Discussion:
'Foreign' money affecting voting
Add Reply
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-03 09:21:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.

In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly declared there would not seem to be an issue.

Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Handsome Jack
2018-11-03 10:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from overseas
was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these places
voted in the referendum,
I must admit I didn't know that. I thought the crown dependencies (IoM
and the Channel Islands) were outside the EU and thus not part of the
electorate.
--
Jack
Pamela
2018-11-03 10:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from overseas
was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these places
voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from individuals
or [trading] companies based there were properly declared there would
not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
It's reached the point where we need an investigation into the illegalities
of the referendum campaign along the lines of the one Robert Mueller is
conducting into foreign influence in the US presidential election.

Maybe Aaron Banks was funelling money into the Leave campaign for a foreign
government to weaken the UK by leaving the EU. Fervent EU-haters may turn
out to be useful idiots for a foreign government.

You couldn't make it up.
JNugent
2018-11-03 12:01:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were converted
from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?

If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-03 14:42:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were converted
from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
According to various polls the large proportion that switched from remain to leave in the few months in the run up to the referendum.
JNugent
2018-11-03 17:59:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were converted
from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
According to various polls the large proportion that switched from remain to leave in the few months in the run up to the referendum.
You're just cleverer, are you?
Pamela
2018-11-03 16:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly declared
there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were converted
from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.

Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it was,
allegedly, to no avail.
JNugent
2018-11-03 18:01:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly declared
there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were converted
from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It looks
- or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing. Advertising is
often a simple matter of advising the public that something is available
and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it was,
allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?

I am quite certain that I was not.

I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of the
campaign.
Paul Pot
2018-11-03 18:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly declared
there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted
from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It
looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public that
something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it was,
allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of
the campaign.
It wasn't the official Leave campaign either, I don't see a problem
here.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Pamela
2018-11-03 19:17:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Pot
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly
declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by
campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It
looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public that
something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it
was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of
the campaign.
It wasn't the official Leave campaign either, I don't see a problem
here.
That's almost exactly Donald Trump's stance when the investigation
started into Russian interefernce in the US election. 18 months later
and the investigation has made over 100 indictments and is still going
strong. Same sort of thing could apply here. Who knows.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-03 19:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly declared
there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were converted
from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It looks
- or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing. Advertising is
often a simple matter of advising the public that something is available
and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it was,
allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of the
campaign.
Odd because there must have been quite a few million of them...
Pamela
2018-11-03 19:54:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly
declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by
campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It
looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public that
something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it
was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of
the campaign.
Odd because there must have been quite a few million of them...
I think maybe Jon keeps to a small circle of friends and neither of them
seemed to change their mind. :)
JNugent
2018-11-03 20:33:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly declared
there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were converted
from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It looks
- or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing. Advertising is
often a simple matter of advising the public that something is available
and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it was,
allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of the
campaign.
Odd because there must have been quite a few million of them...
Is that because you are just cleverer than they are?
Pamela
2018-11-03 19:15:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly
declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It
looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public that
something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it was,
allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of
the campaign.
That's not saying anything.

Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and Trump
later) clearly felt there was such an important advantage to be had by
peddling influential statements that he was willing to break the law.
JNugent
2018-11-03 20:34:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly
declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It
looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public that
something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it was,
allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of
the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and Trump
later) clearly felt there was such an important advantage to be had by
peddling influential statements that he was willing to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
pensive hamster
2018-11-03 21:42:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 20:34:42 UTC, JNugent wrote:
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337

'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
JNugent
2018-11-03 23:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".

There's your mistake, straightaway.
pensive hamster
2018-11-04 00:11:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?

'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.

'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
JNugent
2018-11-04 02:19:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
Pamela
2018-11-04 11:35:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or
campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners
can only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
Jon, why not use Google because this story has been all over the news
even if you missed it?
JNugent
2018-11-04 14:57:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or
campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners
can only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
Jon, why not use Google because this story has been all over the news
even if you missed it?
Donating to whom?

See the posts of others nearby.

The matter is not, by the way, sub-judice.
pensive hamster
2018-11-04 17:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.

As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".

So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.

Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
JNugent
2018-11-04 17:44:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.

But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
pensive hamster
2018-11-04 18:04:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?

Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Pamela
2018-11-04 18:53:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money
from overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the
Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or
camp
aign
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered
campaigners ca
n
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the
Labour government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving
overseas donors accused of trying to influence British laws and
elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016
EU referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a
"registered campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
He's playing you by making an issue of differences that don't exist in
practice. Like all Brexiteers who know their fluke victory and its
dreams are slipping from their grasp, they cling on to any argument no
matter how hopeless.

The bottom line is there has been a serious, perhaps criminal, breach of
the rules and it needs investigating especially as it may have been a
factor in how the referendum went.
JNugent
2018-11-05 00:45:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.

If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.

What you spend you cannot donate.
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.

You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
pensive hamster
2018-11-05 14:32:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"

Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
JNugent
2018-11-05 15:29:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.

Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?

No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.

How do I spend without receiving donations?

Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?

)b) Who spends the donation?

Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you realised
your mistake?
Pamela
2018-11-05 17:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising
(or campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we
like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered
campaigners can only come from permissible sources, which
essentially excludes overseas or foreign funding. The law was
introduced by the Labour government in 2000 after a series of
scandals involving overseas donors accused of trying to
influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000
on campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior
to doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered
campaigner", even though they were not the official Leave
campaign in the 2016 EU referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a
"registered campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to
"spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you
realised your mistake?
You can't take a specific example and extrapolate to a generalisation
for the whole poulation. That's daft.

Pam: "My car is green."
JN: "I've seen lots of cars which aren't green. Care to explain?"

Duh!
JNugent
2018-11-05 19:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising
(or campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we
like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered
campaigners can only come from permissible sources, which
essentially excludes overseas or foreign funding. The law was
introduced by the Labour government in 2000 after a series of
scandals involving overseas donors accused of trying to
influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000
on campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior
to doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered
campaigner", even though they were not the official Leave
campaign in the 2016 EU referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a
"registered campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to
"spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you
realised your mistake?
You can't take a specific example and extrapolate to a generalisation
for the whole poulation. That's daft.
Not at all.

The proposition was that spending (always) implies a prior donation of
the money spent.

But that was nonsense, as my example shows.
Pamela
2018-11-05 21:41:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising
(or campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we
like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered
campaigners can only come from permissible sources, which
essentially excludes overseas or foreign funding. The law
was introduced by the Labour government in 2000 after a
series of scandals involving overseas donors accused of
trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
(PPERA) as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and
his Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the
2016 EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney,
were referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than
£10,000 on campaigning during the referendum period unless
you had prior to doing so registered with the Electoral
Commission to become a "registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered
campaigner", even though they were not the official Leave
campaign in the 2016 EU referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a
"registered campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading
as "Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to
"spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well
you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do
the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any money,
unless people have previously donated money to them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any
donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between
spending money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under
both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the British
Legion magically turns into a different pound when they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you
realised your mistake?
You can't take a specific example and extrapolate to a generalisation
for the whole poulation. That's daft.
Not at all.
The proposition was that spending (always) implies a prior donation of
the money spent.
The proposition did not say always. You have falsely inferred that
universality.
JNugent
2018-11-05 23:38:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising
(or campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we
like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered
campaigners can only come from permissible sources, which
essentially excludes overseas or foreign funding. The law
was introduced by the Labour government in 2000 after a
series of scandals involving overseas donors accused of
trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
(PPERA) as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and
his Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the
2016 EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney,
were referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than
£10,000 on campaigning during the referendum period unless
you had prior to doing so registered with the Electoral
Commission to become a "registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered
campaigner", even though they were not the official Leave
campaign in the 2016 EU referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a
"registered campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading
as "Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well
you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do
the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any money,
unless people have previously donated money to them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any
donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between
spending money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under
both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the British
Legion magically turns into a different pound when they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you
realised your mistake?
You can't take a specific example and extrapolate to a generalisation
for the whole poulation. That's daft.
Not at all.
The proposition was that spending (always) implies a prior donation of
the money spent.
The proposition did not say always. You have falsely inferred that
universality.
The apposite quoted text is:

"Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"

As you can see, it contains no limiting conditions.
Pamela
2018-11-06 14:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 20:34:42 UTC, JNugent
wrote: [...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing
advertising (or campaign material for our own campaign)
wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered
campaigners can only come from permissible sources, which
essentially excludes overseas or foreign funding. The law
was introduced by the Labour government in 2000 after a
series of scandals involving overseas donors accused of
trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
(PPERA) as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and
his Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the
2016 EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney,
were referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than
£10,000 on campaigning during the referendum period
unless you had prior to doing so registered with the
Electoral Commission to become a "registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered
campaigner", even though they were not the official Leave
campaign in the 2016 EU referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a
"registered campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading
as "Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well
you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do
the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any money,
unless people have previously donated money to them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between
spending money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall
under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the British
Legion magically turns into a different pound when they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you
realised your mistake?
You can't take a specific example and extrapolate to a
generalisation for the whole poulation. That's daft.
Not at all.
The proposition was that spending (always) implies a prior donation
of the money spent.
The proposition did not say always. You have falsely inferred that
universality.
"Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
As you can see, it contains no limiting conditions.
That's my point. You ask for universal proof but the point you were
replying to was only specific. It said:

"If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well
you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do
the spending."

It is an example about the British Legion.
JNugent
2018-11-06 16:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 20:34:42 UTC, JNugent
wrote: [...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing
advertising (or campaign material for our own campaign)
wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered
campaigners can only come from permissible sources, which
essentially excludes overseas or foreign funding. The law
was introduced by the Labour government in 2000 after a
series of scandals involving overseas donors accused of
trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
(PPERA) as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and
his Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the
2016 EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney,
were referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than
£10,000 on campaigning during the referendum period
unless you had prior to doing so registered with the
Electoral Commission to become a "registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered
campaigner", even though they were not the official Leave
campaign in the 2016 EU referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a
"registered campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading
as "Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well
you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do
the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any money,
unless people have previously donated money to them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between
spending money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall
under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the British
Legion magically turns into a different pound when they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you
realised your mistake?
You can't take a specific example and extrapolate to a
generalisation for the whole poulation. That's daft.
Not at all.
The proposition was that spending (always) implies a prior donation
of the money spent.
The proposition did not say always. You have falsely inferred that
universality.
"Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
As you can see, it contains no limiting conditions.
That's my point. You ask for universal proof but the point you were
"If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well
you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do
the spending."
It is an example about the British Legion.
The proposition was that spending implies (and proves) prior donation.

I only have to produce a single counter-example in order to falsify that
proposition and doing so, as we both know, is trivially easy.

Try a little Karl Popper for light bedtime reading - well worth it.
Pamela
2018-11-06 20:14:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 23:13:05 UTC, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 20:34:42 UTC, JNugent
wrote: [...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week
that money from overseas was allegedly illegally
used to finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing
advertising (or campaign material for our own
campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered
campaigners can only come from permissible sources,
which essentially excludes overseas or foreign funding.
The law was introduced by the Labour government in 2000
after a series of scandals involving overseas donors
accused of trying to influence British laws and
elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
(PPERA) as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as
The National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks
and his Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed
at the 2016 EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney,
were referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than
£10,000 on campaigning during the
referendum period unless you had prior to doing so
registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered
campaigner", even though they were not the official Leave
campaign in the 2016 EU referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a
"registered campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches,
trading as "Remain" with the resources of the government
behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as
well you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They
will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any money,
unless people have previously donated money to them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between
spending money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall
under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the British
Legion magically turns into a different pound when they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you
realised your mistake?
You can't take a specific example and extrapolate to a
generalisation for the whole poulation. That's daft.
Not at all.
The proposition was that spending (always) implies a prior
donation of the money spent.
The proposition did not say always. You have falsely inferred that
universality.
"Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
As you can see, it contains no limiting conditions.
That's my point. You ask for universal proof but the point you were
"If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well
you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do
the spending."
It is an example about the British Legion.
The proposition was that spending implies (and proves) prior donation.
I only have to produce a single counter-example in order to falsify
that proposition and doing so, as we both know, is trivially easy.
Try a little Karl Popper for light bedtime reading - well worth it.
Popper is known for the idea of challenging theories to make them
stronger and believing comprehensive proof is impossible.

He doesn't really deal with provability of logical predicates. That's
more like Godel's territory.

