It had to happen didn't it, the SNP have been strutting around for months accusing everyone and anyone of financial impropriety when a smell starts to emerge from their own wee But n Ben. A sum of almost £6,000 has just been declared by them as a gift from someone.
The problem is that it was donated several years ago and they didn't declare it, the reason for not declaring it ? someone ? yes someone forgot about it they forgot to declare almost £6,000 as Alex (the spiv) would say 'would you Adam n Eve it John ? " will Alex (FFM) accept as he urges others to that as leader he is responsible and the buck stops with him.
Can anyone think of a reason why the SNP should choose this time to declare it, what could have prompted them I wonder.
Look at it another way will he (the spiv) for once in his life do something right and tell the truth or will he 'trump' (I know, I make myself laugh sometimes) his last piece of chicanery and 'brass neck' this one to ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
SNP find £6000 under bed??
Peanuts son, peanuts - Cllr William's expense claims allegedly come to more than that.
But still, a Happy and Barlinnie free Christmas to you and yours Coouncillor
(Anonymous) 24/12/07-Do you talk like this all the time or only when you are in hiding ?
'See you bravehearts'
'Bravehearts??'
Terry, declare an anmesty on all those you've barred during the year and I guarantee the number of anonymous comments will go down by at least one.
(Anonymous) 13:09 - There are two reasons for being barred and you know them. One is quite simple, that is if your language is unprintable like the S.A. storm trooper ‘Henry Crun’
The other is if you have sent lies about me, and even then you are given a chance to withdraw them.
I have kept everything sent to me so, if you want to be printed it’s in your hands.
One exception was a worrying character called ‘clairwil’ who insisted in trying to use and exploit the mentally handicapped in her arguments.
I can put up with being called undemocratic or anything else by her.
Terry:
Clairwil never said anything like that and you should stop saying that she did- it is not very nice to smear anyone like that.
(Rumbold) 10:31 - clairwil did exactly that, she was completely out of order and I tried several times to get her to desist.
I would rather have her smearing me than have anything to do with people like that.
She showed herself to be completely without any scruples and I’m told she continues in the same way.
Terry:
"Clairwil did exactly that, she was completely out of order and I tried several times to get her to desist."
No she did not. I suspect that we will have to agree to differ about our recollections.
"She showed herself to be completely without any scruples and I’m told she continues in the same way."
I read much of what Clairwil writes and that comment is completly unfounded. Who claimed that she acts like that?
Councillor
Why no replies/comments posted on 'Give Harry Margolis the Money'?
Oh Terry, Terry, you are awful.....but I can't stand you.
For those who are uninitiated, clairwil joins a long list of contributors who share a common bond-they have some experience or expertise in the subjects which they choose to debate with oor Tel. For example, at least two black South Africans as well as one white, several rugby players, clairwil who herself has suffered mental illness, and so on. Another common thread is that their pictures of the given situation vary widely from the Morning Star fed imagination of our erstwhile cooncillor. All of them, having voiced opinions contradicting the bold Terry, found themselves rubbished, contradicted, accused of plotting against the King, and finally in some cases, banned. Terry will not publish the posts with which he accuses people like Henry Crun of polluting the ineternet . This isn't because he fears offending our delicate sensibilities, but rather because the alleged posts don't exist. A visit to Terrywatch will confrim that. There you will find copies of some of the posts he refuse to print. It's OK, you can allow your granny to read them. He also uses the not too clever trick of avoiding difficult questions by getting excited about those of us who choose anonymity. I have a suspicion that's why he gets a little too upset by me. Unable to use anonymity as an excuse to ignore me, he chooses two methods. Firstly, he straight out ignores the question by firing back with another. Secondly, and this may or may not highlight his downright stupisity, he concocts convoluted conspiracy theories. For example, his warped mind created a scenario whereby RFS and I, meeting in smoke filled rooms, conspired to use my wife's recent illness as some sort of bizarre toll to garner sympathy for my point of view. Weird eh?
Terry, you're a fraud. You're a liar and a cheat. Sue me.
