Re: Robert Jenrick : Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:44 am  

I think it is obvious that Johnson with his style of leadership encourages this type of behaviour. It is not a good start because after six months we have Cummins and Jenrick on more than one occasion who believe they can do what they want without fear of any reprisals.
What should make this even more repulsive to the government is that what the council was about to enforce was brought in by the Conservatives to allow the money to be used for local housing. I wonder if Jenrick would have done the same for a similar Conservative council.
Not a good start to the levelling up, I suppose Jenrick could have been confused and thought it meant the land for building.

Re: Robert Jenrick : Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:48 am  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

Not a good start to the levelling up, I suppose Jenrick could have been confused and thought it meant the land for building.

I've said all along that when this rabble say, "levelling up", what they really mean is 'levelling'. Using JCBs, of course.

Re: Robert Jenrick : Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:37 pm  

There's a few on this topic that might want to have a look at how/who/when some Labour councils awarded contracts and granted planning permission, especially in London. There is one peer I can think of who doesn't have the cleanest of hands, the same peer who always lobbied against the lords and said he would never want to be one, until his wife quite fancied the title.

Re: Robert Jenrick : Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:10 pm  

What are you dribbling on about now, some Labour peer with dirty hands apparently who you don’t know. It could be Corbyn (Who is not a peer but you are a bit obsessed) with his gardening that would give him dirty hands or do you mean those on David Cameron’s resignation honours list or the statement by William Hague that allowed Lord Ashcroft to remain a non Dom despite having stated otherwise. This of course allowed him to avoid paying his full tax and still give the Conservatives millions in donations.

Re: Robert Jenrick : Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:48 am  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

What are you dribbling on about now, some Labour peer with dirty hands apparently who you don’t know. It could be Corbyn (Who is not a peer but you are a bit obsessed) with his gardening that would give him dirty hands or do you mean those on David Cameron’s resignation honours list or the statement by William Hague that allowed Lord Ashcroft to remain a non Dom despite having stated otherwise. This of course allowed him to avoid paying his full tax and still give the Conservatives millions in donations.

Oh, I know exactly who, but keep going, you lefties still can't abide the fact that socialism got rejected on mass!

Re: Robert Jenrick : Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:14 am  

IR80 wrote:

Oh, I know exactly who, but keep going, you lefties still can't abide the fact that socialism got rejected on mass!

So, let's be clear, are you condoning Jenricks behaviour and is that the standard that we should expect and accept from Government Ministers ?
A simple yes or no will suffice

Re: Robert Jenrick : Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:33 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

So, let's be clear, are you condoning Jenricks behaviour and is that the standard that we should expect and accept from Government Ministers ?
A simple yes or no will suffice

He didn't actually end up doing anything...! unless i have mis read it, he eventually saw it as being unlawful. Are ypu suggesting that planning in your LA is all above board, regardless of what paties are in control?

Jeez, I even know of parish councillors taking a few quid to help people get allotments.

Re: Robert Jenrick : Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:17 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

So, let's be clear, are you condoning Jenricks behaviour and is that the standard that we should expect and accept from Government Ministers ?
A simple yes or no will suffice

Absolutely - he should have gone by now.

Labour need to be very careful when the vast majority of their policies are dictated to them by their major donors!!

Re: Robert Jenrick : Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:57 am  

IR80 wrote:

He didn't actually end up doing anything...! unless i have mis read it, he eventually saw it as being unlawful. Are ypu suggesting that planning in your LA is all above board, regardless of what paties are in control?

Jeez, I even know of parish councillors taking a few quid to help people get allotments.

I would suggest you read the history because initially at the dinner it was not discussed, then it was including a video of the project. He then said he did not discuss it further but the emails confirm he did and the worst of all was the rush to get it through saving his friend 45m pounds at the cost of the Tower Hamlets residents. This same project also reduced the social housing from 35% to 21% saving him another 40m pounds.

Re: Robert Jenrick : Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:36 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

I would suggest you read the history because initially at the dinner it was not discussed, then it was including a video of the project. He then said he did not discuss it further but the emails confirm he did and the worst of all was the rush to get it through saving his friend 45m pounds at the cost of the Tower Hamlets residents. This same project also reduced the social housing from 35% to 21% saving him another 40m pounds.

NONE OF WHICH happened...

I feel sorry for you, full of hate and envy, Lord Starmer will see you now