Just a thought before bedtime. :)
JNugent
2018-11-06 20:30:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 23:13:05 UTC, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 20:34:42 UTC, JNugent
wrote: [...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week
that money from overseas was allegedly illegally
used to finance the Leave campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing
advertising (or campaign material for our own
campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered
campaigners can only come from permissible sources,
which essentially excludes overseas or foreign funding.
The law was introduced by the Labour government in 2000
after a series of scandals involving overseas donors
accused of trying to influence British laws and
elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
(PPERA) as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as
The National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks
and his Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed
at the 2016 EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney,
were referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than
£10,000 on campaigning during the
referendum period unless you had prior to doing so
registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered
campaigner", even though they were not the official Leave
campaign in the 2016 EU referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a
"registered campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches,
trading as "Remain" with the resources of the government
behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as
well you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They
will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any money,
unless people have previously donated money to them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between
spending money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall
under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the British
Legion magically turns into a different pound when they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you
realised your mistake?
You can't take a specific example and extrapolate to a
generalisation for the whole poulation. That's daft.
Not at all.
The proposition was that spending (always) implies a prior
donation of the money spent.
The proposition did not say always. You have falsely inferred that
universality.
"Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
As you can see, it contains no limiting conditions.
That's my point. You ask for universal proof but the point you were
"If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well
you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do
the spending."
It is an example about the British Legion.
The proposition was that spending implies (and proves) prior donation.
I only have to produce a single counter-example in order to falsify
that proposition and doing so, as we both know, is trivially easy.
Try a little Karl Popper for light bedtime reading - well worth it.
Popper is known for the idea of challenging theories to make them
stronger and believing comprehensive proof is impossible.
I don't recognise that as a description of his most well-known approach
to scientific philosophy.
Post by Pamela
He doesn't really deal with provability of logical predicates.
That's correct. He deals with falsification and the evasion of
falsification.
Post by Pamela
That's
more like Godel's territory.
Just a thought before bedtime. :)
Pamela
2018-11-07 14:36:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The proposition did not say always. You have falsely inferred
that universality.
"Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
As you can see, it contains no limiting conditions.
That's my point. You ask for universal proof but the point you
"If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as
well you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They
will do the spending."
It is an example about the British Legion.
The proposition was that spending implies (and proves) prior
donation.
I only have to produce a single counter-example in order to falsify
that proposition and doing so, as we both know, is trivially easy.
Try a little Karl Popper for light bedtime reading - well worth it.
Popper is known for the idea of challenging theories to make them
stronger and believing comprehensive proof is impossible.
I don't recognise that as a description of his most well-known
approach to scientific philosophy.
Have I picked the wrong one? Which one do you mean?
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
He doesn't really deal with provability of logical predicates.
That's correct. He deals with falsification and the evasion of
falsification.
Post by Pamela
That's more like Godel's territory.
JNugent
2018-11-07 14:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The proposition did not say always. You have falsely inferred
that universality.
"Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been some
previous donating?"
As you can see, it contains no limiting conditions.
That's my point. You ask for universal proof but the point you
"If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as
well you should), you are not spending on their behalf. They
will do the spending."
It is an example about the British Legion.
The proposition was that spending implies (and proves) prior donation.
I only have to produce a single counter-example in order to falsify
that proposition and doing so, as we both know, is trivially easy.
Try a little Karl Popper for light bedtime reading - well worth it.
Popper is known for the idea of challenging theories to make them
stronger and believing comprehensive proof is impossible.
I don't recognise that as a description of his most well-known
approach to scientific philosophy.
Have I picked the wrong one? Which one do you mean?
He is best known for his underpinning of logical positivism. The black
swan concept is often used as an example of the falsification method.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
He doesn't really deal with provability of logical predicates.
That's correct. He deals with falsification and the evasion of
falsification.
Post by Pamela
That's more like Godel's territory.
pensive hamster
2018-11-06 16:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
You suggest I seem to think that donating to the British Legion
is the same as spending by the British Legion.

Either you are playing silly games, or you have some kind of
mental malfunction.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Are you the British Legion?
Post by JNugent
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you realised
your mistake?
What is my mistake? Do tell.
JNugent
2018-11-06 16:58:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
You suggest I seem to think that donating to the British Legion
is the same as spending by the British Legion.
Either you are playing silly games, or you have some kind of
mental malfunction.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Are you the British Legion?
Of course I am not, but why does that matter?

Either spending denotes prior donation or it doesn't.

Which is it?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you realised
your mistake?
What is my mistake? Do tell.
Your mistake lay in assuming and stating that any spending on a
political or philosophical campaign has to have been brought about by
donations (with the implication that this thenfalls foul of a law
seeking to control donations).

That simply isn't true.
pensive hamster
2018-11-06 19:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
You suggest I seem to think that donating to the British Legion
is the same as spending by the British Legion.
Either you are playing silly games, or you have some kind of
mental malfunction.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Are you the British Legion?
Of course I am not, but why does that matter?
Either spending denotes prior donation or it doesn't.
Which is it?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you realised
your mistake?
What is my mistake? Do tell.
Your mistake lay in assuming and stating that any spending on a
political or philosophical campaign has to have been brought about by
donations (with the implication that this thenfalls foul of a law
seeking to control donations).
Where did I state that?

Earlier in this thread, I quoted from a BBC report:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337

'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. ...'

To which you responded:

==== start quote ====
"donations to registered campaigners".

There's your mistake, straightaway.
==== end quote ====

Why don't you just explain what you think my mistake was?
Post by JNugent
That simply isn't true.
JNugent
2018-11-06 19:27:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
You suggest I seem to think that donating to the British Legion
is the same as spending by the British Legion.
Either you are playing silly games, or you have some kind of
mental malfunction.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Are you the British Legion?
Of course I am not, but why does that matter?
Either spending denotes prior donation or it doesn't.
Which is it?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you realised
your mistake?
What is my mistake? Do tell.
Your mistake lay in assuming and stating that any spending on a
political or philosophical campaign has to have been brought about by
donations (with the implication that this thenfalls foul of a law
seeking to control donations).
Where did I state that?
You said:

"How can spending occur unless there has been some previous donating?"
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. ...'
==== start quote ====
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
==== end quote ====
Why don't you just explain what you think my mistake was?
In mistaking spending for donation and assuming that all monies spent in
campaigning have either been donated or borrowed.
pensive hamster
2018-11-06 20:06:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
You suggest I seem to think that donating to the British Legion
is the same as spending by the British Legion.
Either you are playing silly games, or you have some kind of
mental malfunction.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Are you the British Legion?
Of course I am not, but why does that matter?
Either spending denotes prior donation or it doesn't.
Which is it?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you realised
your mistake?
What is my mistake? Do tell.
Your mistake lay in assuming and stating that any spending on a
political or philosophical campaign has to have been brought about by
donations (with the implication that this thenfalls foul of a law
seeking to control donations).
Where did I state that?
"How can spending occur unless there has been some previous donating?"
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. ...'
==== start quote ====
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
==== end quote ====
Why don't you just explain what you think my mistake was?
In mistaking spending for donation and assuming that all monies spent in
campaigning have either been donated or borrowed.
What leads you to think that I have mistaken spending for donation or
assumed that all monies spent in campaigning *by registered campaigners*
have either been donated or borrowed?
JNugent
2018-11-06 20:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
You suggest I seem to think that donating to the British Legion
is the same as spending by the British Legion.
Either you are playing silly games, or you have some kind of
mental malfunction.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Are you the British Legion?
Of course I am not, but why does that matter?
Either spending denotes prior donation or it doesn't.
Which is it?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you realised
your mistake?
What is my mistake? Do tell.
Your mistake lay in assuming and stating that any spending on a
political or philosophical campaign has to have been brought about by
donations (with the implication that this thenfalls foul of a law
seeking to control donations).
Where did I state that?
"How can spending occur unless there has been some previous donating?"
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. ...'
==== start quote ====
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
==== end quote ====
Why don't you just explain what you think my mistake was?
In mistaking spending for donation and assuming that all monies spent in
campaigning have either been donated or borrowed.
What leads you to think that I have mistaken spending for donation or
assumed that all monies spent in campaigning *by registered campaigners*
have either been donated or borrowed?
The wording of your statements and questions, of course.

If the law seeks to control donations, then money which has not been
donated is not caught by it. But you were forced to insist that all
money spent had been "donated" (or borrowed) because otherwise, you
would have had to accept that the rule didn't affect Banks.

If the law seeks to control borrowings, then money which has not been
borrowed is not caught by it. But you were forced to insist that all
money spent had been "borrowed" (or donated) because otherwise, you
would have had to accept that the rule didn't affect Banks.

If Banks was not a registered campaigner, he is not caught by rules
which apply to registered campaigners.
pensive hamster
2018-11-06 20:30:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
You suggest I seem to think that donating to the British Legion
is the same as spending by the British Legion.
Either you are playing silly games, or you have some kind of
mental malfunction.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Are you the British Legion?
Of course I am not, but why does that matter?
Either spending denotes prior donation or it doesn't.
Which is it?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you realised
your mistake?
What is my mistake? Do tell.
Your mistake lay in assuming and stating that any spending on a
political or philosophical campaign has to have been brought about by
donations (with the implication that this thenfalls foul of a law
seeking to control donations).
Where did I state that?
"How can spending occur unless there has been some previous donating?"
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. ...'
==== start quote ====
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
==== end quote ====
Why don't you just explain what you think my mistake was?
In mistaking spending for donation and assuming that all monies spent in
campaigning have either been donated or borrowed.
What leads you to think that I have mistaken spending for donation or
assumed that all monies spent in campaigning *by registered campaigners*
have either been donated or borrowed?
The wording of your statements and questions, of course.
If the law seeks to control donations, then money which has not been
donated is not caught by it. But you were forced to insist that all
money spent had been "donated" (or borrowed) because otherwise, you
would have had to accept that the rule didn't affect Banks.
If the law seeks to control borrowings, then money which has not been
borrowed is not caught by it. But you were forced to insist that all
money spent had been "borrowed" (or donated) because otherwise, you
would have had to accept that the rule didn't affect Banks.
If Banks was not a registered campaigner, he is not caught by rules
which apply to registered campaigners.
Was Banks not a registered campaigner? If he spent more than
£10,000, he should have been.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/194568/Campaigning-and-registering-for-EU-referendum-campaigners.pdf

page 5
"When you need to register with us

"You must not spend more than £10,000 on campaigning during the
referendum period unless you have prior to doing so registered
with us to become a ‘registered campaigner’."
JNugent
2018-11-06 20:33:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
You suggest I seem to think that donating to the British Legion
is the same as spending by the British Legion.
Either you are playing silly games, or you have some kind of
mental malfunction.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Are you the British Legion?
Of course I am not, but why does that matter?
Either spending denotes prior donation or it doesn't.
Which is it?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you realised
your mistake?
What is my mistake? Do tell.
Your mistake lay in assuming and stating that any spending on a
political or philosophical campaign has to have been brought about by
donations (with the implication that this thenfalls foul of a law
seeking to control donations).
Where did I state that?
"How can spending occur unless there has been some previous donating?"
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. ...'
==== start quote ====
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
==== end quote ====
Why don't you just explain what you think my mistake was?
In mistaking spending for donation and assuming that all monies spent in
campaigning have either been donated or borrowed.
What leads you to think that I have mistaken spending for donation or
assumed that all monies spent in campaigning *by registered campaigners*
have either been donated or borrowed?
The wording of your statements and questions, of course.
If the law seeks to control donations, then money which has not been
donated is not caught by it. But you were forced to insist that all
money spent had been "donated" (or borrowed) because otherwise, you
would have had to accept that the rule didn't affect Banks.
If the law seeks to control borrowings, then money which has not been
borrowed is not caught by it. But you were forced to insist that all
money spent had been "borrowed" (or donated) because otherwise, you
would have had to accept that the rule didn't affect Banks.
If Banks was not a registered campaigner, he is not caught by rules
which apply to registered campaigners.
Was Banks not a registered campaigner??
I don't know.
If he spent more than
£10,000, he should have been.
How do you know he was or wasn't?
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/194568/Campaigning-and-registering-for-EU-referendum-campaigners.pdf
page 5
"When you need to register with us
"You must not spend more than £10,000 on campaigning during the
referendum period unless you have prior to doing so registered
with us to become a ‘registered campaigner’."
That sounds like something which is capable of being "investigated", but
has nothing to do with whether money was begged, borrowed, stolen or
donated and has nothing to do with quantum once the treshold has been
passed.
pensive hamster
2018-11-06 21:48:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
You suggest I seem to think that donating to the British Legion
is the same as spending by the British Legion.
Either you are playing silly games, or you have some kind of
mental malfunction.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Are you the British Legion?
Of course I am not, but why does that matter?
Either spending denotes prior donation or it doesn't.
Which is it?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you realised
your mistake?
What is my mistake? Do tell.
Your mistake lay in assuming and stating that any spending on a
political or philosophical campaign has to have been brought about by
donations (with the implication that this thenfalls foul of a law
seeking to control donations).
Where did I state that?
"How can spending occur unless there has been some previous donating?"
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. ...'
==== start quote ====
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
==== end quote ====
Why don't you just explain what you think my mistake was?
In mistaking spending for donation and assuming that all monies spent in
campaigning have either been donated or borrowed.
What leads you to think that I have mistaken spending for donation or
assumed that all monies spent in campaigning *by registered campaigners*
have either been donated or borrowed?
The wording of your statements and questions, of course.
If the law seeks to control donations, then money which has not been
donated is not caught by it. But you were forced to insist that all
money spent had been "donated" (or borrowed) because otherwise, you
would have had to accept that the rule didn't affect Banks.
If the law seeks to control borrowings, then money which has not been
borrowed is not caught by it. But you were forced to insist that all
money spent had been "borrowed" (or donated) because otherwise, you
would have had to accept that the rule didn't affect Banks.
If Banks was not a registered campaigner, he is not caught by rules
which apply to registered campaigners.
Was Banks not a registered campaigner??
I don't know.
If he spent more than
£10,000, he should have been.
How do you know he was or wasn't?
I don't know if he was or not, and nor, it seems, do you.

