Will we ever get to the truth about Ashcroft's tax status

[frogstamper]

It looks like William Hague is breaking his silence over the Ashcroft tax status.

http://www.independent.co.uk/

---------- Post added at 00:37 ---------- Previous post was at 00:22 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

There have been cases of people being kicked out because they expressly didn't support the Labour Party.

How would anyone really be sure that they were getting the full support from the union. Has any non-Labour supporter made it anywhere within the union organisation?

They sponsor individual MPs(Labour of course). What do they expect in return for that support?

Believe it or not the before Maggie there were trade unions that backed individual Tory MP's.
Many years ago I used to belong to SLADE, no not the Noddy Holder one the "Society of Lithographers Artists Designers and Engravers" this was in the early eighties and each of the workforce choose whether or not to pay the political levy, which at that time was 5 pence a week, along with over half the workforce I choose not to pay the levy.
This had absolutely zero detrimental effect on myself or any of my colleagues concerning the union, one reason being nobody but the FOC knew who payed the levy but more importantly we don't live in a facist state where you can only get on if you support one particular party.
I'd be very interested to know where your facts are concerning people being kicked out of a union for not supporting the Labour party, I believe that to be absolute rubbish.
But hey post a link confirming it and I'll have to eat my words.

[Flyboy]

This is perhaps themost concerning aspect of this:

But Mr Hague said he had only found out in "the last few months" that the peer, who has donated millions to the Tories, had later renegotiated the deal with government officials.

Which means he lied on the Andrew Marr show, when he was asked the question, just over three weeks ago.

[nomadking]

The union maintained it has a right to choose whether to admit an individual.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the union was correct and that the government position violated Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which is concerned with freedom of association.

The government has been ordered to pay the union e53,900 (£36,800) in legal costs and expenses.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

This is perhaps themost concerning aspect of this:

Which means he lied on the Andrew Marr show, when he was asked the question, just over three weeks ago.

A politician, lying? Now that's a first.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I don't suppose you could put that into context, as it pertains the subject at hand.

[Lord Nikon]

Quite frankly I think the best possible outcome for the UK is to clean house completely, get rid of every politician and start again, Conservative messed the country up, Labour kept it headed downhill, repeat ad nauseum.

As Einstein said, Democracy is the worst form of government known, apart from everything else that has been tried.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I don't suppose you could put that into context, as it pertains the subject at hand.

I do like you question technique, You could put that to good use in some 3rd world countries

[nomadking]

The union maintained it has a right to choose whether to admit an individual.

They were looking to kick out someone who was not a Labour Party supporter. The European Court of Human Rights said that they could, as they had the right to choose their own admission criteria.

[Jimmy-J]

From the Guardian..

Fresh concerns about Lord Ashcroft emerged tonight when he was accused of "systematic tax avoidance" by exploiting his offshore status to avoid paying VAT on opinion polls he commissioned for the Conservatives.

Ashcroft privately ordered what he boasted was the biggest political polling exercise ever conducted in Britain in 2005, in order to aid the Tories as they targeted marginal seats. The cost of the polls, commissioned from YouGov and Populus, is believed to have approached at least £250,000.

But sources familiar with the transactions told the Guardian that the bills were paid by one his companies in Belize, meaning he did not pay VAT.

Tonight, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, said: "This is quite serious. We are now not talking just about Ashcroft's non-dom status, but about systematic tax avoidance in funding Conservative party activities such as polling. How far were the Conservatives aware that Ashcroft did not pay VAT, as would have been incurred by any normal polling activity?"

Link

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by nomadking

They were looking to kick out someone who was not a Labour Party supporter. The European Court of Human Rights said that they could, as they had the right to choose their own admission criteria.

Thanks for the link nomad, but can you post what union this was, and the circumstances the member was expelled.
I still cannot believe any trade union would make being a Labour party supporter a condition of admission, if it was a union affiliated in some way to the Labour party then that would be understandable.
Either way a link to the claim would be appreciated, one which tells the entire tale.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Thanks for the link nomad, but can you post what union this was, and the circumstances the member was expelled.
I still cannot believe any trade union would make being a Labour party supporter a condition of admission, if it was a union affiliated in some way to the Labour party then that would be understandable.
Either way a link to the claim would be appreciated, one which tells the entire tale.

The union maintained it has a right to choose whether to admit an individual.

Sticking that quote into Google and doing a bit of poking around suggests it relates to ASLEF wanting to kick out a member who stood for the BNP in local elections.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

They were looking to kick out someone who was not a Labour Party supporter. The European Court of Human Rights said that they could, as they had the right to choose their own admission criteria.

But what has it got to do with this thread?

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

I do like you question technique, You could put that to good use in some 3rd world countries

What in Earth are you on about?

---------- Post added at 18:14 ---------- Previous post was at 18:13 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Sticking that quote into Google and doing a bit of poking around suggests it relates to ASLEF wanting to kick out a member who stood for the BNP in local elections.

So...nothing at all to do with this thread then.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by danielf

Sticking that quote into Google and doing a bit of poking around suggests it relates to ASLEF wanting to kick out a member who stood for the BNP in local elections.

Thanks for that daniel, in other words then it was yet another bias post without any foundation to the claim whatsoever...why am I not surprised?

[Maggy J]

Yes I think it might be a good idea to remind everyone that there is a topic and we should be sticking to it.

[nomadking]

The issue was raised about Union donations and what could happen if a member didn't pay the political levy. The court ruling says that the Union could kick someone out if they didn't pay it.