minister, and I wanted to ensure, at his request, that there was a process by which all the rules could be followed appropriately.
Q251 Chair: Did you ever give informal advice, as a friend of Boris Johnson, about—
Richard Sharp: No.
Chair: No?
Richard Sharp: No, no. Our relationship is broadly professional, and it has been broadly professional, rather than personal."that's not answered the question I asked.
I'd say q235 does tho.
Go for it.
What do you think doesdid he know that Blythe wanted to help with Boris with his finances ...
"As a result of press reports that he had read in September, he raised with me, at that time, his concern that his cousin, the Prime Minister, was reported in these press reports to have some difficulties. Mr Blyth raised with me the fact that he was interested in feeling out whether he should do something to help"
That to me suggest he did know and therefore may have anticipated that is why blythe later wanted a meeting to be arranged
Rather than doing a blind introduction with no inkling of what the agenda may be.
Read your quote.
Does it say he wanted to help him with his finances.?
It says about oress reports and difficulties. He felt he could reach out and help.
""Q272 John Nicolson: Okay. So although you discussed the loan with Mr Blyth, Boris Johnson’s cousin, in September 2020, you did not actually go to see the Cabinet Secretary until December" | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? It doesn't matter what you think or choose to try to debate. The conclusions of the Commons Committee are their for you to read and then try to ignore. They're in this thread
Yes the committee agrees with me.
Which is why they didn't say he facilitated a loan.
Which is why when you said the committee said other things.
I pointed you directly to the minutes that contradicted you.
This is a mildly hilarious denial of reality:
"Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become involved in the facilitation of a loan to the then Prime Minister while at the same time applying for a job that was in that same person’s gift, and then to fail to disclose this material relationship, were significant errors of judgement, which undermine confidence in the public appointments process and could deter qualified individuals from applying for such posts."
They literally said that he was involved in the FACILITATION of a loan.
"Oh dear oh dear "Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become (involved) in the facilitation of a loan. Didn't facilitate it then As highlighted by the earlier co clusion "27. Mr Sharp recognised the need to be open and transparent over facilitating an introduction" He facilitated an introduction . That was his INVOLVEMENT. If you could take 10 seconds to read | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? It doesn't matter what you think or choose to try to debate. The conclusions of the Commons Committee are their for you to read and then try to ignore. They're in this thread
Yes the committee agrees with me.
Which is why they didn't say he facilitated a loan.
Which is why when you said the committee said other things.
I pointed you directly to the minutes that contradicted you.
This is a mildly hilarious denial of reality:
"Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become involved in the facilitation of a loan to the then Prime Minister while at the same time applying for a job that was in that same person’s gift, and then to fail to disclose this material relationship, were significant errors of judgement, which undermine confidence in the public appointments process and could deter qualified individuals from applying for such posts."
They literally said that he was involved in the FACILITATION of a loan.
Oh dear oh dear
"Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become (involved) in the facilitation of a loan.
Didn't facilitate it then
As highlighted by the earlier co clusion
"27. Mr Sharp recognised the need to be open and transparent over facilitating an introduction"
He facilitated an introduction . That was his INVOLVEMENT.
If you could take 10 seconds to read
"Again the original quote of this thread "Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role." | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course.
How set up the introduction?
Have you read the minutes of tne committee?
That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting.
Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency.
I'm sorry where did he day this?
Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency?
Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy
Remember we have the full transcript.
He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances.
Again
Categorically NOT what is in the transcript.
Have you read it?
This is getting embarrassing now.
Infact he says this _asyuk
"I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter."
So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs.
So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs.
Again what is bojos debt to Sharp?
What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript.
did he know that Blyth wanted to help Boris with his finances ?
"Chair: When you say “nothing”, presumably you knew because—
Richard Sharp: All I knew was press reports.
Chair: Press reports that he had financial issues, and you were facilitating—
Richard Sharp: Yes, I had no interest in providing him with financial advice—
Chair: Somebody who would help him.
Richard Sharp: My interest was to introduce Mr Blyth to Mr Case, because Mr Blyth wanted to help the Prime Minister, and I wanted to ensure, at his request, that there was a process by which all the rules could be followed appropriately.
Q251 Chair: Did you ever give informal advice, as a friend of Boris Johnson, about—
Richard Sharp: No.
Chair: No?
Richard Sharp: No, no. Our relationship is broadly professional, and it has been broadly professional, rather than personal."that's not answered the question I asked.
I'd say q235 does tho.
Go for it.
What do you think doesdid he know that Blythe wanted to help with Boris with his finances ...