As far as I can make out, your main point seems to be, as you said
just above: "If Banks was not a registered campaigner, he is not
caught by rules which apply to registered campaigners."
Post by JNugent
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/194568/Campaigning-and-registering-for-EU-referendum-campaigners.pdf
page 5
"When you need to register with us
"You must not spend more than £10,000 on campaigning during the
referendum period unless you have prior to doing so registered
with us to become a ‘registered campaigner’."
That sounds like something which is capable of being "investigated", but
has nothing to do with whether money was begged, borrowed, stolen or
donated and has nothing to do with quantum once the treshold has been
passed.
Well yes, it is being investigated

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337

'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.

'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.

'The watchdog said it suspected Mr Banks was not the "true source"
of loans to the campaign and the money had come "from
impermissible sources".


And you still haven't explained what you think my mistake was.
JNugent
2018-11-07 12:57:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave
campaign.
[...]
Post by JNugent
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. The law was introduced by the Labour
government in 2000 after a series of scandals involving overseas
donors accused of trying to influence British laws and elections.'
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)
as amended by the European Referendum Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/54
Permissible donors.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
European Referendum Act 2015
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to? And the
Electoral Commission?
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.'
"Donating" to whom?
To "registered campaigners", I already qoted that, above.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
As I understand it, you should not have spent more than £10,000 on
campaigning during the referendum period unless you had prior to
doing so registered with the Electoral Commission to become a
"registered campaigner".
So Leave.EU would have had to have been a "registered campaigner",
even though they were not the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU
referendum, Vote Leave was.
Perhaps you think only the official Leave campaign was a "registered
campaigner"?
Not at all. There was also the combined front benches, trading as
"Remain" with the resources of the government behind it.
You still haven't said where you think my alleged mistake is.
Post by JNugent
But you have now shifted your ground, from "donating" to "spending".
"Donating" implies "spending". How can spending occur unless
there has been some previous donating?
That is sheer nonsense.
Oh no it isn't.
Post by JNugent
If you donate to the British Legion over the next week (as well you
should), you are not spending on their behalf. They will do the spending.
Again I ask "How can spending occur unless there has been
some previous donating?"
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
Can you guess how?
Post by pensive hamster
Or in other words, how can the British Legion spend any
money, unless people have previously donated money to
them?
Post by JNugent
What you spend you cannot donate.
What a marvelous insight.
You seem to think that the two things are the same.
You suggest I seem to think that donating to the British Legion
is the same as spending by the British Legion.
Either you are playing silly games, or you have some kind of
mental malfunction.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you are now suggesting that referendum campaigners
didn't have to register as long as they didn't spend any donations?
Donations don't come into it.
Oh yes they do.
How?
No-one ever donates to me. I manage to do a reasonable amount of spending.
How do I spend without receiving donations?
Are you the British Legion?
Of course I am not, but why does that matter?
Either spending denotes prior donation or it doesn't.
Which is it?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Answer that and you might just see a faint glimmer of what this is about.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
You need to make your mind up as to the distinction between spending
money and giving it away. The same pound can't fall under both hedings.
Oh yes it can. Do you think that a pound donated to the
British Legion magically turns into a different pound when
they spend it?
(a) Who donates in such a scenario?
)b) Who spends the donation?
Is the answer to (a) the same as the answer to (b), or have you realised
your mistake?
What is my mistake? Do tell.
Your mistake lay in assuming and stating that any spending on a
political or philosophical campaign has to have been brought about by
donations (with the implication that this thenfalls foul of a law
seeking to control donations).
Where did I state that?
"How can spending occur unless there has been some previous donating?"
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'... Under UK law, loans and donations to registered campaigners can
only come from permissible sources, which essentially excludes
overseas or foreign funding. ...'
==== start quote ====
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
==== end quote ====
Why don't you just explain what you think my mistake was?
In mistaking spending for donation and assuming that all monies spent in
campaigning have either been donated or borrowed.
What leads you to think that I have mistaken spending for donation or
assumed that all monies spent in campaigning *by registered campaigners*
have either been donated or borrowed?
The wording of your statements and questions, of course.
If the law seeks to control donations, then money which has not been
donated is not caught by it. But you were forced to insist that all
money spent had been "donated" (or borrowed) because otherwise, you
would have had to accept that the rule didn't affect Banks.
If the law seeks to control borrowings, then money which has not been
borrowed is not caught by it. But you were forced to insist that all
money spent had been "borrowed" (or donated) because otherwise, you
would have had to accept that the rule didn't affect Banks.
If Banks was not a registered campaigner, he is not caught by rules
which apply to registered campaigners.
Was Banks not a registered campaigner??
I don't know.
If he spent more than
£10,000, he should have been.
How do you know he was or wasn't?
I don't know if he was or not, and nor, it seems, do you.
Whether or not either of us care about that, it has not previously
formed the subject of your posts on the general topic.
Post by pensive hamster
As far as I can make out, your main point seems to be, as you said
just above: "If Banks was not a registered campaigner, he is not
caught by rules which apply to registered campaigners."
That is not my main point at all.

Te main point is that you seem confused as to whether the money spent by
Banks had been "donated" (whether to him or by him is somnething you
have never made clear).

If the money has never been donated by anyone to anyone else, it can
hardly be said to fall within any restrictions on donations.

But perhaps you insist that it can.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/194568/Campaigning-and-registering-for-EU-referendum-campaigners.pdf
page 5
"When you need to register with us
"You must not spend more than £10,000 on campaigning during the
referendum period unless you have prior to doing so registered
with us to become a ‘registered campaigner’."
That sounds like something which is capable of being "investigated", but
has nothing to do with whether money was begged, borrowed, stolen or
donated and has nothing to do with quantum once the treshold has been
passed.
Well yes, it is being investigated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337
'The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his
Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016
EU referendum.
'Mr Banks and another senior campaign figure, Liz Bilney, were
referred to the agency by the Electoral Commission.
'The watchdog said it suspected Mr Banks was not the "true source"
of loans to the campaign and the money had come "from
impermissible sources".
And you still haven't explained what you think my mistake was.
Failing to understand that donating money is not something that can pass
between an individual and himself. And that rules about donations cannot
apply to an individual dopending his own money.
Handsome Jack
2018-11-04 09:16:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
"donations to registered campaigners".
There's your mistake, straightaway.
What mistake is that? Would it be the same mistake as The
National Crime Agency have fallen victim to?
The NCA have simply been asked to investigate something. That doesn't
mean they believe a crime has been committed.
Post by pensive hamster
And the
Electoral Commission?
Quite possibly they have made a mistake (or "mistake"), since we know
they are all committed remainers.
--
Jack
Pamela
2018-11-03 23:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly
declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by
campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It
looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public that
something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it
was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of
the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and Trump
later) clearly felt there was such an important advantage to be had
by peddling influential statements that he was willing to break the
law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.

"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum campaigns had to
be individuals or companies registered in the UK "

Ask Google for more.
JNugent
2018-11-03 23:43:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly
declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by
campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It
looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public that
something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it
was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of
the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and Trump
later) clearly felt there was such an important advantage to be had
by peddling influential statements that he was willing to break the
law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or campaign
material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum campaigns had to
be individuals or companies registered in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?

Doesn't something have to be proven there?
Pamela
2018-11-04 11:40:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly
declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by
campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It
looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public that
something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it
was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result
of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and Trump
later) clearly felt there was such an important advantage to be had
by peddling influential statements that he was willing to break the
law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or
campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum campaigns
had to be individuals or companies registered in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for wrongdoing by
referring to an individual's right to contribute to a political cause.

However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the Electoral Commission
have made a serious mistake then can you say what you believe the mistake
is?
JNugent
2018-11-04 15:09:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly
declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by
campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning. It
looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public that
something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but it
was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result
of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and Trump
later) clearly felt there was such an important advantage to be had
by peddling influential statements that he was willing to break the
law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or
campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum campaigns
had to be individuals or companies registered in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for wrongdoing by
referring to an individual's right to contribute to a political cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a political
party or other factional grouping and without being subject to law which
restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the Electoral Commission
have made a serious mistake then can you say what you believe the mistake
is?
You know what the job of an advocate is.

In an adversarial system, both sides can't be right.
Pamela
2018-11-04 16:58:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both
these places voted in the referendum, so providing any
donations from individuals or [trading] companies based there
were properly declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning.
It looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public that
something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but
it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result
of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and
Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important advantage
to be had by peddling influential statements that he was willing
to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or
campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum campaigns
had to be individuals or companies registered in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for wrongdoing by
referring to an individual's right to contribute to a political cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being subject
to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a UK
referendum is another matter.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the Electoral
Commission have made a serious mistake then can you say what you
believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is.
In an adversarial system, both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried to
protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers more fully
than the Isle of Man company or its owners in Gibraltar have done to
inquiries.

Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown Colonies and
British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more tax havens would be no
bad things. The UK has a bad reputation for fuelling the city with
dirty money gathered from companies registered in these places.
JNugent
2018-11-04 17:22:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both
these places voted in the referendum, so providing any
donations from individuals or [trading] companies based there
were properly declared there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning.
It looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public that
something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but
it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result
of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and
Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important advantage
to be had by peddling influential statements that he was willing
to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or
campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum campaigns
had to be individuals or companies registered in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for wrongdoing by
referring to an individual's right to contribute to a political cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being subject
to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a UK
referendum is another matter.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the Electoral
Commission have made a serious mistake then can you say what you
believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is.
In an adversarial system, both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried to
protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers more fully
than the Isle of Man company or its owners in Gibraltar have done to
inquiries.
Wouldn't you say that one of the advantages of operating in the IoM or
Gibraltar is that the UK authorities have less right to intervene in
your affairs?
Post by Pamela
Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown Colonies and
British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more tax havens would be no
bad things. The UK has a bad reputation for fuelling the city with
dirty money gathered from companies registered in these places.
Is the issue tax (no doubt paid in full in compliance with local law) or
is it spending on political propaganda?

If the former, or the latter, let's not lose sight of the everyday
functions of abominations like the Guardian - run from a tax-haven and
attempting 100% of the time to affect political sentiment in the UK.
Pamela
2018-11-04 18:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money
from overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the
Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both
these places voted in the referendum, so providing any
donations from individuals or [trading] companies based
there were properly declared there would not seem to be an
issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning.
It looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public
that something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but
it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a
result of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and
Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important advantage
to be had by peddling influential statements that he was
willing to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or
campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum
campaigns had to be individuals or companies registered in
the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for wrongdoing
by referring to an individual's right to contribute to a political
cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being
subject to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a UK
referendum is another matter.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the Electoral
Commission have made a serious mistake then can you say what you
believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is. In an adversarial system,
both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried to
protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers more
fully than the Isle of Man company or its owners in Gibraltar have
done to inquiries.
Wouldn't you say that one of the advantages of operating in the IoM or
Gibraltar is that the UK authorities have less right to intervene in
your affairs?
Post by Pamela
Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown Colonies
and British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more tax havens would
be no bad things. The UK has a bad reputation for fuelling the city
with dirty money gathered from companies registered in these places.
Is the issue tax (no doubt paid in full in compliance with local law)
or is it spending on political propaganda?
If the former, or the latter, let's not lose sight of the everyday
functions of abominations like the Guardian - run from a tax-haven and
attempting 100% of the time to affect political sentiment in the UK.
British tax havens are given considerable privileges including unusual
level of privacy which, in this case, has been exploited by a foreign
slush fund channeled by Aaron Banks to the Leave campaign under the
guise of ordinary personal offshore banking. He's been busted.

Moral equivalnce with the Guardian does not change the criminality or
otherwise of what Aaron Banks has done. Nor do the differing roles of
Isle of man banking.
JNugent
2018-11-05 00:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money
from overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the
Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both
these places voted in the referendum, so providing any
donations from individuals or [trading] companies based
there were properly declared there would not seem to be an
issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you were
converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only other people.
Advertising is something different from political campaigning.
It looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't the same thing.
Advertising is often a simple matter of advising the public
that something is available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers but
it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a
result of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and
Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important advantage
to be had by peddling influential statements that he was
willing to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or
campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum
campaigns had to be individuals or companies registered in
the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for wrongdoing
by referring to an individual's right to contribute to a political
cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being
subject to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a UK
referendum is another matter.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the Electoral
Commission have made a serious mistake then can you say what you
believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is. In an adversarial system,
both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried to
protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers more
fully than the Isle of Man company or its owners in Gibraltar have
done to inquiries.
Wouldn't you say that one of the advantages of operating in the IoM or
Gibraltar is that the UK authorities have less right to intervene in
your affairs?
Post by Pamela
Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown Colonies
and British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more tax havens would
be no bad things. The UK has a bad reputation for fuelling the city
with dirty money gathered from companies registered in these places.
Is the issue tax (no doubt paid in full in compliance with local law)
or is it spending on political propaganda?
If the former, or the latter, let's not lose sight of the everyday
functions of abominations like the Guardian - run from a tax-haven and
attempting 100% of the time to affect political sentiment in the UK.
British tax havens are given considerable privileges including unusual
level of privacy which, in this case, has been exploited by a foreign
slush fund channeled by Aaron Banks to the Leave campaign under the
guise of ordinary personal offshore banking. He's been busted.
Moral equivalnce with the Guardian does not change the criminality or
otherwise of what Aaron Banks has done. Nor do the differing roles of
Isle of man banking.
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.