Oh and you'll find a copy of this on Terrywatch too.
(Jim Lewis) 27/12/07 - Whether clairwil or any of the rest of you are experts in anything is highly subjective.
From memory there are several people who have been excluded, two for lying, RFS and Byeck, the fact that I have printed everything they have written to me until they did that suggests that you are in no better shape than you were when you quit the last time. Another is I think ’shotgun’ for his sick remarks about the McCann girl and the fourth is ’Henry Crun’ who simply can’t be printed because of his language.
“I have a suspicion that's why he gets a little too upset by me“. I do but that’s because you are a fellow mortal and I don’t like to see anyone no matter how crass disintegrating the way you are likely to, again, just re-read this drivel.
“conspired to use my wife's recent illness as some sort of bizarre toll to garner sympathy for my point of view. Weird eh?” are you asking us if it’s weird or telling us ? You go back to it because it was so tactless and manipulative and you got caught didn’t you, you should have asked her permission shouldn’t you.
If ‘Terrywatch’ was not there I would have to invent it says more about those who read and contribute to it than I ever could, keep it up it suits you all.
I didn't know Jim Lewis was really your name, how about letting me know where you live and work I'd love to include you more in my blog you are a good example of what I disagree with.
(Rumbold) 27/12/07 -
I don’t read what she writes but some people have said to me ‘what did you ever do to that woman‘. Her remarks about me in Terrywatch are apparently illuminating, try it and see.
Her own blog at the time of our argument show her also in a certain light, try that too.
I don’t know if she includes me still in her blog but you would know. I’m better off letting her rail against me than go near her.
(Anonymous) 27/12/07 - Why didn’t you comment ?
I know it sounds rather conceited but I can only conclude that it is so well written, so sharp and humorous that the usual rabble who send me their scribbles are afraid to criticise it.
"I didn't know Jim Lewis was really your name, how about letting me know where you live and work I'd love to include you more in my blog you are a good example of what I disagree with."
You thought I invented the name? You're sicker than I thought. As for where I work, what passes between you and me stays that way. I don't think my employer would necessarily wish to be associated with the kind of nincompoopery issued here on a daily basis. Where I live? You have to be kidding. The last time I expressed a desire to have a personal chat with you, you were apoplectic with rage, claiming my language was threatening. Act your age Terry, not my nephew's shoe size.
Oh by the way, your refusal to deal with the issues I raised bears me out. Ta.
Jim Lewis - I saw nothing new in the drivel you wrote so you'll have to be more specific about that 'issus'
(Jim Lewis) 28/12/07 - You once again are either incompetent or a liar.
You expressed a desire to have a personal chat with me in a pathetic attempt to act tough.
My reaction then and now is simple, unlike you I am easy to find.
Terry:
"I don’t read what she writes but some people have said to me ‘what did you ever do to that woman‘. Her remarks about me in Terrywatch are apparently illuminating, try it and see."
There is a difference between criticising/mocking you and abusing the mentally ill. The latter is what you are accusing Clairwil of, which is just plain wrong. I shall make these my last remarks, as we not getting anywhere, but you at least link to these alleged remarks, or withdraw your comments. It is not fair.
(Rumbold) 29/12/07 - “There is a difference between criticising/mocking you and abusing the mentally ill. The latter is what you are accusing Clairwil of,”
You really have got this badly wrong. She did not abuse the mentally ill, she cynically used them and accused me of doing just that.
She used her own apparent mental health problems as emotional blackmail with me in a disgraceful way.
If for instance I described RFS as a nutter she accused me of demeaning the mentally ill, that was the level she was arguing at, if I say “Rumbold you need your head examined” that would result in another accusation that I was abusing the mentally ill. I really don’t want anything to do with the likes of her, I found her to be beneath contempt.
Terry:
"You really have got this badly wrong. She did not abuse the mentally ill, she cynically used them and accused me of doing just that.
She used her own apparent mental health problems as emotional blackmail with me in a disgraceful way.