"As a result of press reports that he had read in September, he raised with me, at that time, his concern that his cousin, the Prime Minister, was reported in these press reports to have some difficulties. Mr Blyth raised with me the fact that he was interested in feeling out whether he should do something to help"
That to me suggest he did know and therefore may have anticipated that is why blythe later wanted a meeting to be arranged
Rather than doing a blind introduction with no inkling of what the agenda may be.
Read your quote.
Does it say he wanted to help him with his finances.?
It says about oress reports and difficulties. He felt he could reach out and help.
"Q272 John Nicolson: Okay. So although you discussed the loan with Mr Blyth, Boris Johnson’s cousin, in September 2020, you did not actually go to see the Cabinet Secretary until December"
"Q271 John Nicolson: So you did not say to the Prime Minister, “Prime Minister, your cousin is looking to help you out.” Richard Sharp: No, I did not. Q272 John Nicolson: Okay. So although you discussed the loan with Mr Blyth, Boris Johnson’s cousin, in September 2020, you did not actually go to see the Cabinet Secretary until December—so quite a long time afterwards. At that discussion with the Cabinet Secretary, did anyone else attend? Were any minutes taken? Richard Sharp: This comes back to answering one of your earlier questions. At that meeting, I raised with the Cabinet Secretary that I was in the application process for the BBC chairmanship, and therefore at that time we discussed precisely that to avoid a conflict or the appearance of conflict, I should have nothing further to do with it. At that meeting, there were two people: I was there, and Mr Case was there This is the questioner asking a question not Richard Sharp saying it. | |||
"Today in la la land... 1. Richard Sharp resigns as BBC Chair, he who facilitated a £800,000 loan for Johnson who then got Sharp appointed to BBC top role. 2. Sunak’s government decides that only c.800 EU laws will be wiped from the UK statute book and not the full c.4000. Mightily pissing off the ERG nutjobs. Wonder what’s next? Can you explain how he facilitated the loan? Doesn't matter. He acknowledges that he did and that he didn't declare doing the person who appointed him a mighty big favour. Why does Briefings for Britain tell you to say about the matter? Does matter, why? Because this doesn't sound like an acknowledgement to me. "Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister” If only you had read the thread you'd have seen his direct quote. It doesn't matter to _asyuk. He doesn't do facts. When you can't argue the point just keep repeating a lie. Briefings for Britain Boy. Still cant refute their points. Good to see. Go for that ad hom when you've been embarrassed. Sharp is very much like you in trying to make the discussion about a technicality framed by them as the big issue. As you, Sharp states something in an unchallenged statement trying to make that a "fact" that must be "disapproved". The reality is that the report plainly stated what he did. He facilitated a meeting to to get the Prime Minister a huge loan before his appointment. A loan which he received on unknown terms. A favour that clearly imparts a personal obligation. He either didn't understand Thais was true (stupid) or deliberately concealed it (dishonest). 'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth. It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".' So, he does acknowledge setting up the loan meeting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077 You making accusations of and hominem insults?
Anyway, is there a Briefings for Britain Analysis for this or is there different source for your political opinions?
Are you saying that.
Introducing 2 people is facilitating?
Is that what you're going with?
I'm glad you're off reading things now though
Introducing them was never I doubt. Facilitating the "loan" was.
Do you think he facilitated the "loan"..thay was the accusation.
Where is it in the report he facilitated then?
We await.
You don't have to wait. You perhaps have to understand. Repetition may help:
'The report found he had failed to disclose two potential perceived conflicts of interest: first, by telling Mr Johnson he wanted to apply for the BBC role before doing so; and second, by telling the PM he intended to set up a meeting between Mr Case, the country's most senior civil servant, and Mr Blyth.
It notes that Mr Sharp does not accept the first conclusion, but he has apologised for the second, though described it as "inadvertent and not material".'
Whatever Sharp thinks about what happened is irrelevant. He "set up" the introduction that that allowed Boris Johnson to arrange a private loan.
Does using "set up" make you happier than "facilitate"? Would "arrange" be unacceptable because it is not the exact vocabulary used? It means the same thing in context. Pedantry on your part, it would seem.
Boris Johnson was consequently indebted to Sharp. That is what is unacceptable. Are you really unable to see that?
I'm genuinely unable to see how he facilitated a loan.
As the committee mi uses testify.
I'm genuinely unable to see the debt johnson had to Sharp.
Please clarify woth reference to the committee meeting minutes.
There are many things that you are genuinely unable to see. Mainly because you don't want to see them.
He accepts that he set up the introduction between Blyth and Case knowing that it was to arrange a loan for Johnson.
Nobody denies this except, perhaps you. Do you deny this is what happened? Why if not even the people involved do?