It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have an
almost nominal income from a British company which operates largely in
the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of us would get out
of bed for).

Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned" money for
political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on it)?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-05 10:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
SNIP
Post by JNugent
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.
It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have an
almost nominal income from a British company which operates largely in
the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of us would get out
of bed for).
Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned" money for
political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on it)?
Brit's registered to vote in the UK and UK trading companies can make political donations of their OWN money wherever it was earned, however larger ones have to be recorded and published by the Electoral Commission or a returning officer (during an election).

What is illegal is donations from foreign individuals or organisations directly or indirectly to a political party, candidate or cause. This would include a case where say the Russian government gave money to a Brit, when then donated it to the Leave campaign.

Of course clever accountants may be able to make such a payment appear to be the proceeds from a legitimate laundry business...
Pamela
2018-11-05 11:39:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by JNugent
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.
It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have an
almost nominal income from a British company which operates largely
in the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of us would get
out of bed for).
Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned" money for
political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on it)?
Brit's registered to vote in the UK and UK trading companies can make
political donations of their OWN money wherever it was earned, however
larger ones have to be recorded and published by the Electoral
Commission or a returning officer (during an election).
What is illegal is donations from foreign individuals or organisations
directly or indirectly to a political party, candidate or cause. This
would include a case where say the Russian government gave money to a
Brit, when then donated it to the Leave campaign.
Of course clever accountants may be able to make such a payment appear
to be the proceeds from a legitimate laundry business...
Cocky smooth talking Aaron Banks seems convinced he can get away with
denials just as Donald Trump does when faced with embarassing facts.

Banks may be underestimating how easy it is to track even small
transactions and he must hope the sheer volume of his insurance
transactions will mask the criminal ones although I am not so sure.

There's a history of fat cats refusing to attend a select committee or
answer questions truthfully but Parliament is probably not going to let
this fat cat go as his underhand activities affects them. Especially
after Aaron Banks thinks it's all right to smear MPs by mailshotting
constituents with exceptionally derogatory remarks.

Perhaps he is relying on protection from Tories like Theresa May in
return for all his generous contributions in the past.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Get the popcorn.
JNugent
2018-11-05 15:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by JNugent
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.
It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have an
almost nominal income from a British company which operates largely in
the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of us would get out
of bed for).
Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned" money for
political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on it)?
Brit's registered to vote in the UK and UK trading companies can make political donations of their OWN money wherever it was earned, however larger ones have to be recorded and published by the Electoral Commission or a returning officer (during an election).
That's "donations" (however defined).

What about spending?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
What is illegal is donations from foreign individuals or organisations directly or indirectly to a political party, candidate or cause. This would include a case where say the Russian government gave money to a Brit, when then donated it to the Leave campaign.
And?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Of course clever accountants may be able to make such a payment appear to be the proceeds from a legitimate laundry business...
Has your life been so hard that you are eaten up with such envy?
Pamela
2018-11-05 11:30:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money
from overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the
Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both
these places voted in the referendum, so providing any
donations from individuals or [trading] companies based
there were properly declared there would not seem to be
an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you
were converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes")
by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only
other people.
Advertising is something different from political
campaigning. It looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't
the same thing. Advertising is often a simple matter of
advising the public that something is available and on the
market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers
but it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a
result of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and
Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important
advantage to be had by peddling influential statements that
he was willing to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or
campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum
campaigns had to be individuals or companies registered
in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for wrongdoing
by referring to an individual's right to contribute to a
political cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being
subject to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a UK
referendum is another matter.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the Electoral
Commission have made a serious mistake then can you say what you
believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is. In an adversarial system,
both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried to
protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers more
fully than the Isle of Man company or its owners in Gibraltar have
done to inquiries.
Wouldn't you say that one of the advantages of operating in the IoM
or Gibraltar is that the UK authorities have less right to intervene
in your affairs?
Post by Pamela
Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown Colonies
and British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more tax havens
would be no bad things. The UK has a bad reputation for fuelling
the city with dirty money gathered from companies registered in
these places.
Is the issue tax (no doubt paid in full in compliance with local
law) or is it spending on political propaganda?
If the former, or the latter, let's not lose sight of the everyday
functions of abominations like the Guardian - run from a tax-haven
and attempting 100% of the time to affect political sentiment in the
UK.
British tax havens are given considerable privileges including
unusual level of privacy which, in this case, has been exploited by a
foreign slush fund channeled by Aaron Banks to the Leave campaign
under the guise of ordinary personal offshore banking. He's been
busted.
Moral equivalnce with the Guardian does not change the criminality or
otherwise of what Aaron Banks has done. Nor do the differing roles
of Isle of man banking.
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.
It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have an
almost nominal income from a British company which operates largely in
the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of us would get out
of bed for).
Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned" money
for political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on it)?
That's okay as long as you don't use it to launder foreign money or, as
Aaron Banks did, funnel illegal foreign funds to influence a British
referendum.

Smooth talking Aaron Banks had the chutzpah to appear on telly to deny
everything but he couldn't answer where the money came from apart from
his incredible claim that a shell holding company magically generated
millions. He sounds like Donald Trump explaining his crooked past.
JNugent
2018-11-05 15:26:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money
from overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the
Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both
these places voted in the referendum, so providing any
donations from individuals or [trading] companies based
there were properly declared there would not seem to be
an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you
were converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to "Yes")
by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only
other people.
Advertising is something different from political
campaigning. It looks - or can look - similar, but it isn't
the same thing. Advertising is often a simple matter of
advising the public that something is available and on the
market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers
but it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a
result of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians and
Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important
advantage to be had by peddling influential statements that
he was willing to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising (or
campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum
campaigns had to be individuals or companies registered
in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for wrongdoing
by referring to an individual's right to contribute to a
political cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being
subject to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a UK
referendum is another matter.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the Electoral
Commission have made a serious mistake then can you say what you
believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is. In an adversarial system,
both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried to
protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers more
fully than the Isle of Man company or its owners in Gibraltar have
done to inquiries.
Wouldn't you say that one of the advantages of operating in the IoM
or Gibraltar is that the UK authorities have less right to intervene
in your affairs?
Post by Pamela
Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown Colonies
and British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more tax havens
would be no bad things. The UK has a bad reputation for fuelling
the city with dirty money gathered from companies registered in
these places.
Is the issue tax (no doubt paid in full in compliance with local
law) or is it spending on political propaganda?
If the former, or the latter, let's not lose sight of the everyday
functions of abominations like the Guardian - run from a tax-haven
and attempting 100% of the time to affect political sentiment in the
UK.
British tax havens are given considerable privileges including
unusual level of privacy which, in this case, has been exploited by a
foreign slush fund channeled by Aaron Banks to the Leave campaign
under the guise of ordinary personal offshore banking. He's been
busted.
Moral equivalnce with the Guardian does not change the criminality or
otherwise of what Aaron Banks has done. Nor do the differing roles
of Isle of man banking.
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.
It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have an
almost nominal income from a British company which operates largely in
the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of us would get out
of bed for).
Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned" money
for political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on it)?
That's okay as long as you don't use it to launder foreign money or, as
Aaron Banks did, funnel illegal foreign funds to influence a British
referendum.
Does "funnel" mean the same as "spend"?
Post by Pamela
Smooth talking Aaron Banks had the chutzpah to appear on telly to deny
everything but he couldn't answer where the money came from apart from
his incredible claim that a shell holding company magically generated
millions. He sounds like Donald Trump explaining his crooked past.
That's a brave thing to say of a billionaire.
Pamela
2018-11-05 17:19:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however
both these places voted in the referendum, so providing
any donations from individuals or [trading] companies
based there were properly declared there would not seem
to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you
were converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to
"Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only
other people.
Advertising is something different from political
campaigning. It looks - or can look - similar, but it
isn't the same thing. Advertising is often a simple matter
of advising the public that something is available and on
the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers
but it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a
result of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians
and Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important
advantage to be had by peddling influential statements that
he was willing to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising
(or campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we
like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum
campaigns had to be individuals or companies
registered in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for
wrongdoing by referring to an individual's right to contribute
to a political cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being
subject to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a UK
referendum is another matter.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the Electoral
Commission have made a serious mistake then can you say what
you believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is. In an adversarial
system, both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried
to protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers
more fully than the Isle of Man company or its owners in
Gibraltar have done to inquiries.
Wouldn't you say that one of the advantages of operating in the
IoM or Gibraltar is that the UK authorities have less right to
intervene in your affairs?
Post by Pamela
Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown
Colonies and British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more tax
havens would be no bad things. The UK has a bad reputation for
fuelling the city with dirty money gathered from companies
registered in these places.
Is the issue tax (no doubt paid in full in compliance with local
law) or is it spending on political propaganda?
If the former, or the latter, let's not lose sight of the everyday
functions of abominations like the Guardian - run from a tax-haven
and attempting 100% of the time to affect political sentiment in
the UK.
British tax havens are given considerable privileges including
unusual level of privacy which, in this case, has been exploited by
a foreign slush fund channeled by Aaron Banks to the Leave campaign
under the guise of ordinary personal offshore banking. He's been
busted.
Moral equivalnce with the Guardian does not change the criminality
or otherwise of what Aaron Banks has done. Nor do the differing
roles of Isle of man banking.
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.
It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have
an almost nominal income from a British company which operates
largely in the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of us
would get out of bed for).
Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned" money
for political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on it)?
That's okay as long as you don't use it to launder foreign money or,
as Aaron Banks did, funnel illegal foreign funds to influence a
British referendum.
Does "funnel" mean the same as "spend"?
You are struggling with "donate" and "spend" elsewhere (although it's very
obvious what Hamster means but you don't seem to be able to grasp it). I
suggest you get that clear before asking me.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Smooth talking Aaron Banks had the chutzpah to appear on telly to
deny everything but he couldn't answer where the money came from
apart from his incredible claim that a shell holding company
magically generated millions. He sounds like Donald Trump explaining
his crooked past.
That's a brave thing to say of a billionaire.
My friends in accountancy assure me behind every fortune there's a crime.
Including the big names. Perhaps especially the big names. They gave me
examples but I can't repeat them in public.
JNugent
2018-11-05 19:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however
both these places voted in the referendum, so providing
any donations from individuals or [trading] companies
based there were properly declared there would not seem
to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that you
were converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to
"Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but only
other people.
Advertising is something different from political
campaigning. It looks - or can look - similar, but it
isn't the same thing. Advertising is often a simple matter
of advising the public that something is available and on
the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's backers
but it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a
result of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians
and Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important
advantage to be had by peddling influential statements that
he was willing to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising
(or campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we
like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum
campaigns had to be individuals or companies
registered in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for
wrongdoing by referring to an individual's right to contribute
to a political cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being
subject to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a UK
referendum is another matter.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the Electoral
Commission have made a serious mistake then can you say what
you believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is. In an adversarial
system, both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried
to protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers
more fully than the Isle of Man company or its owners in
Gibraltar have done to inquiries.
Wouldn't you say that one of the advantages of operating in the
IoM or Gibraltar is that the UK authorities have less right to
intervene in your affairs?
Post by Pamela
Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown
Colonies and British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more tax
havens would be no bad things. The UK has a bad reputation for
fuelling the city with dirty money gathered from companies
registered in these places.
Is the issue tax (no doubt paid in full in compliance with local
law) or is it spending on political propaganda?
If the former, or the latter, let's not lose sight of the everyday
functions of abominations like the Guardian - run from a tax-haven
and attempting 100% of the time to affect political sentiment in
the UK.
British tax havens are given considerable privileges including
unusual level of privacy which, in this case, has been exploited by
a foreign slush fund channeled by Aaron Banks to the Leave campaign
under the guise of ordinary personal offshore banking. He's been
busted.
Moral equivalnce with the Guardian does not change the criminality
or otherwise of what Aaron Banks has done. Nor do the differing
roles of Isle of man banking.
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.
It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have
an almost nominal income from a British company which operates
largely in the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of us
would get out of bed for).
Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned" money
for political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on it)?
That's okay as long as you don't use it to launder foreign money or,
as Aaron Banks did, funnel illegal foreign funds to influence a
British referendum.
Does "funnel" mean the same as "spend"?
You are struggling with "donate" and "spend" elsewhere (although it's very
obvious what Hamster means but you don't seem to be able to grasp it). I
suggest you get that clear before asking me.
Do "donate", "funnel" and "spend" all mean the same thing?

The attacks (here) on Banks only make sense if all three words have
exactly the same meaning. Some posters have pointed out that donating
more than a certain amount to a ca,mpaign is illegal or unlawful. That
may be so, but what about just spending it yourself?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Smooth talking Aaron Banks had the chutzpah to appear on telly to
deny everything but he couldn't answer where the money came from
apart from his incredible claim that a shell holding company
magically generated millions. He sounds like Donald Trump explaining
his crooked past.
That's a brave thing to say of a billionaire.
My friends in accountancy assure me behind every fortune there's a crime.
Including the big names. Perhaps especially the big names. They gave me
examples but I can't repeat them in public.
Equally brave.

