Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Media very quiet aren't they.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 15
|
By:
No one interested in her dodgy dealings helped along by a cokehead cabinet minister?
|
|
By:
Almost as if there was some legal threat attached
to reporting on the raids on her property to Look at covid contracts she said had nothing to do with her. |
|
By:
Always get her and the sinn fein wench mixed up. Both called Michelle doesn't help.
|
|
By:
I must have missed the trial.
Did she get fined? |
|
By:
No, not fined, She was sentenced to eat caviar and drink champagne twice a week.
|
|
By:
A tad harsh surely. Poor woman.
|
|
By:
she also pimped crypto currency
|
|
By:
More sleaze
They are stealing our money! |
|
By:
What was her sentence xmoney?
|
|
By:
Be that as it may, the Lords standards commissioners launched an investigation into her ‘alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro leading to potential breaches’ of three provisions of the Lords code of conduct, which requires peers to publicly register ‘all relevant interests’ and prohibits them from lobbying for a company or person in which they have ‘a financial interest’. She denies breaking the code.
Then, two months ago, the message that Baroness Mone had sent to Lord Agnew was made public. It appeared to show that her prior version of events was more or less entirely untrue. This ‘smoking gun’ email had been sent on May 8, 2020, to Lord Agnew’s private account, cc-ing Michael Gove. It read: ‘I hope this email finds you well, Michael Hove [sic] has asked to urgently contact you. We have managed to source PPE masks though [sic] my team in Hong Kong. They have managed to secure 100,000pcs per day of KN95 [face masks] which is equivalent to N95 or FFP2. ‘In order to commit to this 100,000pcs per day could you please get back to me asap as freight will also need to be secured. Hope to see you in the House of Lords when we get out of lockdown. Kindest Regards, Michelle.’ So, Baroness Mone was describing a firm she claimed to have nothing to do with as ‘my team’. And discussing, in technical detail, a product sold by a business she had denied having any links to. Asked to explain, she issued yet another statement via lawyers saying there was ‘nothing new’ or ‘sinister’ in the new emails. The statement accused the Guardian of having a ‘deliberate and vexatious interpretation of them, characterising them in a wholly negative manner’. |
|
By:
Poor woman?
Are you serious bula? Looks like she is corrupt and a liar to boot! I sincerely hope we get all the tax payer money back don't you? |
|
By:
I'll wait on the outcome of her court case before condemning her.
It appeared to show kind of casts doubt on the rest of the comments. |
|
By:
The facts are quiet clear bula
She lied! She also broke the rules on standards for the House of Lords. But you are quite right if she is to be prosecuted for fraud or theft then she should get a fair trial and be regarded as innocent until proved guilty. She has already though been proved to be a LIAR! |
|
By:
It appeared to show that her prior version of events was more or less entirely untrue.
Why does the report say appeared to show if it is certain that she lied. Can you explain that please. |
|
By:
yeah I could
you can find it reported accurately in a newspaper. Fact not fiction. |