Jump to content

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)


blandy

Recommended Posts

It's almost certainly a violation of the Solicitors Regulation Authority code of conduct, but I don't know if that's taken anymore seriously than other industries' attempts to regulate themselves.

Edited by Davkaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It's almost certainly a violation of the Solicitors Regulation Authority code of conduct, but I don't know if that's taken anymore seriously than other industries' attempts to regulate themselves.

SRA takes itself very seriously and does a lot to bring those foul of the Code of Conduct to be sanctioned/struck off by Tribunal etc. 

Not sure this would technically breach the Code though. Firstly he has been approached, not formally instructed to act so has no duty to Hancock as he is not his client per se ("asked to act"). Therefore he wouldn't have been lying if asked directly about that. Could be arguable that bringing the profession into disrepute but that will be subjective and the extent of it and if he didn't outright lie then may struggle. 

Could definitely be construed as unethical though that he had sought to not included that information, especially when he has been asked to appear on "TV" to defend Hancock. I mean it would not allow the "audience" the opportunity to reflect on any potential bias he may have. 

So yeah, illegal? Probably not. Unethical? probably. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

SRA takes itself very seriously and does a lot to bring those foul of the Code of Conduct to be sanctioned/struck off by Tribunal etc. 

Not sure this would technically breach the Code though. Firstly he has been approached, not formally instructed to act so has no duty to Hancock as he is not his client per se ("asked to act"). Therefore he wouldn't have been lying if asked directly about that. Could be arguable that bringing the profession into disrepute but that will be subjective and the extent of it and if he didn't outright lie then may struggle. 

 

I'd argue his intent to publicly speak about his client while deliberately concealing his vested interested might fall foul of "You do not mislead or attempt to mislead your clients, the court or others, either by your own acts or omissions"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, choffer said:

Slightly surprised that VT isn’t discussing this. Guess this kind of thing has become unremarkable these days :mellow:

 

 

Say what you want about the Stanley "busy hands" Johnson, but at least he's (probably) not a Russian spy, which is more than you can say about some of Johnson's other appointees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'd argue his intent to publicly speak about his client while deliberately concealing his vested interested might fall foul of "You do not mislead or attempt to mislead your clients, the court or others, either by your own acts or omissions"

But he's not his client; certainly not at the moment so he is currently a lawyer speaking about a current issue. There's no duty to disclose who may have approached you to represent them. Indeed it may be arguable to say he should have kept it quiet given it is making enquiries. 

To be honest, because of his own ineptitude he was found out anyway and if Hancock still instructs him after this then it shows the quality of the case. Its like Trump/Alex Jones hiring the absolute worse lawyers because literally no one else would take the job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful Monarchy you lot have.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/ex-uk-leader-boris-johnson-nominates-father-knighthood-report-2023-03-06/

" Former British prime minister Boris Johnson has nominated his father Stanley for a knighthood in the list of honours he can grant as an outgoing leader, the Times newspaper reported on Monday, drawing accusations of cronyism."

 

"As prime minister, Johnson in 2020 elevated his brother Jo Johnson to the House of Lords, the upper chamber of parliament, where he has a seat for life."

Please read topics before you post - It's becomng quite common for people to post stories that have already been posted (like this story 9 whole posts previously)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, villakram said:

Wonderful Monarchy you lot have.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/ex-uk-leader-boris-johnson-nominates-father-knighthood-report-2023-03-06/

" Former British prime minister Boris Johnson has nominated his father Stanley for a knighthood in the list of honours he can grant as an outgoing leader, the Times newspaper reported on Monday, drawing accusations of cronyism."

 

"As prime minister, Johnson in 2020 elevated his brother Jo Johnson to the House of Lords, the upper chamber of parliament, where he has a seat for life."

Guns n Trump n touch the screen send $10.

Sit down shut up.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, villakram said:

I thought you'd be happy now that the long serving Prince of Wales is King?

Ha! I think you’ll have a tough old time on VT getting a rise out of anyone to defend any royal.

Meghan seems genuine enough but the rest of em are well ropey.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunaks podium for this evenings press conference. Some will sadly lap it up and it is certainly where the Tories want the focus to be, even though they have created many of the immigration issues, they would rather people focus on that than the multitude of other things they have decimated/destroyed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graham Brady is the latest Tory MP to decide he doesn't want to lose his seat at the next General Election.

All the Tory leadership elections to come in the next few years will feel like they have a piece of the furniture missing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Sunaks podium for this evenings press conference. Some will sadly lap it up and it is certainly where the Tories want the focus to be, even though they have created many of the immigration issues, they would rather people focus on that than the multitude of other things they have decimated/destroyed.

 

Slogan taken directly from Tony Abbots successful 2013 election campaign in Australia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â