Be wary of very rich or very vindictive men.
Pamela
2018-11-05 21:40:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however
both these places voted in the referendum, so
providing any donations from individuals or [trading]
companies based there were properly declared there
would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that
you were converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to
"Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but
only other people.
Advertising is something different from political
campaigning. It looks - or can look - similar, but it
isn't the same thing. Advertising is often a simple
matter of advising the public that something is
available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's
backers but it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as
a result of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians
and Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important
advantage to be had by peddling influential statements
that he was willing to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising
(or campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we
like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU
referendum campaigns had to be individuals or
companies registered in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for
wrongdoing by referring to an individual's right to
contribute to a political cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being
subject to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a
UK referendum is another matter.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the
Electoral Commission have made a serious mistake then can you
say what you believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is. In an adversarial
system, both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried
to protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers
more fully than the Isle of Man company or its owners in
Gibraltar have done to inquiries.
Wouldn't you say that one of the advantages of operating in the
IoM or Gibraltar is that the UK authorities have less right to
intervene in your affairs?
Post by Pamela
Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown
Colonies and British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more
tax havens would be no bad things. The UK has a bad reputation
for fuelling the city with dirty money gathered from companies
registered in these places.
Is the issue tax (no doubt paid in full in compliance with local
law) or is it spending on political propaganda?
If the former, or the latter, let's not lose sight of the
everyday functions of abominations like the Guardian - run from
a tax-haven and attempting 100% of the time to affect political
sentiment in the UK.
British tax havens are given considerable privileges including
unusual level of privacy which, in this case, has been exploited
by a foreign slush fund channeled by Aaron Banks to the Leave
campaign under the guise of ordinary personal offshore banking.
He's been busted.
Moral equivalnce with the Guardian does not change the
criminality or otherwise of what Aaron Banks has done. Nor do
the differing roles of Isle of man banking.
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.
It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have
an almost nominal income from a British company which operates
largely in the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of
us would get out of bed for).
Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned"
money for political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on
it)?
That's okay as long as you don't use it to launder foreign money
or, as Aaron Banks did, funnel illegal foreign funds to influence a
British referendum.
Does "funnel" mean the same as "spend"?
You are struggling with "donate" and "spend" elsewhere (although it's
very obvious what Hamster means but you don't seem to be able to
grasp it). I suggest you get that clear before asking me.
Do "donate", "funnel" and "spend" all mean the same thing?
Check your dictionary.
Post by JNugent
The attacks (here) on Banks only make sense if all three words have
exactly the same meaning.
That's nonsense.
Post by JNugent
Some posters have pointed out that donating
more than a certain amount to a ca,mpaign is illegal or unlawful. That
may be so, but what about just spending it yourself?
Aarons Banks is accused of illegally funneling foreign funds to a UK
election activity which is not allowed to accept them. He claims it is
his own money but somehow can't manage to prove it. See his smooth but
failed performance on the Andrew Marr show on iPlayer.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Smooth talking Aaron Banks had the chutzpah to appear on telly to
deny everything but he couldn't answer where the money came from
apart from his incredible claim that a shell holding company
magically generated millions. He sounds like Donald Trump
explaining his crooked past.
That's a brave thing to say of a billionaire.
My friends in accountancy assure me behind every fortune there's a
crime. Including the big names. Perhaps especially the big names.
They gave me examples but I can't repeat them in public.
Equally brave. Be wary of very rich or very vindictive men.
JNugent
2018-11-05 23:36:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however
both these places voted in the referendum, so
providing any donations from individuals or [trading]
companies based there were properly declared there
would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that
you were converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to
"Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but
only other people.
Advertising is something different from political
campaigning. It looks - or can look - similar, but it
isn't the same thing. Advertising is often a simple
matter of advising the public that something is
available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's
backers but it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as
a result of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians
and Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important
advantage to be had by peddling influential statements
that he was willing to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising
(or campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we
like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU
referendum campaigns had to be individuals or
companies registered in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for
wrongdoing by referring to an individual's right to
contribute to a political cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being
subject to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a
UK referendum is another matter.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the
Electoral Commission have made a serious mistake then can you
say what you believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is. In an adversarial
system, both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried
to protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers
more fully than the Isle of Man company or its owners in
Gibraltar have done to inquiries.
Wouldn't you say that one of the advantages of operating in the
IoM or Gibraltar is that the UK authorities have less right to
intervene in your affairs?
Post by Pamela
Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown
Colonies and British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more
tax havens would be no bad things. The UK has a bad reputation
for fuelling the city with dirty money gathered from companies
registered in these places.
Is the issue tax (no doubt paid in full in compliance with local
law) or is it spending on political propaganda?
If the former, or the latter, let's not lose sight of the
everyday functions of abominations like the Guardian - run from
a tax-haven and attempting 100% of the time to affect political
sentiment in the UK.
British tax havens are given considerable privileges including
unusual level of privacy which, in this case, has been exploited
by a foreign slush fund channeled by Aaron Banks to the Leave
campaign under the guise of ordinary personal offshore banking.
He's been busted.
Moral equivalnce with the Guardian does not change the
criminality or otherwise of what Aaron Banks has done. Nor do
the differing roles of Isle of man banking.
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.
It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have
an almost nominal income from a British company which operates
largely in the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of
us would get out of bed for).
Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned"
money for political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on
it)?
That's okay as long as you don't use it to launder foreign money
or, as Aaron Banks did, funnel illegal foreign funds to influence a
British referendum.
Does "funnel" mean the same as "spend"?
You are struggling with "donate" and "spend" elsewhere (although it's
very obvious what Hamster means but you don't seem to be able to
grasp it). I suggest you get that clear before asking me.
Do "donate", "funnel" and "spend" all mean the same thing?
Check your dictionary.
Post by JNugent
The attacks (here) on Banks only make sense if all three words have
exactly the same meaning.
That's nonsense.
Post by JNugent
Some posters have pointed out that donating
more than a certain amount to a ca,mpaign is illegal or unlawful. That
may be so, but what about just spending it yourself?
Aarons Banks is accused of illegally funneling foreign funds to a UK
election activity which is not allowed to accept them. He claims it is
his own money but somehow can't manage to prove it. See his smooth but
failed performance on the Andrew Marr show on iPlayer.
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.

The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Smooth talking Aaron Banks had the chutzpah to appear on telly to
deny everything but he couldn't answer where the money came from
apart from his incredible claim that a shell holding company
magically generated millions. He sounds like Donald Trump
explaining his crooked past.
That's a brave thing to say of a billionaire.
My friends in accountancy assure me behind every fortune there's a
crime. Including the big names. Perhaps especially the big names.
They gave me examples but I can't repeat them in public.
Equally brave. Be wary of very rich or very vindictive men.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-06 11:01:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however
both these places voted in the referendum, so
providing any donations from individuals or [trading]
companies based there were properly declared there
would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that
you were converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to
"Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else
is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but
only other people.
Advertising is something different from political
campaigning. It looks - or can look - similar, but it
isn't the same thing. Advertising is often a simple
matter of advising the public that something is
available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's
backers but it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as
a result of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians
and Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important
advantage to be had by peddling influential statements
that he was willing to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising
(or campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we
like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU
referendum campaigns had to be individuals or
companies registered in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for
wrongdoing by referring to an individual's right to
contribute to a political cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being
subject to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a
UK referendum is another matter.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the
Electoral Commission have made a serious mistake then can you
say what you believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is. In an adversarial
system, both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried
to protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers
more fully than the Isle of Man company or its owners in
Gibraltar have done to inquiries.
Wouldn't you say that one of the advantages of operating in the
IoM or Gibraltar is that the UK authorities have less right to
intervene in your affairs?
Post by Pamela
Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown
Colonies and British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more
tax havens would be no bad things. The UK has a bad reputation
for fuelling the city with dirty money gathered from companies
registered in these places.
Is the issue tax (no doubt paid in full in compliance with local
law) or is it spending on political propaganda?
If the former, or the latter, let's not lose sight of the
everyday functions of abominations like the Guardian - run from
a tax-haven and attempting 100% of the time to affect political
sentiment in the UK.
British tax havens are given considerable privileges including
unusual level of privacy which, in this case, has been exploited
by a foreign slush fund channeled by Aaron Banks to the Leave
campaign under the guise of ordinary personal offshore banking.
He's been busted.
Moral equivalnce with the Guardian does not change the
criminality or otherwise of what Aaron Banks has done. Nor do
the differing roles of Isle of man banking.
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.
It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have
an almost nominal income from a British company which operates
largely in the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of
us would get out of bed for).
Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned"
money for political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on
it)?
That's okay as long as you don't use it to launder foreign money
or, as Aaron Banks did, funnel illegal foreign funds to influence a
British referendum.
Does "funnel" mean the same as "spend"?
You are struggling with "donate" and "spend" elsewhere (although it's
very obvious what Hamster means but you don't seem to be able to
grasp it). I suggest you get that clear before asking me.
Do "donate", "funnel" and "spend" all mean the same thing?
Check your dictionary.
Post by JNugent
The attacks (here) on Banks only make sense if all three words have
exactly the same meaning.
That's nonsense.
Post by JNugent
Some posters have pointed out that donating
more than a certain amount to a ca,mpaign is illegal or unlawful. That
may be so, but what about just spending it yourself?
Aarons Banks is accused of illegally funneling foreign funds to a UK
election activity which is not allowed to accept them. He claims it is
his own money but somehow can't manage to prove it. See his smooth but
failed performance on the Andrew Marr show on iPlayer.
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.
True - for criminal charges of fraud etc.
Post by JNugent
The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
The other onus lies with the Leave campaign to fully and properly account and report their sources and application of funding.

We already know Leave cheated on the spending side, so who would be surprised if some of their funding came from hostile / rival foreign states keen to see the UK seriously damage itself by leaving the EU?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-06 11:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however
both these places voted in the referendum, so
providing any donations from individuals or [trading]
companies based there were properly declared there
would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
SNIP
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Aarons Banks is accused of illegally funneling foreign funds to a UK
election activity which is not allowed to accept them. He claims it is
his own money but somehow can't manage to prove it. See his smooth but
failed performance on the Andrew Marr show on iPlayer.
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.
True - for criminal charges of fraud etc.
Post by JNugent
The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
The other onus lies with the Leave campaign to fully and properly account and report their sources and application of funding.
We already know Leave cheated on the spending side, so who would be surprised if some of their funding came from hostile / rival foreign states keen to see the UK seriously damage itself by leaving the EU?
UPDATE

One of the smoke and mirrors companies in Bank's empire has just been fined - what a surprise not: -

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/06/arron-banks-firm-and-leave-eu-face-135k-fine-over-data-misuse

even the rightard DM has it, although given their standards of journalism they get the amount wrong: -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6357971/Brexit-campaign-group-backed-Arron-Banks-faces-60-000-fine.html
JNugent
2018-11-06 16:08:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that
money from overseas was allegedly illegally used to
finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however
both these places voted in the referendum, so
providing any donations from individuals or [trading]
companies based there were properly declared there
would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
Are you so stupid, impressionable and gullible that
you were converted from "Yes" to "No" (or from "No" to
"Yes") by campaigning?
If you aren't, what makes you think that anyone else
is?
Everyone tbinks advertising doesn't affect them but
only other people.
Advertising is something different from political
campaigning. It looks - or can look - similar, but it
isn't the same thing. Advertising is often a simple
matter of advising the public that something is
available and on the market.
Post by Pamela
Strange if so many millions were spent by Leave's
backers but it was, allegedly, to no avail.
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as
a result of the campaign.
That's not saying anything.
Aaron Banks and his foreign funders (just as the Russians
and Trump later) clearly felt there was such an important
advantage to be had by peddling influential statements
that he was willing to break the law.
What law prevents him, you or me from placing advertising
(or campaign material for our own campaign) wherever we
like?
That's the cover story for what really happened.
"Under British electoral law donors to EU
referendum campaigns had to be individuals or
companies registered in the UK "
Ask Google for more.
"donors to EU referendum campaigns"?
Doesn't something have to be proven there?
You have shown you were looking in the wrong place for
wrongdoing by referring to an individual's right to
contribute to a political cause.
No - the individual's right to *spend* on it, without being a
political party or other factional grouping and without being
subject to law which restricts parties, trade unions, etc.
Acting as a conduit for foreign funds to illegally influence a
UK referendum is another matter.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
However, if you're so sure the solictors advising the
Electoral Commission have made a serious mistake then can you
say what you believe the mistake is?
You know what the job of an advocate is. In an adversarial
system, both sides can't be right.
Oh dear, now Theresa May is being asked to clarify if she tried
to protect Aaron Banks from investigation. I hope she answers
more fully than the Isle of Man company or its owners in
Gibraltar have done to inquiries.
Wouldn't you say that one of the advantages of operating in the
IoM or Gibraltar is that the UK authorities have less right to
intervene in your affairs?
Post by Pamela
Maybe it's time to review Westminster's control over Crown
Colonies and British Overseas Territories. Stamping out more
tax havens would be no bad things. The UK has a bad reputation
for fuelling the city with dirty money gathered from companies
registered in these places.
Is the issue tax (no doubt paid in full in compliance with local
law) or is it spending on political propaganda?
If the former, or the latter, let's not lose sight of the
everyday functions of abominations like the Guardian - run from
a tax-haven and attempting 100% of the time to affect political
sentiment in the UK.
British tax havens are given considerable privileges including
unusual level of privacy which, in this case, has been exploited
by a foreign slush fund channeled by Aaron Banks to the Leave
campaign under the guise of ordinary personal offshore banking.
He's been busted.
Moral equivalnce with the Guardian does not change the
criminality or otherwise of what Aaron Banks has done. Nor do
the differing roles of Isle of man banking.
You must have evidence of the "foreign" origin of his income, and
particular the bit he spent in campaigning for what he believed in.
It's interesting, though. In return for monitoring post and making
timely sterling dispursements when necessary (eg, to HMRC), I have
an almost nominal income from a British company which operates
largely in the USA (by nominal, I mean an amount that neither of
us would get out of bed for).
Perhaps I should be forbidden from using that "foreign-earned"
money for political campaigning (even fter tax has been paid on
it)?
That's okay as long as you don't use it to launder foreign money
or, as Aaron Banks did, funnel illegal foreign funds to influence a
British referendum.
Does "funnel" mean the same as "spend"?
You are struggling with "donate" and "spend" elsewhere (although it's
very obvious what Hamster means but you don't seem to be able to
grasp it). I suggest you get that clear before asking me.
Do "donate", "funnel" and "spend" all mean the same thing?
Check your dictionary.
Post by JNugent
The attacks (here) on Banks only make sense if all three words have
exactly the same meaning.
That's nonsense.
Post by JNugent
Some posters have pointed out that donating
more than a certain amount to a ca,mpaign is illegal or unlawful. That
may be so, but what about just spending it yourself?
Aarons Banks is accused of illegally funneling foreign funds to a UK
election activity which is not allowed to accept them. He claims it is
his own money but somehow can't manage to prove it. See his smooth but
failed performance on the Andrew Marr show on iPlayer.
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.
True - for criminal charges of fraud etc.
Post by JNugent
The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
The other onus lies with the Leave campaign to fully and properly account and report their sources and application of funding.
Is that the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks?