If for instance I described RFS as a nutter she accused me of demeaning the mentally ill, that was the level she was arguing at, if I say “Rumbold you need your head examined” that would result in another accusation that I was abusing the mentally ill. I really don’t want anything to do with the likes of her, I found her to be beneath contempt."
All I want is links to these alleged comments, otherwise I cannot understand on what basis you are making your complaints.
(Rumbold) 14:06 - I wouldn’t know where to start with ‘links’ this was a couple of years ago. Try asking her - did you check her comments about me on ‘terry watch’ and her blog ?
This is shocking! A seance must be convened as soon as possible so we know what influence this woman bought in the afterlife.
Terry:
I took your advice and found the offending comments, from the following thread:
http://councillorterrykelly.blogspot.com/2007/01/patriots-scoundrels.html#c1771870609754154672
TERRY: “clairwil - are you honestly saying that you use that kind of language when you are involved in an exchange of views with someone ? are you writing from some kind of secure unit somewhere?”
CLAIRWIL: “Writing from a secure unit? Not yet, though it's interesting to note that you feel that you can dismiss anyone you consider mentally ill. Can I take it that you're less than enthusiastic about the executive's campaign to challenge the stigma surrounding mental health?”
TERRY: “clairwil - I am one of the few cllrs. prepared to welcome a new unit for adult mental health sufferers in my area despite local posionous opposition stirred up by the SNP, speak to Stephen McLelland of Renfrewshire Association for mental Health if you want to know my record, your synthetic rage over this is pathetic.”
CLAIRWIL: “What a shame your persistent use of mentally ill as an insult undermines your laudable position.”
CLAIRWIL: “What exactly is it that you are accusing me of lying about?
If you are accusing of of lying about have suffered mental illness, then say so?
My friends, family, GP and CPN will all be happy to put you straight on that one.
You accused me of writing from a secure unit and have previously implied that other people who disagree with you are mentally ill. I think it reasonable to question that.
Do you think that everyone who opposes you is mentally ill?
Do you think that those that have suffered from mental illness have no right to an opinion?
If not why query the mental state of those you disagree with?
If I were at all concerned about being challenged I simply wouldn't respond to you. Better bloggers than I have given up. For an elected official you are forced to resort to personal attack very quickly- something which you criticise me for. Is that because you have no clear achievements or policy to point to?
I note I have had a comment go missing. So I shall save this just in case. As I'm sure you understand attempting a discussion with someone who uses one's comments selectively is a bit tricky or is that the point?”
TERRY: “clairwil - I'll take your points in order -
1/ you have chosen to accuse me of implying that those who disagree with me are mentally ill that is dishonest and cheap, whatever else you are it's quite clear that you are intelligent enough to know that that, is underhand and silly.
2/ I had no idea whatever that you have suffered as you say and you have my sympathy, this personal issue has only just surfaced, introduced by you, it's none of my business.
3/ accepted.
4/ " you are so angry and your language is such that you sound as if you are writing from a secure unit" I also called someone an 'eejit' ( idiot ) and probably someone else a 'half wit' it's not as you say reasonable to question that in the disingenuos way you have, unless you're position in the argument is absolutely desperate.
5/ I'll assume you are serious here and answer NO.
6/ see 5/ above.
7/ as I said ' absolute desperation'
8/ how would you respond to an article such as the one you wrote about me ? I'm saying here, who started this ? I assume you mean Labour's achievements and policies rather than mine, that would be like hitting my head off a brick wall.
9/ I've no idea about this I havent deleted anything of yours despite your abusive language, are you just joining in with others who have accused me of this ? You are clearly getting upset by all of this, that was never my intention and I regret drifting in to this situation, think it has gone far enough. I still hope that the rage that you feel will some day be channelled through the Labour Party where you would have a much better chance of changing things for the better."
(Back to the present day)- It strikes me that you made a remark that Clairwil found offensive, and you refused to apologise for it. Why not just bury the hatchet and be done with it?
(Rumbold) 17:35 -
Her language was appalling, do some more checking, check the hate site and her own.
Do you believe that I actually thought she was in a ‘secure unit’ ? does she ?
I am accused of being less than enthusiastic about changing the stigma attached to mental health.
