Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
'I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free'
About Me
Posts
Heroes
- Axel Leijonhufvud
- E.E.Evans-Pritchard
- Edmund Leach
- Francois Couperin
- Joan Robinson
- John Maynard Keynes
- Louis de Soissons
- Mario Draghi
- Noam Chomsky
- Pablo Picasso
- Paul Klee
- Pietro Porcinai
- The Earl of Onslow
- Umberto Boccioni
- Wassily Kandinski
- Wilhelm von Humboldt
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(473)
-
▼
January
(31)
- Part Time Defence Ministers and Half Trained Sold...
- Brown Blinks
- Fathers and Sons
- Dacha
- Persona in Vista
- Leading Cardinals
- Just the One?
- The Neath Police Dismisseth Us
- Rubbish Government
- The Blair for European Union President Set Up
- Politics and its Practice
- Leading Cadres
- The End of the World News
- London Calling
- Jonah
- The Third Sector
- False Economy
- A Parcel of Rogues
- Everybody Out!
- United Kingdom Sovereign Wealth Investment
- Fiscal Arithmetic
- Take Your Money and Go
- Weather Forecast
- Undemocratic Disunity
- Savaged by a Dead Sheep
- Humboldt, Humboldt
- Messieurs, faites vos jeux...
- Elastic Band
- Trouble in the Wind
- The Defence of Sterling
- Recessional
-
▼
January
(31)
Fallen Angels
- David Cameron (for risking the disorderly dissolution of the Euro)
- Giorgio Napolitano (for stance on Budapest 1956: Prague 1968: Italy 2013)
- Mervyn King (for bailing-out Northern Rock)
- Nicholas Kaldor (for inventing VAT)
14 comments:
1. "payed" ??? Is this newspeak :-)
2. Possibly in receipt of stolen property - ie taxpayers' funds.
Blogger won't even let me silently correct it, Nomad. Too much fresh air. I'll put it right asap. (though I suspect paid and payed could be substituted once).
If someone offers me piles of money to do something I'm not going to be able to do, and I take it, I'm in all sorts of difficulties.
I wondered about that myself ...in a position of acute awkwardness especially as they have been living the life of the gentry on ill goten gains .
He has to go
"in what position does that place the son?"
You're looking at Hinks again. That is, theft under s1 Theft Act 1968. The only element in doubt is honesty. Was the fils dishonest when he took the money? I think that it will be difficult to prove he was dishonest unless he was 'in on it'. The majority of parents give money to their children when they are at University. If the son simply thought that he was receiving a gift like everyone else in his peer group then it would be wrong to level charges at him.
That of a thief! I presume such things are taught at Harrow. I cannot understand why the police haven't yet acted - would they be so slow with other suspected thefts. I doubt that he would be able to claim parliamentary privelege like his father.
One rule for the rich as they say!
12.45
There are reports that there is a contract of employment. If so, son must have known what he was supposed to do, and where the money came from. And that the money was not a gift.
If a Hinks transfer, then it would be wrong just accepting such a sum of money, even if it became his property. No? Or would contracting to do something for it alter that. But he didn't, according to the report, do anything that justified the payment.
Are there others in these relations with members of parliament - accepting money in a Hinks' world?
(Law is infinitely, subtley difficult to think about; worse than economics).
13.29
If, at work, I don't do the job I'm employed to do, I risk dismissal, but am I stealing? How little must I do to move, can I move, from not doing my job to stealing my wages?
Go, certainly, N, but where? And should his son go with him?
He's brought his whole family under a shadow; it seems his wife is being paid by tax-funded allowances as well.
This sort of nepotism should not be allowed at all within publicly funded bodies.
At least a father who'd started and nurtured a business has the right to see it fail if he chooses to employ people through favour rather than efficiency. The taxpayer, however, is owed a duty in that people on the public pay roll are to be properly selected - and aren't the sons and daughters of taxpayers allowed a fair chance of seeking this work too ?
This is without consideration to the criminality of this case. It is most certainly unethical of both father and son.
I've a feeling that the offence is under the 1968 Theft Act, Obtaining a pecuniary advantage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A580312
Falsely taking employment and pay.
A tarrif of 5 years imprisonment.
Go to work at Tescos ? Why not ?
It's quite hard to work for Tescos. Not least they are looking for no criminal record and a positive attitude to work.
And Tescos have 'positive' racial/sexual discrimination in their recruitment in some areas too, don't forget.
All this intervention in who can attend which school, work at what jobs, even be permitted to apply for what jobs, not by skill, qualification demonstrated by aptitude and examination success but by the arbitrary application of membership of a category.
It's just as unpleasant doing it by so-called racial group, gender, or age as it is by kinship connection or class. (and the discrimination by age goes for school as well. Organising learning by age cohort is a major contributer to under achievement).
Post a Comment