Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,656
I see Paul Gambaccini has just received a payout from the CPS which made me wonder if Charlie could sue the Whips Office in the future for deformation, or would this be covered by a version of Parliamentary Privilege. I am assuming the police will not be bringing any charges if what Pablo #419 says is correct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Deformation - blimey that is brutal!
Weird Granny Slater likes this
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,656
ray hutstone wrote:Deformation - blimey that is brutal!
That is the more normal version of character assassination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
The latest from our Independent member of one year's standing.
The Port of Dover is a huge success story. More than £120 billion of trade moves through our docks every year. When you add in Eurotunnel, the Channel Ports account for about a third of the UK’s trade in goods. This is good for business – and good for Britain. And EU nations do very well out of this too. They sell twice as much to us as we do to them. It is very much in their interests to keep this trade flowing. That’s why suggestions that the French will grind the Port of Calais to a halt – unless we hand over £39 billion, even in the event of no deal – are frankly ridiculous. Everyone knows this would hurt French farmers and German car-makers more than us. Any sort of extra tariffs or slow-down in traffic would hit them twice as hard.
It seems these empty threats emanate from the Élysée Palace in Paris. Fortunately Xavier Bertrand, the forward-thinking boss of the Calais and Dunkirk region, takes the opposite view to President Macron. Mr Bertrand knows that the Port of Dover is an economic powerhouse – that benefits both the people of Calais and Kent. He wants to do the right thing, keep trade flowing and look after the people he serves. In stark contrast, President Macron and the EU want to bully us into accepting a bad deal. They think Britain’s greatest days are past and that we must be punished for daring to leave. Here at the Dover frontline, we know what it takes to face up to bullies. Now, as a nation, we need to show the EU how wrong they really are about the British people.
We need to believe in Britain and strike a deal that works for us. A deal that delivers on the historic vote of 2016 by taking back control of our laws, borders, money and trade. Detailed legal analysis shows we don’t owe the EU a penny. In fact, they owe us £10 billion! However, if they offer us an advanced trade deal that works for us, we should consider what a fair price might be. To strengthen our hand in the negotiations further, we need to turbocharge preparations to leave the EU on World Trade terms. The truth is that this work should have started the day after the 2016 referendum. I have long argued that we need to be ready on day one for every eventuality – deal or no deal.
There is still time to make a difference – if we make real investment at our borders now. We need to expand off-road motorway lorry parking facilities like at Stop 24 on the M20. The M2/A2 to Dover should be upgraded and fully dualled. And we should modernise our border systems and become a world leader in frictionless trade and security. Why is it so important to agree a deal with the EU that works for us? Because so many countries – like Australia, the US, China, India, Singapore and Japan – are waiting in the wings, ready to strike free trade deals with us. We cannot let this historic opportunity slip. That’s why we must show real political courage, refuse to be bullied – and take back control of our destiny. Only if we hold firm and believe in Britain can we truly become a free-trading, global nation once again. Our greatest days are not behind us – they are ahead of us.
Brian Dixon likes this
Guest 1571- Registered: 24 Aug 2015
- Posts: 71
Why are people trying to defend Elphicke.
He voted with the party line. Then we find out he has been accused of sexual misconduct. Accusations of misconduct were being used to blackmail MPs into voting with the party line.
even if that wasn't the case, charlie has voted time and again in ways that have hurt Dover and the people.
When the vote happened he was advocating remain, then he changed his tune and now brexit is the best thing ever.
He is a liar, he is intellectually dishonest and he is a man who has shown to lack integrity.
Guest 2060 likes this
youtube.com/chazwoldalmighty
Paul M- Registered: 1 Feb 2016
- Posts: 393
Perfect attributes for a politician then?
Guest 1033 likes this
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
che must have risen from the dead. lol
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,562
Shall I say it again lol
They should charge him or drop charges
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1571- Registered: 24 Aug 2015
- Posts: 71
Brian Dixon wrote:che must have risen from the dead. lol
Facts make you che now?
youtube.com/chazwoldalmighty
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#429 nope not me, was reffering to you
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,562
Anyway back on topic
Charge Charlie or drop the case
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
What case are you referring to, Keith? The police have already confirmed that they do not intend to press charges although they don't consider him exonerated. One can only assume that the complainant has withdrawn her complaint. Maybe she got her salary after all! Charlie's problems lie with his party's whips office. I don't understand why you keep trotting out the mantra "charge him or drop the case".
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I don't see why he can't be exonerated if the police have found him to be innocent.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,562
Ray
I think that's some of the problem it's all hear say
Whilst this goes on Charlie boy is left out of the party
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,656
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:I don't see why he can't be exonerated if the police have found him to be innocent.
There is a big difference between exoneration and not having enough evidence to bring charges that would stand up in a court of law.
Ross Miller likes this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
The police don't find people innocent. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Their role is to decide whether there is sufficient evidence (along with the CPS where necessary) to bring a case to court. In a case where there is a single complainant and a single accused party, if the complainant subsequently withdraws the allegation then the police are powerless to act regardless of whatever evidence they may have previously accrued. Their main witness has decided no longer to commit. Hence my challenging of the phrase "drop the case". Charlie's argument now appears to rest solely with his whips office.
The whole thing strikes me as a pretty sordid affair whatever your political leanings.
Guest 2982 and Keith Sansum1 like this
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,205
You should read up on that Ray, police can and do prosecute after withdrawal of a complaint. Once the complaint is made it is up to the police and cps as to whether to proceed or not the complainant.
Arte et Marte
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Yes. I understand that, Reg, and I agree. The problem is that when a case involves a complaint by one individual against another (one assumes in private circumstances) then the police are powerless to proceed if the principal witness is no longer prepared to give evidence. The CPS will react in the same way. How can an individual be taken to court if there is no-one to testify against them?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,562
It about time he was allowed back into the party if the above is correct
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Keith Sansum1 wrote:It about time he was allowed back into the party if the above is correct
Only if there is another Chief Whip Keith.