Or some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside
your head even though it doesn't exist?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
We already know Leave cheated on the spending side, so who would be surprised if some of their funding came from hostile / rival foreign states keen to see the UK seriously damage itself by leaving the EU?
Big brave words.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-06 16:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
SNIP
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Aarons Banks is accused of illegally funneling foreign funds to a UK
election activity which is not allowed to accept them. He claims it is
his own money but somehow can't manage to prove it. See his smooth but
failed performance on the Andrew Marr show on iPlayer.
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.
True - for criminal charges of fraud etc.
Post by JNugent
The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
The other onus lies with the Leave campaign to fully and properly account and report their sources and application of funding.
Is that the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks?
Even he says he gave money (£8M) to promote a Leave vote - so whichever one he sent it to. In any event they shuffled money around between them to evade the rules.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/brexit-chaos-vote-leave-fined-illegal-brexit-referendum-overspend-n891931
Post by JNugent
Or some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside
your head even though it doesn't exist?
I had a nightmare last night - there was a big red bus with "£350M a week for the NHS" painted on the side heading straight towards the edge of white cliffs of Dover - was that what they call a false memory?
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
We already know Leave cheated on the spending side, so who would be surprised if some of their funding came from hostile / rival foreign states keen to see the UK seriously damage itself by leaving the EU?
Big brave words.
JNugent
2018-11-06 16:42:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Aarons Banks is accused of illegally funneling foreign funds to a UK
election activity which is not allowed to accept them. He claims it is
his own money but somehow can't manage to prove it. See his smooth but
failed performance on the Andrew Marr show on iPlayer.
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.
True - for criminal charges of fraud etc.
Post by JNugent
The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
The other onus lies with the Leave campaign to fully and properly account and report their sources and application of funding.
Is that the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks?
Even he says he gave money (£8M) to promote a Leave vote - so whichever one he sent it to. In any event they shuffled money around between them to evade the rules.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/brexit-chaos-vote-leave-fined-illegal-brexit-referendum-overspend-n891931
Post by JNugent
Or some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside
your head even though it doesn't exist?
I had a nightmare last night - there was a big red bus with "£350M a week for the NHS" painted on the side heading straight towards the edge of white cliffs of Dover - was that what they call a false memory?
Never mind trying to change the subject (even with that lie).

Was it the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks? Or
some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside your
head even though it doesn't exist?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
We already know Leave cheated on the spending side, so who would be surprised if some of their funding came from hostile / rival foreign states keen to see the UK seriously damage itself by leaving the EU?
Big brave words.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-06 16:54:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Aarons Banks is accused of illegally funneling foreign funds to a UK
election activity which is not allowed to accept them. He claims it is
his own money but somehow can't manage to prove it. See his smooth but
failed performance on the Andrew Marr show on iPlayer.
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.
True - for criminal charges of fraud etc.
Post by JNugent
The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
The other onus lies with the Leave campaign to fully and properly account and report their sources and application of funding.
Is that the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks?
Even he says he gave money (£8M) to promote a Leave vote - so whichever one he sent it to. In any event they shuffled money around between them to evade the rules.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/brexit-chaos-vote-leave-fined-illegal-brexit-referendum-overspend-n891931
Post by JNugent
Or some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside
your head even though it doesn't exist?
I had a nightmare last night - there was a big red bus with "£350M a week for the NHS" painted on the side heading straight towards the edge of white cliffs of Dover - was that what they call a false memory?
Never mind trying to change the subject (even with that lie).
I'm not - you are pathetically trying to split some hair about what the Leave campaign was called or which was the official one etc.

Anyway here is a picture of Banks with a few Leave supporters: -
Loading Image...
and one is a foreign billionaire...
Post by JNugent
Was it the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks? Or
some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside your
head even though it doesn't exist?
Oh so what campaigns existed to promote a Leave vote, whom did Mr. Banks give £8M to?

Obviously the question of whether it was actually his money sourced in the UK is what the Special Branch will be investigating.
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
We already know Leave cheated on the spending side, so who would be surprised if some of their funding came from hostile / rival foreign states keen to see the UK seriously damage itself by leaving the EU?
Big brave words.
JNugent
2018-11-06 17:00:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Aarons Banks is accused of illegally funneling foreign funds to a UK
election activity which is not allowed to accept them. He claims it is
his own money but somehow can't manage to prove it. See his smooth but
failed performance on the Andrew Marr show on iPlayer.
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.
True - for criminal charges of fraud etc.
Post by JNugent
The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
The other onus lies with the Leave campaign to fully and properly account and report their sources and application of funding.
Is that the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks?
Even he says he gave money (£8M) to promote a Leave vote - so whichever one he sent it to. In any event they shuffled money around between them to evade the rules.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/brexit-chaos-vote-leave-fined-illegal-brexit-referendum-overspend-n891931
Post by JNugent
Or some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside
your head even though it doesn't exist?
I had a nightmare last night - there was a big red bus with "£350M a week for the NHS" painted on the side heading straight towards the edge of white cliffs of Dover - was that what they call a false memory?
Never mind trying to change the subject (even with that lie).
I'm not - you are pathetically trying to split some hair about what the Leave campaign was called or which was the official one etc.
Have you ever seen The Life Of Brian?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Anyway here is a picture of Banks with a few Leave supporters: -
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Do707s8XkAIk3z7.jpg
and one is a foreign billionaire...
So what?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Was it the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks? Or
some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside your
head even though it doesn't exist?
Oh so what campaigns existed to promote a Leave vote, whom did Mr. Banks give £8M to?
Did he give it to anyone at all?

Or did he just spend it?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Obviously the question of whether it was actually his money sourced in the UK is what the Special Branch will be investigating.
Really?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-06 17:08:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 17:00:21 UTC, JNugent wrote:
SNIP
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.
True - for criminal charges of fraud etc.
Post by JNugent
The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
The other onus lies with the Leave campaign to fully and properly account and report their sources and application of funding.
Is that the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks?
Even he says he gave money (£8M) to promote a Leave vote - so whichever one he sent it to. In any event they shuffled money around between them to evade the rules.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/brexit-chaos-vote-leave-fined-illegal-brexit-referendum-overspend-n891931
Post by JNugent
Or some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside
your head even though it doesn't exist?
I had a nightmare last night - there was a big red bus with "£350M a week for the NHS" painted on the side heading straight towards the edge of white cliffs of Dover - was that what they call a false memory?
Never mind trying to change the subject (even with that lie).
I'm not - you are pathetically trying to split some hair about what the Leave campaign was called or which was the official one etc.
Have you ever seen The Life Of Brian?
Yes. Do you know what happened to the Zealots during Vespasian and his son's siege of Jerusalem?
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Anyway here is a picture of Banks with a few Leave supporters: -
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Do707s8XkAIk3z7.jpg
and one is a foreign billionaire...
So what?
Know your enemies by their friends. perhaps there is a similar one taken in the Kremlin?
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Was it the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks? Or
some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside your
head even though it doesn't exist?
Oh so what campaigns existed to promote a Leave vote, whom did Mr. Banks give £8M to?
Did he give it to anyone at all?
Or did he just spend it?
I doubt he went into a shop, bought 40 million leaflets and delivered them himself. Anyway for the purpose of election law it hardly matters - making a small difference in the amount allowed and how it is declared.
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Obviously the question of whether it was actually his money sourced in the UK is what the Special Branch will be investigating.
Really?
Yes really - it's illegal to accept foreign donations in UK elections and referendums. The Electoral Commission could not pin this down and have referred it to police. As it happens Special Branch investigate election offence allegations.
JNugent
2018-11-06 17:47:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.
True - for criminal charges of fraud etc.
Post by JNugent
The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
The other onus lies with the Leave campaign to fully and properly account and report their sources and application of funding.
Is that the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks?
Even he says he gave money (£8M) to promote a Leave vote - so whichever one he sent it to. In any event they shuffled money around between them to evade the rules.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/brexit-chaos-vote-leave-fined-illegal-brexit-referendum-overspend-n891931
Post by JNugent
Or some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside
your head even though it doesn't exist?
I had a nightmare last night - there was a big red bus with "£350M a week for the NHS" painted on the side heading straight towards the edge of white cliffs of Dover - was that what they call a false memory?
Never mind trying to change the subject (even with that lie).
I'm not - you are pathetically trying to split some hair about what the Leave campaign was called or which was the official one etc.
I'm not the one making up and falsifying what it said on an ad on the
side of a bus.

That's you, that is.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Have you ever seen The Life Of Brian?
Yes. Do you know what happened to the Zealots during Vespasian and his son's siege of Jerusalem?
Not really, but I expect you take a special interest in what happened to
your predecessor zealots.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Anyway here is a picture of Banks with a few Leave supporters: -
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Do707s8XkAIk3z7.jpg
and one is a foreign billionaire...
So what?
Know your enemies by their friends.
And if he had a picture taken with Brian Ferry or Paul McCartney?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
perhaps there is a similar one taken in the Kremlin?
You've really convinced me there. What a positive word "perhaps" is.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Was it the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks? Or
some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside your
head even though it doesn't exist?
Oh so what campaigns existed to promote a Leave vote, whom did Mr. Banks give £8M to?
Did he give it to anyone at all?
Or did he just spend it?
I doubt he went into a shop, bought 40 million leaflets and delivered them himself. Anyway for the purpose of election law it hardly matters - making a small difference in the amount allowed and how it is declared.
So have you now changed your mind on what it is you accuse him of, now
that you have (at last) realised the distinction betwen donating money
and spending it?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Obviously the question of whether it was actually his money sourced in the UK is what the Special Branch will be investigating.
Really?
Yes really - it's illegal to accept foreign donations in UK elections and referendums. The Electoral Commission could not pin this down and have referred it to police. As it happens Special Branch investigate election offence allegations.
No, you misunderstand again.

I asked whether the Special Branch will be doing the investigation.

If so, why?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-07 10:42:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.
True - for criminal charges of fraud etc.
Post by JNugent
The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
The other onus lies with the Leave campaign to fully and properly account and report their sources and application of funding.
Is that the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks?
Even he says he gave money (£8M) to promote a Leave vote - so whichever one he sent it to. In any event they shuffled money around between them to evade the rules.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/brexit-chaos-vote-leave-fined-illegal-brexit-referendum-overspend-n891931
Post by JNugent
Or some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside
your head even though it doesn't exist?
I had a nightmare last night - there was a big red bus with "£350M a week for the NHS" painted on the side heading straight towards the edge of white cliffs of Dover - was that what they call a false memory?
Never mind trying to change the subject (even with that lie).
I'm not - you are pathetically trying to split some hair about what the Leave campaign was called or which was the official one etc.
I'm not the one making up and falsifying what it said on an ad on the
side of a bus.
That's you, that is.
The longer full text is here: -
Loading Image...
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Have you ever seen The Life Of Brian?
Yes. Do you know what happened to the Zealots during Vespasian and his son's siege of Jerusalem?
Not really, but I expect you take a special interest in what happened to
your predecessor zealots.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Anyway here is a picture of Banks with a few Leave supporters: -
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Do707s8XkAIk3z7.jpg
and one is a foreign billionaire...
So what?
Know your enemies by their friends.
And if he had a picture taken with Brian Ferry or Paul McCartney?
Are either president of a foreign country, or even foreign?
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
perhaps there is a similar one taken in the Kremlin?
You've really convinced me there. What a positive word "perhaps" is.
AFAIK Trump did not give Leave any money, just [public] political support.