'Mr Sharp conceded that he acted as a “sort of introduction agency” when arranging a meeting between Mr Blyth and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.'
'He told the then-prime minister in their meeting that Mr Blyth wanted to meet Mr Case to see whether he could assist Mr Johnson with his finances, he revealed.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/boris-johnson-bbc-cabinet-office-goldman-sachs-rishi-sunak-b1058511.html
He arranged a meeting and told Boris Johnson that he had introduced someone to help him with his finances.
You are now arguing over the word "debt" when it clearly meant "obligation" or "favour"? Really?
If you are unable to understand why someone may feel obliged to someone under these circumstances, then that's down to your lack of understanding of social and business interactions and networks. I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. Possible, of course.
How set up the introduction?
Have you read the minutes of tne committee?
That categorically , NOT what happened case gave his number to him to.gove to Blyth after Blyth said he could help boris. He took no further part. So couldn't have set up the meeting.
Hebagreed he acted as a sort of introduction agency.
I'm sorry where did he day this?
Chair: So you acted as a sort of introduction agency?
Richard Sharp: Exactly what I did was ensure that due process and propriety was followed. What Sam—Mr.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims here easy
Remember we have the full transcript.
He arranged a meeting and told Boris he'd introduced some one to help with his finances.
Again
Categorically NOT what is in the transcript.
Have you read it?
This is getting embarrassing now.
Infact he says this _asyuk
"I think it was an ambiguous construction, that obviously is open to misinterpretation. I have never given the Prime Minister advice. He has never sought it. I know nothing about his personal financial affairs. So I take it that that phrasing—and I had that confirmed to me unofficially by the Cabinet Office before the article was written—referred to the fact that their efforts were to prevent me from receiving any calls from the Prime Minister, to protect my position, and to protect his for that matter."
So he denies ever speaking to the PM about financial affairs.
So please highlight where he told Boris he'd sorted his financial affairs.
Again what is bojos debt to Sharp?
What is clear to me is you haven't read the transcript.
did he know that Blyth wanted to help Boris with his finances ?
"Chair: When you say “nothing”, presumably you knew because—
Richard Sharp: All I knew was press reports.
Chair: Press reports that he had financial issues, and you were facilitating—
Richard Sharp: Yes, I had no interest in providing him with financial advice—
Chair: Somebody who would help him.
Richard Sharp: My interest was to introduce Mr Blyth to Mr Case, because Mr Blyth wanted to help the Prime Minister, and I wanted to ensure, at his request, that there was a process by which all the rules could be followed appropriately.
Q251 Chair: Did you ever give informal advice, as a friend of Boris Johnson, about—
Richard Sharp: No.
Chair: No?
Richard Sharp: No, no. Our relationship is broadly professional, and it has been broadly professional, rather than personal."that's not answered the question I asked.
I'd say q235 does tho.
Go for it.
What do you think doesdid he know that Blythe wanted to help with Boris with his finances ...
"As a result of press reports that he had read in September, he raised with me, at that time, his concern that his cousin, the Prime Minister, was reported in these press reports to have some difficulties. Mr Blyth raised with me the fact that he was interested in feeling out whether he should do something to help"
That to me suggest he did know and therefore may have anticipated that is why blythe later wanted a meeting to be arranged
Rather than doing a blind introduction with no inkling of what the agenda may be.
Read your quote.
Does it say he wanted to help him with his finances.?
It says about oress reports and difficulties. He felt he could reach out and help.