I persistently use mentally ill as an insult.
I accuse those who disagree with me of being mentally ill.
She asks if I think that everyone who opposes me is mentally ill.
She asks if I think that people who have had a mental illness should have no right to an opinion.
She asks why I question the mental state of those who disagree with me.
And lastly the old favourite, her comments have gone missing.
This is only a sample of her behaviour, I can do without dealing with people like her, do some more digging.
Clairwil is a convicted murderer.
I can tell you a tale or two about Clairwil. She's the houseguest from hell. If it isn't nailed down she'll half inch it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She'll drink your house dry!!!!!!!!
Eat all your cheese!!!!!
Alienate the affections of your cat!!!!
Key your car!!!!
Hold an orgy ben the lobby press!!!!
Make an admirals hat out of a stray Daily Record!!!!
Truly she is Shytan!!!!!!
(Robert Fleming) 01/01/08
- Perhaps I’ve misjudged her, anyone who finds something useful in the Daily Record is clearly resourceful - are you happy though to let people know that you buy the Daily Record ?
(Anna Smirnova) 01/01/08 -
do you mean she murders standards and morals ? Truth and decency perhaps ?
Clairwil shot a man in Ralston just to watch him die!
Clairwil scrumps apples!
I dont think RFS ever lied about you terry, was he not the one you called a danger to children for his political views?
Terry:
I don't know what to say. I found the original quotes, and now you want me to look for others. Perhaps if you let Clairwil come and respond, some more light may be shed on the situation.
(Anonymous) 02/01/08 - He did lie about me -
“was he not the one you called a danger to children for his political views? “
I said in response to his statement that he worked with young children that that, must have been before the disclosure system came in.
I stand by that based on his comments to me, the content of his own blog and the people he links to.
I’ve kept it all and he would not be considered suitable for this kind of work because of this.
His political views, repugnant as they are have nothing to do with it.
(Rumbold) 12:36 -
Those quotes alone are enough but you don’t seem to have read her other contributions to her own blog and to ‘terrywatch’
I don’t understand why this matters to you but, I consider her to be beyond the pale and I want nothing to do with her.
Terry:
It matters to em because it is not nice to smear people like that. Both Clairwil and I write for Pickled Politics and she has always come across as a pleasant individual.
If you wnat nothing more to do with her, then don't bring up her name again. Then you will not get people arguing with you about her conduct.
(Rumbold) 13:58 -
I did not smear her she done all the damage herself. I refer you again to her own site and ‘terry watch’ is that your idea of a pleasant individual ?
I mentioned her name to explain to someone why certain people were not welcome on my blog, I would be delighted if I never heard her name again
Terry:
Clairwil's latest posts on her own blog and Terrywatch are about ..er.. you bringing up the past.
Clairwil is not guilty, and that really is my final word on this subject on this thread.
(Rumbold) 02/01/08 -
I had a feeling it would come to this - you are being disingenuous - read what she has said in the past not what she is saying now.
I don’t agree with you on many things but had I been asked I would have said that you would have had nothing to do with someone like that.
Only an imbecile or someone being deliberately obtuse would fail to differentiate between a 6 year old bequest and the solicitation of £950 'campaign donations', deliberately kept below the declaration threshold in order to hide the sources.
Never mind the impropriety of the dealings between Labour and the millionaire property developer, the election campaign wasn't even fought!
(The Incorrigible Plagiarist) 09:03 -
Only an imbecile or someone being deliberately obtuse would fail to see that the SNP suddenly declared this money because they realised that it made their hounding of Wendy weaker.
They were aware of it and took cold feet, they were lying about it.
“the election campaign wasn't even fought!”
OK obtuse imbecile, explain the relevance of that.
Terry
Let me try to explain Incorrigible's point (with apologies to him)
Wendy was UNOPPOSED, so there was no-one for her to fight with.
Therefore, she ended up with lots of lovely £950 donations, made to a cause that never was.
Now, as her agent at the time, you are in a position to tell us two things:
Were donations purposely solicited at below the £1000 declaration limit?