What did Putin provide is the question. Russia is already strongly suspected of internet manipulation in UK [and US] voting...
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Was it the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks? Or
some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside your
head even though it doesn't exist?
Oh so what campaigns existed to promote a Leave vote, whom did Mr. Banks give £8M to?
Did he give it to anyone at all?
Or did he just spend it?
I doubt he went into a shop, bought 40 million leaflets and delivered them himself. Anyway for the purpose of election law it hardly matters - making a small difference in the amount allowed and how it is declared.
So have you now changed your mind on what it is you accuse him of, now
that you have (at last) realised the distinction betwen donating money
and spending it?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Obviously the question of whether it was actually his money sourced in the UK is what the Special Branch will be investigating.
Really?
Yes really - it's illegal to accept foreign donations in UK elections and referendums. The Electoral Commission could not pin this down and have referred it to police. As it happens Special Branch investigate election offence allegations.
No, you misunderstand again.
I asked whether the Special Branch will be doing the investigation.
If so, why?
But not in this case because, due to the seriousness the Electoral Commission has referred the case directly to the National Crime Agency. Normally is is the [local] Special Branch who investigate election offences referred to the police.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-arron-banks-national-crime-agency-criminal-offences-referendum-vote-a8612331.html

He has of course denied any wrong doing.
Handsome Jack
2018-11-07 11:20:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Yes really - it's illegal to accept foreign donations in UK
elections and referendums. The Electoral Commission could not pin
this down and have referred it to police. As it happens Special
Branch investigate election offence allegations.
No, you misunderstand again.
I asked whether the Special Branch will be doing the investigation.
If so, why?
But not in this case because, due to the seriousness the Electoral
Commission has referred the case directly to the National Crime Agency.
Normally is is the [local] Special Branch who investigate election
offences referred to the police.
Utter balls. Once again you get it wrong and then try to wiggle out of
it. The Electoral Commission has referred the case to the NCA (and not
Special Branch, as you earlier claimed) because there are alleged
foreign connections to be followed up, and that is the NCA's domain. It
is nothing to do with seriousness.

Though you, along with the anti-Brexit media, are rolling the
important-sounding phrase "National Crime Agency" around in your mouth
to make the story sound more significant.

You have no idea. Remind us again what you said about the Isle of Man
being in the EU and taking part in the referendum?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-arron-banks
-national-crime-agency-criminal-offences-referendum-vote-a8612331.html
He has of course denied any wrong doing.
--
Jack
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-07 11:58:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Yes really - it's illegal to accept foreign donations in UK
elections and referendums. The Electoral Commission could not pin
this down and have referred it to police. As it happens Special
Branch investigate election offence allegations.
No, you misunderstand again.
I asked whether the Special Branch will be doing the investigation.
If so, why?
But not in this case because, due to the seriousness the Electoral
Commission has referred the case directly to the National Crime Agency.
Normally is is the [local] Special Branch who investigate election
offences referred to the police.
Utter balls. Once again you get it wrong and then try to wiggle out of
it. The Electoral Commission has referred the case to the NCA (and not
Special Branch, as you earlier claimed) because there are alleged
foreign connections to be followed up, and that is the NCA's domain. It
is nothing to do with seriousness.
Though you, along with the anti-Brexit media, are rolling the
important-sounding phrase "National Crime Agency" around in your mouth
to make the story sound more significant.
Well as I mistakenly assumed the Special Branch would investigate the case as usual you can hardly accuse me of that.
Post by Handsome Jack
You have no idea. Remind us again what you said about the Isle of Man
being in the EU and taking part in the referendum?
Corrected days ago - keep up.
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by R. Mark Clayton
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-arron-banks
-national-crime-agency-criminal-offences-referendum-vote-a8612331.html
He has of course denied any wrong doing.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/arron-banks-wants-to-sell-4m-stake-in-firm-5mtx6j8g5
Post by Handsome Jack
--
Jack
Handsome Jack
2018-11-07 12:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Handsome Jack
Though you, along with the anti-Brexit media, are rolling the
important-sounding phrase "National Crime Agency" around in your mouth
to make the story sound more significant.
Well as I mistakenly assumed the Special Branch would investigate the
case as usual you can hardly accuse me of that.
It's exactly what you just did.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Handsome Jack
You have no idea. Remind us again what you said about the Isle of Man
being in the EU and taking part in the referendum?
Corrected days ago - keep up.
Your position being that, if you admit you got your facts wrong, then
you didn't really get them wrong?
--
Jack
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-07 12:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Handsome Jack
Though you, along with the anti-Brexit media, are rolling the
important-sounding phrase "National Crime Agency" around in your mouth
to make the story sound more significant.
Well as I mistakenly assumed the Special Branch would investigate the
case as usual you can hardly accuse me of that.
It's exactly what you just did.
To correct the mistake.
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Handsome Jack
You have no idea. Remind us again what you said about the Isle of Man
being in the EU and taking part in the referendum?
Corrected days ago - keep up.
Your position being that, if you admit you got your facts wrong, then
you didn't really get them wrong?
The difference is that I don't go on maintaining it if I realise I have got it wrong - unlike Brextremists' fantasies and lies.
Post by Handsome Jack
--
Jack
Pamela
2018-11-07 13:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Handsome Jack
Though you, along with the anti-Brexit media, are rolling the
important-sounding phrase "National Crime Agency" around in your mouth
to make the story sound more significant.
Well as I mistakenly assumed the Special Branch would investigate the
case as usual you can hardly accuse me of that.
It's exactly what you just did.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Handsome Jack
You have no idea. Remind us again what you said about the Isle of Man
being in the EU and taking part in the referendum?
Corrected days ago - keep up.
Your position being that, if you admit you got your facts wrong, then
you didn't really get them wrong?
His last comment on the matter was correct but you failed to notice.
JNugent
2018-11-07 13:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Yes really - it's illegal to accept foreign donations in UK
elections and referendums. The Electoral Commission could not pin
this down and have referred it to police. As it happens Special
Branch investigate election offence allegations.
No, you misunderstand again.
I asked whether the Special Branch will be doing the investigation.
If so, why?
But not in this case because, due to the seriousness the Electoral
Commission has referred the case directly to the National Crime Agency.
Normally is is the [local] Special Branch who investigate election
offences referred to the police.
Utter balls. Once again you get it wrong and then try to wiggle out of
it. The Electoral Commission has referred the case to the NCA (and not
Special Branch, as you earlier claimed) because there are alleged
foreign connections to be followed up, and that is the NCA's domain. It
is nothing to do with seriousness.
Though you, along with the anti-Brexit media, are rolling the
important-sounding phrase "National Crime Agency" around in your mouth
to make the story sound more significant.
Well as I mistakenly assumed the Special Branch would investigate the case as usual you can hardly accuse me of that.
What else have you mistanely assumed?

That because Jack A Nother was once photographed with Chris Huhne that
he must be guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

PS: Watch the Old Bailey reports next week.
Pamela
2018-11-07 12:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Yes really - it's illegal to accept foreign donations in UK
elections and referendums. The Electoral Commission could not pin
this down and have referred it to police. As it happens Special
Branch investigate election offence allegations.
No, you misunderstand again.
I asked whether the Special Branch will be doing the investigation.
If so, why?
But not in this case because, due to the seriousness the Electoral
Commission has referred the case directly to the National Crime
Agency. Normally is is the [local] Special Branch who investigate
election offences referred to the police.
Utter balls. Once again you get it wrong and then try to wiggle out of
it. The Electoral Commission has referred the case to the NCA (and not
Special Branch, as you earlier claimed) because there are alleged
foreign connections to be followed up, and that is the NCA's domain.
It is nothing to do with seriousness.
Nonsense. They wouldn't refer it if it was trivial!
Post by Handsome Jack
Though you, along with the anti-Brexit media, are rolling the
important-sounding phrase "National Crime Agency" around in your mouth
to make the story sound more significant.
It is a serious allegation affecting the votes in a narrowly won
referendum which has proven very divisive.
Post by Handsome Jack
You have no idea. Remind us again what you said about the Isle of Man
being in the EU and taking part in the referendum?
I've seen you make errors in other posts but how are they relevant here?
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by R. Mark Clayton
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-
arron-banks-national-crime-agency-criminal-offences-
referendum-vote-a8612331.html
He has of course denied any wrong doing.
Your attempted smokescreen will not affect the seriousness of this nor
the investigation. I'm going to enjoy watching smooth talking self
assured salesman Aaron Banks twist and turn when he gets confronted by
the facts.
JNugent
2018-11-07 13:02:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
As you know, it isn't necessary for him to prove that he's innocent.
True - for criminal charges of fraud etc.
Post by JNugent
The onus lies squarely upon those who in any event, don't know the
difference between "donate", "funnel" and "spend" and are confused
enough to use them interchangeably.
The other onus lies with the Leave campaign to fully and properly account and report their sources and application of funding.
Is that the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks?
Even he says he gave money (£8M) to promote a Leave vote - so whichever one he sent it to. In any event they shuffled money around between them to evade the rules.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/brexit-chaos-vote-leave-fined-illegal-brexit-referendum-overspend-n891931
Post by JNugent
Or some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside
your head even though it doesn't exist?
I had a nightmare last night - there was a big red bus with "£350M a week for the NHS" painted on the side heading straight towards the edge of white cliffs of Dover - was that what they call a false memory?
Never mind trying to change the subject (even with that lie).
I'm not - you are pathetically trying to split some hair about what the Leave campaign was called or which was the official one etc.
I'm not the one making up and falsifying what it said on an ad on the
side of a bus.
That's you, that is.
The longer full text is here: -
http://www.eureferendum.com/images/000a%20battlebus-012.jpg
I'm not clicking that because it doesn't matter. You know (and knew)
that you were fabricating and traducing.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Have you ever seen The Life Of Brian?
Yes. Do you know what happened to the Zealots during Vespasian and his son's siege of Jerusalem?
Not really, but I expect you take a special interest in what happened to
your predecessor zealots.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Anyway here is a picture of Banks with a few Leave supporters: -
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Do707s8XkAIk3z7.jpg
and one is a foreign billionaire...
So what?
Know your enemies by their friends.
And if he had a picture taken with Brian Ferry or Paul McCartney?
Are either president of a foreign country, or even foreign?
Does that matter?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
perhaps there is a similar one taken in the Kremlin?
You've really convinced me there. What a positive word "perhaps" is.
AFAIK Trump did not give Leave any money, just [public] political support.
Trump?

Now you've gone full-tinfoil hat nNutcase.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
What did Putin provide is the question. Russia is already strongly suspected of internet manipulation in UK [and US] voting...
And?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Was it the same Leave campaign which was nothing to do with Mr Banks? Or
some imaginary recreation of the Leave campaign which works inside your
head even though it doesn't exist?
Oh so what campaigns existed to promote a Leave vote, whom did Mr. Banks give £8M to?
Did he give it to anyone at all?
Or did he just spend it?
I doubt he went into a shop, bought 40 million leaflets and delivered them himself. Anyway for the purpose of election law it hardly matters - making a small difference in the amount allowed and how it is declared.
So have you now changed your mind on what it is you accuse him of, now
that you have (at last) realised the distinction betwen donating money
and spending it?
Ah... no response to that. Perhaps it's sinking in at last.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by JNugent
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Obviously the question of whether it was actually his money sourced in the UK is what the Special Branch will be investigating.
Really?
Yes really - it's illegal to accept foreign donations in UK elections and referendums. The Electoral Commission could not pin this down and have referred it to police. As it happens Special Branch investigate election offence allegations.
No, you misunderstand again.
I asked whether the Special Branch will be doing the investigation.
If so, why?
But not in this case
Not in this case. How convenient.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
because, due to the seriousness the Electoral Commission has referred the case directly to the National Crime Agency. Normally is is the [local] Special Branch who investigate election offences referred to the police.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-arron-banks-national-crime-agency-criminal-offences-referendum-vote-a8612331.html
He has of course denied any wrong doing.
But you know better and don't need such a trivial thing as evidence,
Monsieur Robespierre.
Handsome Jack
2018-11-06 17:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Oh so what campaigns existed to promote a Leave vote, whom did Mr. Banks give £8M to?
Obviously the question of whether it was actually his money sourced in
the UK is what the Special Branch will be investigating.
Special Branch?
--
Jack
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-06 17:19:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Oh so what campaigns existed to promote a Leave vote, whom did Mr.
Banks give Ł8M to?
Obviously the question of whether it was actually his money sourced in
the UK is what the Special Branch will be investigating.
Special Branch?
--
Jack
Yes they investigate election offence allegations.
Pamela
2018-11-06 20:08:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Anyway here is a picture of Banks with a few Leave supporters: -
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Do707s8XkAIk3z7.jpg
and one is a foreign billionaire...
What a dodgy bunch! :)
pensive hamster
2018-11-03 20:20:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 18:01:58 UTC, JNugent wrote:
[...]
Post by JNugent
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of the
campaign.
It may be that the campaign(s) succeeded in swaying some previously
undecided voters.