"Q272 John Nicolson: Okay. So although you discussed the loan with Mr Blyth, Boris Johnson’s cousin, in September 2020, you did not actually go to see the Cabinet Secretary until December"
"Q273 John Nicolson: So nobody was taking notes. Richard Sharp: Mr Case, I believe, was taking notes. Q274 John Nicolson: But you would have expected a civil servant to be there, rather than the Cabinet Secretary taking his own notes. Now, you told “The Media Show” that you told Boris Johnson you were going to see the Cabinet Secretary about the loan, so when Boris Johnson says that you knew nothing about his financial affairs—to quote him, he was “ding dang sure” about that—that is obviously untrue. Richard Sharp: What he knows is that the only information I have about his financial affairs is the same that you have. Q275 John Nicolson: So you knew that he was in dire straits financially, despite his huge salary, and you had been involved in a discussion with his cousin about that. Did you tell anyone apart from the Cabinet Secretary about this conversation with his cousin? Richard Sharp: No, I did not. Q276 John Nicolson: So you did not tell your interview panel at the BBC; you did not tell the DCMS permanent secretary, because she has told the Public Accounts Committee that she had been left completely in the dark; and as we have established, you did not tell us. But we know that the Cabinet Secretary was uncomfortable, because he sent a letter telling Boris Johnson to stop seeking financial advice from you—you have already covered that, so I think we can leave that—but the nail-biting application process was over. You had the job, and you went off to celebrate at Chequers. Now, I understand that it was Sam Blyth who invited you to Chequers, and he said, “Do you want to come to Chequers? I’m going down to have dinner with Al”—in other words, Boris Johnson—so you were effectively his plus one. Is that correct? Richard Sharp: Can I come back to something you said earlier? Having had a conversation with Mr Case where I had specifically and proactively raised the issue of my BBC application, he had agreed that to avoid a conflict or the perception of conflict, the issue was resolved by my not being in any way further involved in any process or any discussion about what would then transpire. That is why at that point, as far as I was concerned, the matter had been resolved with respect to the need for disclosure. | |||
| |||
"Hovis. Please understand the difference between some 1 asking a leading question and what Sharp replies with." I've read a fair chunk and I cannot see anything that says he had no idea why the intro was being asked for. And he's quite particular on other points. And it's quite a good defense against the idea there was something to declare. But hey, I'm happy for you to plough a furrow even he didn't take. | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? You are reading this as an accountant not a normal person! If Sharp had done linked people up or made introductions the loan (or whatever it is) would not have happened. That is facilitation and that word was deemed good enough to be included in the report conclusions. It isn’t the loan that is the problem, it is that it was not declared as part of the process and was required to be. It creates a potential conflict of interest (and indebtedness) between the Prime Minister and the Chair of the BBC. And as I said earlier, Blyth also found his way onto the shortlist for the top job at the Business Council after being involved in the “loan”. No I am reading it fine. He didn't facilitate a loan. Because he never made anything easier. " You are wrong and the committee disagrees with you. | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? It doesn't matter what you think or choose to try to debate. The conclusions of the Commons Committee are their for you to read and then try to ignore. They're in this thread
Yes the committee agrees with me.
Which is why they didn't say he facilitated a loan.
Which is why when you said the committee said other things.
I pointed you directly to the minutes that contradicted you.
This is a mildly hilarious denial of reality:
"Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become involved in the facilitation of a loan to the then Prime Minister while at the same time applying for a job that was in that same person’s gift, and then to fail to disclose this material relationship, were significant errors of judgement, which undermine confidence in the public appointments process and could deter qualified individuals from applying for such posts."
They literally said that he was involved in the FACILITATION of a loan.
Oh dear oh dear
"Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become (involved) in the facilitation of a loan.
Didn't facilitate it then
As highlighted by the earlier co clusion
"27. Mr Sharp recognised the need to be open and transparent over facilitating an introduction"
He facilitated an introduction . That was his INVOLVEMENT.
If you could take 10 seconds to read
"You are genuinely beyond parody. You are arguing something but who the hell knows what? The Committee have written what they thought he " significant errors of judgement, which undermine confidence in the public appointments process". He had to resign before Sunak had to embarrass them both and sack him. Just to be clear, did they think that what he did was fine? Your opinion and Richard Sharp's opinion don't matter at all, do they? | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? It doesn't matter what you think or choose to try to debate. The conclusions of the Commons Committee are their for you to read and then try to ignore. They're in this thread
Yes the committee agrees with me.
Which is why they didn't say he facilitated a loan.
Which is why when you said the committee said other things.
I pointed you directly to the minutes that contradicted you.
This is a mildly hilarious denial of reality:
"Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become involved in the facilitation of a loan to the then Prime Minister while at the same time applying for a job that was in that same person’s gift, and then to fail to disclose this material relationship, were significant errors of judgement, which undermine confidence in the public appointments process and could deter qualified individuals from applying for such posts."
They literally said that he was involved in the FACILITATION of a loan.
Oh dear oh dear
"Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become (involved) in the facilitation of a loan.
Didn't facilitate it then
As highlighted by the earlier co clusion
"27. Mr Sharp recognised the need to be open and transparent over facilitating an introduction"
He facilitated an introduction . That was his INVOLVEMENT.
If you could take 10 seconds to read
You are genuinely beyond parody.
You are arguing something but who the hell knows what?
The Committee have written what they thought he " significant errors of judgement, which undermine confidence in the public appointments process".
He had to resign before Sunak had to embarrass them both and sack him.
Just to be clear, did they think that what he did was fine?