And, if there was no contest, what was all that money spent on?
(Rabbie) 09/01/08 -
I have to conclude that you are new to politics but I’ll try again.
Jack resigns, Wendy announces her intention to stand, forms her team and begins to fund raise and goes on the stump all over the country drumming up support from party members.
Some time after this I can’t be bothered how long it was but, the closing date for nominations passes and no one else has entered, she wins and has been spending money on her campaign which she didn’t need to do.
Now this is where it might get difficult for you, Wendy, immensely talented and intelligent as she is, is not a mind reader. If only all the Labour MSP’s had announced on Jack’s resignation that they were not standing, then she would not have had to --- need I go on ? Please try hard I’m getting bored with this.
“ Now, as her agent at the time, you are in a position to tell us two things:”
Just how stupid are you ? I was not her agent at the time, is there any other way I can try saying this to help you understand, candidates for internal party positions don’t have election agents. You really don’t understand how politics works do you ?
(Cllr Kelly 7.03)
'You dont understand politics do you?'
Oh, I dont know Councillor - I would have thought that a long career as night soil man in a mining village makes me well qualified to take on Scottish Labour. Or Maybe even become a Renfrew Councillor.
Wendy sacked you, didn't she?
Only an imbecile or someone being deliberately obtuse would fail to see that the SNP suddenly declared this money because they realised that it made their hounding of Wendy weaker.
Typically ill-informed rubbish from you Terry. The SNP Hamilton branch were alerted to the issue by the Scotland on Sunday newspaper. They then immediately contacted the Electoral commission.
The branch claimed that it had sent the required declarations some 3 years ago, but the commission stated that they had not heard about it until the newspaper contacted them.
The gift was a legacy received in the estate of a deceased supporter of the party. Unless you are aware of Alex Salmond's incredible grip on the party stretching to the afterlife, it is inconceivable that such a gift could be construed as inappropriate. Unlike, say, the solicitation of illegal donations (Wendy admitted exactly this), deliberately kept below the threshold for declaration, from a millionaire property developer, who had recently made huge profits from a development within Glasgow, and yet lives in tax-exile in the channel islands (Wendy sent the thankyou note to there).
Some of your mud-slinging might actually stick if you'd get a story straight once in a while.
(Rabbie) 10/01/08
Are you the one who was known as “Rabbie the Scab” or was it “Rabbie the Blackleg” ?
(The Incorrigible Plagiarist) 16:09 -
There is only one part of this nonsense that is worthy of comment.
“it is inconceivable that such a gift could be construed as inappropriate.” I did not say that the gift was inappropriate. Withholding it from the electoral commission is inappropriate though.
As is the indecent haste to declare it when they were rumbled because they were hounding Wendy at the time. ‘Oh would some power eh’ !
(Cllr Kelly 7.03)
I suppose I could be Rabbie the Scab or Rabbie the Blackleg because, you see, I'm one of those who took women and screaming children to safety when Scargill's peaceful pickets rampaged through Sheffield Asda on a looting expedition.
And I'm one of those who comforted the people who lived in Orgreave when bonnie lads from the NE coalfield used their gardens as toilets.
So, yes Councillor, you seem to have me pegged correctly.
(Rabbie) 11/01/08
Oh you’re a scab alright but you never helped any women in Sheffield or comforted anyone in Orgreave scabs don’t do things like that.
A Scab is the very lowest form of life anytime you were near anyone in distress you would have been using that distress to pick their pockets.
Happy 70th. Birthday to Arthur Scargill.
(Cllr Kelly 6.54)
Tell me, Red Leader One, will you also deny that 'peaceful' pickets ransacked Handsworth Asda in Sheffield or that NE miners relieved themselves in the local gardens?
Be difficult to prove you wrong, but I was there and saw it.
And finally, Scargill, helped by that idiot Skinner, wrecked the mining industry, not Thatcher.
(Rabbie) 12/01/08 -
So it’s ‘rabbie the scab’ right, I don’t take the word of scabs about anything.
“And finally, Scargill, helped by that idiot Skinner, wrecked the mining industry, not Thatcher“.
