Fraudsters' Parliament - 31

Is is just me? ...... When does one REEEEEAAAAAALLY know when one is making a valid point?

I suggest it is when  a comment on a story concerning the state of politics in the UK by a taxpaying citizen voter of the UK falls foul of the BBC 'Have Your Say' comment board monitors!

Perhaps it is because there may be a snap election extremely soon and the powers that be at the Beeb are a bit wary about who their political masters will soon be! (I call this the 'Kremlin Syndrome').........

Perhaps it is because my comment was ssssoooooooo outrageous, misinformed and wide of the mark as not to be worthy of darkening the comment boards of the national broadcaster............!

I will let you decide. Please feel free to comment on my comment.... or on the BBC comment about my comment on their comment board.......

Their comment on my comment on their comment board was;-

'Thank you for contributing to a Have Your Say debate. Unfortunately we've had to remove your content below







Posts to the BBC website will be removed if they contain material that considers to be potentially defamatory. For more information, please visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/house_rules2.shtml#libel






Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.'

I know! ....... I know!......... You want to know what was my comment on their comment board which prompted such a comment from the BBC!

Well here it is!

'Subject:



Does it matter if politicians have 'non-dom' tax status?






Posting:


Re: 'The Electoral Commission has said £5.1m of donations to the Tories from a firm belonging to Lord Ashcroft were legal.'






How does this match up with the definition of 'dishonesty' given in the official advice on the Deployment of The Fraud Act 2006.






The explanatory notes accompanying the Act include the following text;






'Section 2: Fraud by false representation






10. Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.'






Are we, 'reasonable and honest people' really to believe that the money coming from a company belonging to him is not ... how shall a put this?..... a little 'dodgy'!






When will we honest and reasonable, FULL taxpaying citizen voters' be consulted on this...... and the MPs' fraudulent claims, tax avoidance, lining of pockets and general parliamentary fiddles?'


Note: I have just reviewed this last post and  come to the conclusion that it differs somewhat from my usual reasonable, well thought out approach and style! It is more in the style of current Prime Ministers' Questions! You know....... when the politicians have various tantrums and throw their dummies, rattles and teddy bears out of their cots at each other  !

...... but I am going to post it anyway! Have a great week!

P.S. Let me know what you think of my comment...... or the BBC's comment ..... or feel free to comment yourself!