Your opinion and Richard Sharp's opinion don't matter at all, do they?"Oh BTW. I also not you switched it to the committee. Not the OCPA Silly me I.should jave paid more attention. You know that body that ctuslly investigates these things. Serves me right for not paying attention really. APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (BBC) 2020/2021 Introduction This Report sets out the findings of an Inquiry by Adam Heppinstall KC into the 2020/21 competition to appoint a new Chair of the BBC Board. You tried sneaking that in there hahaha. | |||
| |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? You are reading this as an accountant not a normal person! If Sharp had done linked people up or made introductions the loan (or whatever it is) would not have happened. That is facilitation and that word was deemed good enough to be included in the report conclusions. It isn’t the loan that is the problem, it is that it was not declared as part of the process and was required to be. It creates a potential conflict of interest (and indebtedness) between the Prime Minister and the Chair of the BBC. And as I said earlier, Blyth also found his way onto the shortlist for the top job at the Business Council after being involved in the “loan”. No I am reading it fine. He didn't facilitate a loan. Because he never made anything easier. You are wrong and the committee disagrees with you." And yet it doesn't And yet The co.missioner investigating the matter which led to the original post disagrees. I thought something was up earlier today when good old easy was posting something from February. I gave it more than my usual 2 minutes to reply. And to my surprise easy it not using the actual commissioner investigation. | |||
"Not to worry eh _asyuk. You got caught again. Thankfully I found a bit of time late this evening to give you my u divided attention for 2 seconds. The actual investigation by the commissioner of public appointments. Over which Sharp resigned doesn't agree. You've tried using a parliament committee and it's wording to prove your point. But sadly I realised that was from Feb on closer inspection and not the actual investigation Even with you trying to used the wording incorrectly in the conclusion Sorry champ. You'll have to try harder next time. " It's good that you brought this up then: "2.2 Mr Sharp also informed the former Prime Minister, before he was interviewed, that he was going to meet the Cabinet Secretary so as to attempt to introduce to him a person who had made a suggestion that he might assist the former Prime Minister with his personal finances... 2.3 These matters gave rise to a potential perceived conflict of interest. There is a risk of a perception that Mr Sharp was recommended for appointment because he assisted (to the very limited extent of attempting to make theintroduction to the Cabinet Secretary mentioned above16) the former Prime Minister in a private financial matter, and/or that he influenced the former Prime Minister to recommend him by informing him of his application before he submitted it. There may well have been a risk of a perception that Mr Sharp would not be independent from the former Prime Minister, if appointed... 2.4 Both these non-disclosures caused a breach of the Governance Code because the Panel was unable at the time to advise Ministers on these matters. DCMS and the Panel bear no responsibility for this breach. 2.5 Mr Sharp does not consider the first matter (paragraph 2.1) to have amounted to a conflict of interest for the reasons I record at paragraphs 72- 76 below. I disagree with this for the reasons set out paragraph 82 below. 2.6 Mr Sharp does acknowledge that he should have ensured that the Panel was aware of the second matter (paragraph 2.2). He agrees that he should have disclosed information that risked the perception of a conflict of interest... 82.1 It may well have been a reasonable conversation in the context of Mr Sharp’s role as Special Adviser, but failing to mention it to the Panel does amount to a failure to disclose a potential perceived conflict of interest... 82.4 There was a risk that members of the public might form the view that Mr Sharp was informing the Prime Minister of his application because he wanted him to make a recommendation to appoint him. They might also perceive that he was putting himself in a position where he might, if appointed, be beholden to the Prime Minister for his support such that his independence from Government was compromised..." His to introduce someone who wanted to help Boris Johnson with his personal finances. Two non-disclosures breach the code. Sharp agrees that he should have disclosed the information. He introduced someone to provide BoJo with a loan and should have disclosed it. He acknowledged that he should have disclosed it. That's your lot. Enjoy your phyric victory | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? You are reading this as an accountant not a normal person! If Sharp had done linked people up or made introductions the loan (or whatever it is) would not have happened. That is facilitation and that word was deemed good enough to be included in the report conclusions. It isn’t the loan that is the problem, it is that it was not declared as part of the process and was required to be. It creates a potential conflict of interest (and indebtedness) between the Prime Minister and the Chair of the BBC. And as I said earlier, Blyth also found his way onto the shortlist for the top job at the Business Council after being involved in the “loan”. No I am reading it fine. He didn't facilitate a loan. Because he never made anything easier. You are wrong and the committee disagrees with you. And yet it doesn't And yet The co.missioner investigating the matter which led to the original post disagrees. I thought something was up earlier today when good old easy was posting something from February. I gave it more than my usual 2 minutes to reply. And to my surprise easy it not using the actual commissioner investigation. " I was using the enquiry of the Committee who made the appointment and were not given the information that they should have been. You now have the findings of the investigation into the entire process. Lucky you | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? It doesn't matter what you think or choose to try to debate. The conclusions of the Commons Committee are their for you to read and then try to ignore. They're in this thread
Yes the committee agrees with me.