I think that you’ll find that the consensus of opinion even among scabs today is that old ’King Arthur’ was right all along.
A true socialist and a great union leader, they still haven’t found all the millions he had hidden according to the right wing Thatcherite press have they ? Maybe he keeps it under the seat of his Rolls Royce or has it hidden in his Barbados hideaway.
There is only one part of this nonsense that is worthy of comment.
All of this 'nonsense' can easily be corroborated. Sorry that it doesn't fit with your warped agenda to throw the mud that Labour are mired in, at everyone and anyone.
(The Incorrigible Plagiarist) 13:46 -
I didn’t hide the SNP money did I ?
I didn’t hold a secret meeting with Trump did I? I didn’t spend £10,000 on taxis at my party’s expense did I ?
I didn’t hide the SNP money did I ?
Clearly the money was not hidden. The fact that a discrepancy between the branch accounts and the declarations received by the Electoral commission was uncovered by a newspaper using publicly available documents is proof enough of that.
The verifiable (& verified) source of the donation would be enough for any reasonable man to to accept that there was nothing untoward in the donation and that it was not given to seek any advantage (given that the SNP are not the party if you're after a peerage (See Tony Bliar)).
You are trying to compare a discrepancy in paperwork (which any audit would have found) with the systemic abuses in the Labour party soliciting illegal donations from inappropriate sources and the felony of trying to hide the source. See Peter Hain, See Wendy Alexander...
Sadly for Wendy, her crime was only uncovered by a leak from within her own team.
I didn’t hold a secret meeting with Trump did I?
What are you talking about?
I didn’t spend £10,000 on taxis at my party’s expense did I ?
I'm not sure what you're talking about here either, but if the SNP had £10000 to spend on taxis that wasn't illegally solicted, unlike say, the Wendy Alexander leadership fund, then why should you care how the SNP spend their funds?
(The Incorrigible Plagiarist) 09:37 -
Is it really necessary to write at such length, overkill to hide lies. You believe the Nats. and I don’t.
They hid the money and were forced in to the open.
Salmond (the spiv)broke the rules by meeting the billionaire Trump.
Salmond (the spiv) spent £10,000 in a year of party money on taxis, ( he said)
A guy called Blackwood challenged him and stood against him and has not been seen since.
They hid the money and were forced in to the open.
Can you explain why they would have hidden the money?
I'm at a loss. I fully understand why Wendy would have tried to cover up the source of the illegal donations to her leadership campaign. I just don't see what the SNP or the deceased would have had to gain from 'hiding' the donation.
Salmond (the spiv)broke the rules by meeting the billionaire Trump.
Constituent MSP meets parties looking to make major investment in constituency - Shock horror!
What is a spiv?
Salmond (the spiv) spent £10,000 in a year of party money on taxis, ( he said)
£10000 of party funds?
I don't see the relevance of this to anything.
A guy called Blackwood challenged him and stood against him and has not been seen since.
Are you trying to infer that something sinister has happened?
Do you know anything about the 'guy called Blackwood' ?
Publish Reject (The Incorrigible Plagiarist) 17/01/08 “Can you explain why they would have hidden the money“ ?
I know they didn’t declare it, how would I know why the SNP do things I’m not a Doctor.
“Constituent MSP meets parties looking to make major investment in constituency - Shock horror“!
This simply means that you believe him, more fool you.
“What is a spiv“ ? - ‘Del Boy Trotter’ is a spiv.
Some years ago a guy called Blackwood who was something to do with the SNP finances ran against Alex (the spiv)for office it might have been for leader.
There were arguments about how SNP party money was being dealt with, it came to light that Alex (the spiv) had claimed £10,000 in taxi fares in one year.
“Are you trying to infer that something sinister has happened“ ?
What do you mean by “something sinister” do you know something we don’t ? do you suspect something sinister has happened ? I know the SNP can be a quite scary bunch but, just what are you getting at here ? Do you think I should take care ? Perhaps you should consider the implications of saying things like that, you never know do you ?
Post a Comment