Presumably the people running the various campaigns must have
thought they would have some effect, else they wouldn't have
expended so much effort and money.
JNugent
2018-11-03 20:36:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of the
campaign.
It may be that the campaign(s) succeeded in swaying some previously
undecided voters.
Presumably the people running the various campaigns must have
thought they would have some effect, else they wouldn't have
expended so much effort and money.
Proving it is your difficulty.

As one company boss was once quoted as saying (perhaps apocryphally):

"Half of our advertising budget is a waste.

The trouble is - I don't know which half".
Pamela
2018-11-03 23:26:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of the
campaign.
It may be that the campaign(s) succeeded in swaying some previously
undecided voters.
Presumably the people running the various campaigns must have
thought they would have some effect, else they wouldn't have
expended so much effort and money.
Proving it is your difficulty.
"Half of our advertising budget is a waste.
The trouble is - I don't know which half".
That was a comment about waste not effectiveness. Whichever half of the
budget worked it was still a half that did work.

As little as a 2% swing would reverse the oucome of the referendum.
JNugent
2018-11-03 23:44:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result of the
campaign.
It may be that the campaign(s) succeeded in swaying some previously
undecided voters.
Presumably the people running the various campaigns must have
thought they would have some effect, else they wouldn't have
expended so much effort and money.
Proving it is your difficulty.
"Half of our advertising budget is a waste.
The trouble is - I don't know which half".
That was a comment about waste not effectiveness. Whichever half of the
budget worked it was still a half that did work.
As little as a 2% swing would reverse the oucome of the referendum.
"would" it?

It isn't going to happen, of course.
Pamela
2018-11-04 11:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result
of the campaign.
It may be that the campaign(s) succeeded in swaying some previously
undecided voters.
Presumably the people running the various campaigns must have
thought they would have some effect, else they wouldn't have
expended so much effort and money.
Proving it is your difficulty.
As one company boss was once quoted as saying (perhaps
"Half of our advertising budget is a waste.
The trouble is - I don't know which half".
That was a comment about waste not effectiveness. Whichever half of
the budget worked it was still a half that did work.
As little as a 2% swing would reverse the oucome of the referendum.
"would" it?
Of course a 2% swing would reverse the outcome of the referendum and
wordplay can't change that.
Post by JNugent
It isn't going to happen, of course.
Okay, so you're a fortune teller now.
JNugent
2018-11-04 15:07:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result
of the campaign.
It may be that the campaign(s) succeeded in swaying some previously
undecided voters.
Presumably the people running the various campaigns must have
thought they would have some effect, else they wouldn't have
expended so much effort and money.
Proving it is your difficulty.
As one company boss was once quoted as saying (perhaps
"Half of our advertising budget is a waste.
The trouble is - I don't know which half".
That was a comment about waste not effectiveness. Whichever half of
the budget worked it was still a half that did work.
As little as a 2% swing would reverse the oucome of the referendum.
"would" it?
Of course a 2% swing would reverse the outcome of the referendum and
wordplay can't change that.
The Leave vote was 8% bigger than the Remain vote. That is, for every
1000 votes for Remain, there were 1080 for Leave.

I can see that abstention of 2% of the Leave vote would leave the Leave
majority around (but of course, not exactly) 6% (it would be nearer to
5.8%). In round terms, it would be 22 votes per 1080 lost to Leave and
that would reduce the majority but certainly not eliminate it.

I can even see that a swap of 2% of the leave vote straight across to
Remain would have a bigger effect. 22 votes per 1000 Remain/ 1080 Leave
would change that ratio to 1022 (Remain) to 1058 (Leave), and I'm
rounding in Remain's favour there - the effect would be slightly less
than that. But that's still a Leave win.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
It isn't going to happen, of course.
Okay, so you're a fortune teller now.
Between now and the end of March?

Really?
Smolley
2018-11-04 16:06:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result
of the campaign.
It may be that the campaign(s) succeeded in swaying some previously
undecided voters.
Presumably the people running the various campaigns must have
thought they would have some effect, else they wouldn't have
expended so much effort and money.
Proving it is your difficulty.
As one company boss was once quoted as saying (perhaps
"Half of our advertising budget is a waste.
The trouble is - I don't know which half".
That was a comment about waste not effectiveness. Whichever half of
the budget worked it was still a half that did work.
As little as a 2% swing would reverse the oucome of the referendum.
"would" it?
Of course a 2% swing would reverse the outcome of the referendum and
wordplay can't change that.
The Leave vote was 8% bigger than the Remain vote. That is, for every
1000 votes for Remain, there were 1080 for Leave.
I can see that abstention of 2% of the Leave vote would leave the Leave
majority around (but of course, not exactly) 6% (it would be nearer to
5.8%). In round terms, it would be 22 votes per 1080 lost to Leave and
that would reduce the majority but certainly not eliminate it.
I can even see that a swap of 2% of the leave vote straight across to
Remain would have a bigger effect. 22 votes per 1000 Remain/ 1080 Leave
would change that ratio to 1022 (Remain) to 1058 (Leave), and I'm
rounding in Remain's favour there - the effect would be slightly less
than that. But that's still a Leave win.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
It isn't going to happen, of course.
Okay, so you're a fortune teller now.
Between now and the end of March?
Really?
I voted no in the 1975 referendum......and haven't changed my mind since.
Pamela
2018-11-04 16:44:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Smolley
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a
result of the campaign.
It may be that the campaign(s) succeeded in swaying some
previously undecided voters.
Presumably the people running the various campaigns must have
thought they would have some effect, else they wouldn't have
expended so much effort and money.
Proving it is your difficulty.
As one company boss was once quoted as saying (perhaps
"Half of our advertising budget is a waste.
The trouble is - I don't know which half".
That was a comment about waste not effectiveness. Whichever half
of the budget worked it was still a half that did work.
As little as a 2% swing would reverse the oucome of the
referendum.
"would" it?
Of course a 2% swing would reverse the outcome of the referendum and
wordplay can't change that.
The Leave vote was 8% bigger than the Remain vote. That is, for every
1000 votes for Remain, there were 1080 for Leave.
I can see that abstention of 2% of the Leave vote would leave the
Leave majority around (but of course, not exactly) 6% (it would be
nearer to 5.8%). In round terms, it would be 22 votes per 1080 lost
to Leave and that would reduce the majority but certainly not
eliminate it.
I can even see that a swap of 2% of the leave vote straight across to
Remain would have a bigger effect. 22 votes per 1000 Remain/ 1080
Leave would change that ratio to 1022 (Remain) to 1058 (Leave), and
I'm rounding in Remain's favour there - the effect would be slightly
less than that. But that's still a Leave win.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
It isn't going to happen, of course.
Okay, so you're a fortune teller now.
Between now and the end of March?
Really?
I voted no in the 1975 referendum......and haven't changed my mind since.
Are you sure not even 2% of you hasn't changed its mind? :)
Pamela
2018-11-04 16:44:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result
of the campaign.
It may be that the campaign(s) succeeded in swaying some
previously undecided voters.
Presumably the people running the various campaigns must have
thought they would have some effect, else they wouldn't have
expended so much effort and money.
Proving it is your difficulty.
As one company boss was once quoted as saying (perhaps
"Half of our advertising budget is a waste.
The trouble is - I don't know which half".
That was a comment about waste not effectiveness. Whichever half
of the budget worked it was still a half that did work.
As little as a 2% swing would reverse the oucome of the referendum.
"would" it?
Of course a 2% swing would reverse the outcome of the referendum and
wordplay can't change that.
The Leave vote was 8% bigger than the Remain vote. That is, for every
1000 votes for Remain, there were 1080 for Leave.
I can see that abstention of 2% of the Leave vote would leave the
Leave majority around (but of course, not exactly) 6% (it would be
nearer to 5.8%). In round terms, it would be 22 votes per 1080 lost to
Leave and that would reduce the majority but certainly not eliminate
it.
I can even see that a swap of 2% of the leave vote straight across to
Remain would have a bigger effect. 22 votes per 1000 Remain/ 1080
Leave would change that ratio to 1022 (Remain) to 1058 (Leave), and
I'm rounding in Remain's favour there - the effect would be slightly
less than that. But that's still a Leave win.
Remain = 17,410,742
Leave = 16,141,241

2 percent of 17,410,742 + 16,141,241 = 671,040

Remain with 2% swing against = 17,410,742 - 671,040 = 16,739,702
Leave with 2% swing for = 16,141,241 + 671,040 = 16,812,281

And that's excluding the 28% (12,948,018) of the electorate who didn't
vote and who may very well choose to do so next time - more likely than
not in favour of Remain.
JNugent
2018-11-04 17:22:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a result
of the campaign.
It may be that the campaign(s) succeeded in swaying some
previously undecided voters.
Presumably the people running the various campaigns must have
thought they would have some effect, else they wouldn't have
expended so much effort and money.
Proving it is your difficulty.
As one company boss was once quoted as saying (perhaps
"Half of our advertising budget is a waste.
The trouble is - I don't know which half".
That was a comment about waste not effectiveness. Whichever half
of the budget worked it was still a half that did work.
As little as a 2% swing would reverse the oucome of the referendum.
"would" it?
Of course a 2% swing would reverse the outcome of the referendum and
wordplay can't change that.
The Leave vote was 8% bigger than the Remain vote. That is, for every
1000 votes for Remain, there were 1080 for Leave.
I can see that abstention of 2% of the Leave vote would leave the
Leave majority around (but of course, not exactly) 6% (it would be
nearer to 5.8%). In round terms, it would be 22 votes per 1080 lost to
Leave and that would reduce the majority but certainly not eliminate
it.
I can even see that a swap of 2% of the leave vote straight across to
Remain would have a bigger effect. 22 votes per 1000 Remain/ 1080
Leave would change that ratio to 1022 (Remain) to 1058 (Leave), and
I'm rounding in Remain's favour there - the effect would be slightly
less than that. But that's still a Leave win.
Remain = 17,410,742
Leave = 16,141,241
2 percent of 17,410,742 + 16,141,241 = 671,040
Remain with 2% swing against = 17,410,742 - 671,040 = 16,739,702
Leave with 2% swing for = 16,141,241 + 671,040 = 16,812,281
And that's excluding the 28% (12,948,018) of the electorate who didn't
vote and who may very well choose to do so next time - more likely than
not in favour of Remain.
We are clearly not defining 2% in the same way. 2% of the Leave vote is
not 671,000.
Pamela
2018-11-04 18:57:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by JNugent
Were *you* swayed by the campaign?
I am quite certain that I was not.
I don't know anyone who says they changed their mind as a
result of the campaign.
It may be that the campaign(s) succeeded in swaying some
previously undecided voters.
Presumably the people running the various campaigns must have
thought they would have some effect, else they wouldn't have
expended so much effort and money.
Proving it is your difficulty.
As one company boss was once quoted as saying (perhaps
"Half of our advertising budget is a waste.
The trouble is - I don't know which half".
That was a comment about waste not effectiveness. Whichever half
of the budget worked it was still a half that did work.
As little as a 2% swing would reverse the oucome of the
referendum.
"would" it?
Of course a 2% swing would reverse the outcome of the referendum
and wordplay can't change that.
The Leave vote was 8% bigger than the Remain vote. That is, for
every 1000 votes for Remain, there were 1080 for Leave.
I can see that abstention of 2% of the Leave vote would leave the
Leave majority around (but of course, not exactly) 6% (it would be
nearer to 5.8%). In round terms, it would be 22 votes per 1080 lost
to Leave and that would reduce the majority but certainly not
eliminate it.
I can even see that a swap of 2% of the leave vote straight across
to Remain would have a bigger effect. 22 votes per 1000 Remain/ 1080
Leave would change that ratio to 1022 (Remain) to 1058 (Leave), and
I'm rounding in Remain's favour there - the effect would be slightly
less than that. But that's still a Leave win.
Remain = 17,410,742 Leave = 16,141,241
2 percent of 17,410,742 + 16,141,241 = 671,040
Remain with 2% swing against = 17,410,742 - 671,040 = 16,739,702
Leave with 2% swing for = 16,141,241 + 671,040 = 16,812,281
And that's excluding the 28% (12,948,018) of the electorate who
didn't vote and who may very well choose to do so next time - more
likely than not in favour of Remain.
We are clearly not defining 2% in the same way. 2% of the Leave vote
is not 671,000.
I never said it was that. I showed you the calculations, accurate down
to the last voter.
Paul Pot
2018-11-03 13:57:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly declared
there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
The Isle of Man isn't part of the UK, or part of the EU in its own
right and didn't get to vote in the referendum.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-11-03 14:39:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Pot
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Various allegations have circulated this week that money from
overseas was allegedly illegally used to finance the Leave campaign.
In particular the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, however both these
places voted in the referendum, so providing any donations from
individuals or [trading] companies based there were properly declared
there would not seem to be an issue.
Even in Gibraltar 4% voted Leave.
The Isle of Man isn't part of the UK, or part of the EU in its own
right and didn't get to vote in the referendum.
Correct - I misread the IoM government announcement.
Post by Paul Pot
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Loading...