Which is why they didn't say he facilitated a loan.
Which is why when you said the committee said other things.
I pointed you directly to the minutes that contradicted you.
This is a mildly hilarious denial of reality:
"Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become involved in the facilitation of a loan to the then Prime Minister while at the same time applying for a job that was in that same person’s gift, and then to fail to disclose this material relationship, were significant errors of judgement, which undermine confidence in the public appointments process and could deter qualified individuals from applying for such posts."
They literally said that he was involved in the FACILITATION of a loan.
Oh dear oh dear
"Richard Sharp’s decisions, firstly to become (involved) in the facilitation of a loan.
Didn't facilitate it then
As highlighted by the earlier co clusion
"27. Mr Sharp recognised the need to be open and transparent over facilitating an introduction"
He facilitated an introduction . That was his INVOLVEMENT.
If you could take 10 seconds to read
You are genuinely beyond parody.
You are arguing something but who the hell knows what?
The Committee have written what they thought he " significant errors of judgement, which undermine confidence in the public appointments process".
He had to resign before Sunak had to embarrass them both and sack him.
Just to be clear, did they think that what he did was fine?
Your opinion and Richard Sharp's opinion don't matter at all, do they?
Oh BTW.
I also not you switched it to the committee. Not the OCPA
Silly me I.should jave paid more attention.
You know that body that ctuslly investigates these things.
Serves me right for not paying attention really.
APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF THE BRITISH
BROADCASTING CORPORATION (BBC) 2020/2021
Introduction
This Report sets out the findings of an Inquiry by Adam Heppinstall KC into the 2020/21
competition to appoint a new Chair of the BBC Board.
You tried sneaking that in there hahaha.
"I didn't "sneak" anything in. I said exactly what it was. Shame you didn't read this report either. I thought you were all about reading? | |||
"Not to worry eh _asyuk. You got caught again. Thankfully I found a bit of time late this evening to give you my u divided attention for 2 seconds. The actual investigation by the commissioner of public appointments. Over which Sharp resigned doesn't agree. You've tried using a parliament committee and it's wording to prove your point. But sadly I realised that was from Feb on closer inspection and not the actual investigation Even with you trying to used the wording incorrectly in the conclusion Sorry champ. You'll have to try harder next time. It's good that you brought this up then: "2.2 Mr Sharp also informed the former Prime Minister, before he was interviewed, that he was going to meet the Cabinet Secretary so as to attempt to introduce to him a person who had made a suggestion that he might assist the former Prime Minister with his personal finances... 2.3 These matters gave rise to a potential perceived conflict of interest. There is a risk of a perception that Mr Sharp was recommended for appointment because he assisted (to the very limited extent of attempting to make theintroduction to the Cabinet Secretary mentioned above16) the former Prime Minister in a private financial matter, and/or that he influenced the former Prime Minister to recommend him by informing him of his application before he submitted it. There may well have been a risk of a perception that Mr Sharp would not be independent from the former Prime Minister, if appointed... 2.4 Both these non-disclosures caused a breach of the Governance Code because the Panel was unable at the time to advise Ministers on these matters. DCMS and the Panel bear no responsibility for this breach. 2.5 Mr Sharp does not consider the first matter (paragraph 2.1) to have amounted to a conflict of interest for the reasons I record at paragraphs 72- 76 below. I disagree with this for the reasons set out paragraph 82 below. 2.6 Mr Sharp does acknowledge that he should have ensured that the Panel was aware of the second matter (paragraph 2.2). He agrees that he should have disclosed information that risked the perception of a conflict of interest... 82.1 It may well have been a reasonable conversation in the context of Mr Sharp’s role as Special Adviser, but failing to mention it to the Panel does amount to a failure to disclose a potential perceived conflict of interest... 82.4 There was a risk that members of the public might form the view that Mr Sharp was informing the Prime Minister of his application because he wanted him to make a recommendation to appoint him. They might also perceive that he was putting himself in a position where he might, if appointed, be beholden to the Prime Minister for his support such that his independence from Government was compromised..." His to introduce someone who wanted to help Boris Johnson with his personal finances. Two non-disclosures breach the code. Sharp agrees that he should have disclosed the information. He introduced someone to provide BoJo with a loan and should have disclosed it. He acknowledged that he should have disclosed it. That's your lot. Enjoy your phyric victory "I can't even begin to think why you cut out certain points. It's not a good look for you easy. Full quotes 2.2 Mr Sharp also informed the former Prime Minister, before he was interviewed, that he was going to meet the Cabinet Secretary so as to attempt to introduce to him a person who had made a suggestion that he might assist the former Prime Minister with his personal finances. Mr Sharp said he met the Cabinet Secretary, on 4 December 2020, and informed him of this suggestion, so that the Cabinet Secretary could ensure that any assistance given to the former Prime Minister by this third party complied with any applicable rules and so that he would have no further involvement with the matter. This Inquiry has not considered, nor does it make any findings about, any matter related to the former Prime Minister’s personal finance" Glad you brought in 2.3 though. See bits On limited extent and introduction. No mention of facilitating a loan. Again though you cut out another important point I the finding. I wonder why ". I make no findings about whether Mr Sharp had any intention of seeking to influence the former Prime Minister in this manner. I cannot and do not judge his independence in office. I note that I have been told that the introduction to the Cabinet Secretary never happened, in the sense that the Cabinet Secretary never met nor was in contact with the person." You have a nasty habit of cutting out key points. No where in the conclusions does it say he facilitated the loan? I am still waiting. | |||
"I will say this for you Morleyman, you would certainly win a “Double Down Stubbornness Award”. I already provided the dictionary meaning of FACILITATE (which you continued to ignore): 1. To make easier. 2. To help bring about. Here it is for DEBT: 1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another. 2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something. 3. the condition of being under such an obligation. So.how did he make the credit facility easier? You are reading this as an accountant not a normal person! If Sharp had done linked people up or made introductions the loan (or whatever it is) would not have happened. That is facilitation and that word was deemed good enough to be included in the report conclusions. It isn’t the loan that is the problem, it is that it was not declared as part of the process and was required to be. It creates a potential conflict of interest (and indebtedness) between the Prime Minister and the Chair of the BBC. And as I said earlier, Blyth also found his way onto the shortlist for the top job at the Business Council after being involved in the “loan”. No I am reading it fine. He didn't facilitate a loan. Because he never made anything easier. You are wrong and the committee disagrees with you. And yet it doesn't And yet The co.missioner investigating the matter which led to the original post disagrees. I thought something was up earlier today when good old easy was posting something from February. I gave it more than my usual 2 minutes to reply. And to my surprise easy it not using the actual commissioner investigation. I was using the enquiry of the Committee who made the appointment and were not given the information that they should have been. You now have the findings of the investigation into the entire process. Lucky you "I do . I told you where to find them. And they don't say he facilitated a loan. | |||
| |||
"Do what we learned in this thread. Be careful of what reports people use. When discussing the commissioner of public appointments report. People trued using a parliamentary committee report as evidence which was completed a full 2 months before hand. I'll have to be a lot more on ball with you sneaky lot. " And learned that you ignore common parlance and dictionary terms around words like facilitate and debt. Regardless of your opinions (I am still amazed the committee members have not got you on speed dial) Sharp demonstrated poor judgement and did not divulge (as clearly required) his involvement in helping the PM solve his financial issues. | |||
"Not to worry eh _asyuk. You got caught again. Thankfully I found a bit of time late this evening to give you my u divided attention for 2 seconds. The actual investigation by the commissioner of public appointments. Over which Sharp resigned doesn't agree. You've tried using a parliament committee and it's wording to prove your point. But sadly I realised that was from Feb on closer inspection and not the actual investigation Even with you trying to used the wording incorrectly in the conclusion Sorry champ. You'll have to try harder next time. It's good that you brought this up then: "2.2 Mr Sharp also informed the former Prime Minister, before he was interviewed, that he was going to meet the Cabinet Secretary so as to attempt to introduce to him a person who had made a suggestion that he might assist the former Prime Minister with his personal finances... 2.3 These matters gave rise to a potential perceived conflict of interest. There is a risk of a perception that Mr Sharp was recommended for appointment because he assisted (to the very limited extent of attempting to make theintroduction to the Cabinet Secretary mentioned above16) the former Prime Minister in a private financial matter, and/or that he influenced the former Prime Minister to recommend him by informing him of his application before he submitted it. There may well have been a risk of a perception that Mr Sharp would not be independent from the former Prime Minister, if appointed... 2.4 Both these non-disclosures caused a breach of the Governance Code because the Panel was unable at the time to advise Ministers on these matters. DCMS and the Panel bear no responsibility for this breach. 2.5 Mr Sharp does not consider the first matter (paragraph 2.1) to have amounted to a conflict of interest for the reasons I record at paragraphs 72- 76 below. I disagree with this for the reasons set out paragraph 82 below. 2.6 Mr Sharp does acknowledge that he should have ensured that the Panel was aware of the second matter (paragraph 2.2). He agrees that he should have disclosed information that risked the perception of a conflict of interest... 82.1 It may well have been a reasonable conversation in the context of Mr Sharp’s role as Special Adviser, but failing to mention it to the Panel does amount to a failure to disclose a potential perceived conflict of interest... 82.4 There was a risk that members of the public might form the view that Mr Sharp was informing the Prime Minister of his application because he wanted him to make a recommendation to appoint him. They might also perceive that he was putting himself in a position where he might, if appointed, be beholden to the Prime Minister for his support such that his independence from Government was compromised..." His to introduce someone who wanted to help Boris Johnson with his personal finances. Two non-disclosures breach the code. Sharp agrees that he should have disclosed the information. He introduced someone to provide BoJo with a loan and should have disclosed it. He acknowledged that he should have disclosed it. That's your lot. Enjoy your phyric victory
I can't even begin to think why you cut out certain points. It's not a good look for you easy.
Full quotes
2.2 Mr Sharp also informed the former Prime Minister, before he was
interviewed, that he was going to meet the Cabinet Secretary so as to
attempt to introduce to him a person who had made a suggestion that he
might assist the former Prime Minister with his personal finances. Mr Sharp
said he met the Cabinet Secretary, on 4 December 2020, and informed him
of this suggestion, so that the Cabinet Secretary could ensure that any
assistance given to the former Prime Minister by this third party complied
with any applicable rules and so that he would have no further involvement
with the matter. This Inquiry has not considered, nor does it make any
findings about, any matter related to the former Prime Minister’s personal
finance"
Glad you brought in 2.3 though. See bits
On limited extent and introduction. No mention of facilitating a loan.
Again though you cut out another important point I the finding.
I wonder why
". I make no findings about whether Mr Sharp had any intention
of seeking to influence the former Prime Minister in this manner. I cannot
and do not judge his independence in office. I note that I have been told
that the introduction to the Cabinet Secretary never happened, in the sense
that the Cabinet Secretary never met nor was in contact with the person."
You have a nasty habit of cutting out key points.
No where in the conclusions does it say he facilitated the loan?
I am still waiting.
"What do you think that the report said? Sharp has not done anything wrong and provided all of the necessary information? The terms of the report are not to judge his independence in office. Did you not know that?
The terms were to investigate if Sharp provided adequate information to the Committee. They did not.
He also noted very clearly that Sharp sought to introduce BoJo to someone wanting to lend him money (Blyth).
You seem to now be trying to imply that Sharp did not introduce BiJo to Blyth and it happened some other way. Is that what you are trying to say?
The report says very clearly that there was a conflict of interest. Are you saying otherwise?
The Committee carried out their own investigation under their own terms and decided that Sharp facilitated a loan.
So whatever utterly dull, pedantic word salad you want to ramble through, this still stands:
"He introduced someone to provide BoJo with a loan and should have disclosed it. He acknowledged that he should have disclosed it." | |||
"Do what we learned in this thread. Be careful of what reports people use. When discussing the commissioner of public appointments report. People trued using a parliamentary committee report as evidence which was completed a full 2 months before hand. I'll have to be a lot more on ball with you sneaky lot. " What we learned is that you will argue that black is white even with the words written down in front of you. The Commons Committee (it doesn't matter when they investigated) and the report with more limited terms of reference disagree with you. Richard Sharp facilitated/ arranged/ introduced someone to provide a loan for BoJo and should have declared it. Sharp acknowledges that he should have declared it. | |||
| |||
| |||
" Oh and meeting others in gardens was allowed only for a max of 6 people and 2 households. And what are Sharp and Blyth doing sharing a car? " Because they obviously must share a household as well as the car ! | |||
"With Johnson’s diaries released it has shed more light on Sharp/Blyth issue. Sharp & Blyth visited Chequers for dinner with Johnson on 2 May 2021. This was at a time when household mixing indoors was banned & social distancing rules were in place. Sharp has said he was driven there by Blyth. Sharp and Johnson say dinner was outdoors & lawful. Seeing comments saying that it would be interesting to know what time they arrived and left, as they must have been outside the whole time. It was a clement 7 degrees at 6pm but down to 4 degrees by around 11pm. Oh and meeting others in gardens was allowed only for a max of 6 people and 2 households. And what are Sharp and Blyth doing sharing a car? " sharp said it was a business meeting... Which means we may wonder why Blyth was there ... Hmmm. | |||
| |||
"Rees-Mogg says he and his family were there during the Pandemic. "After lunch one of my children bowled out the Prime Minister and removed his middle leg"" That sounds wrong on so many levels | |||
