Interesting (?) Political stuff...

[nead1]

The myth of democracy.

They are trying to ban anything that isn't the neoliberal right all over Europe.....Doing whatever hit jobs they can....If you are populist they will seek to subvert democracy via their ideological control of the courts. They stopped the populist left in Corbyn by over inflating his anti semitism and various hit jobs but they are even more scared of the populist right.

But what's your view on channelling E3bn from EU funds into the RN? Is it against the law or not?
Maybe you could argue the punishment doesn't fit the crime but that view will be tested again in the French courts again when she lodges her appeal - a process quite separate from any Government influence as far I am aware.

 

[Stirlingsays]

But what's your view on channelling E3bn from EU funds into the RN? Is it against the law or not?
Maybe you could argue the punishment doesn't fit the crime but that view will be tested again in the French courts again when she lodges her appeal - a process quite separate from any Government influence as far I am aware.

I've answered this so why are you asking me?

Yes, it's against the law.

In theory I have no issue with this....though not the banning from elections, that is quite incredible and has long reaching consequences.

The point is that they all did this in the EU parliament and are still doing it and it's ignored. The only reason this has been looked into regarding Le Penn is because this is a political persecution and a huge double standard.

I've also answered this self delusional idea that the courts aren't politically biased.....I'm sorry but that's a fiction from a past long gone.

 

[cryrst]

The 'Met' are having to cut 1,700 jobs due to a £260m 'black hole' including Police in Schools . . .

Met Police to lose 1,700 officers and staff in £260m shortfall

Dedicated police officers in schools and the Royal Parks Police team are among those facing the axe.

www.bbc.co.uk

Maybe start charging mayor khant for allowing terrorist marches which cost millions to police !

 

[nead1]

I've answered this so why are you asking me?

Yes, it's against the law.

In theory I have no issue with this....though not the banning from elections, that is quite incredible and has long reaching consequences.

The point is that they all did this in the EU parliament and are still doing it and it's ignored. The only reason this has been looked into regarding Le Penn is because this is a political persecution and a huge double standard.

I've also answered this self delusional idea that the courts aren't politically biased.....I'm sorry but that's a fiction from a past long gone.

I might be wrong, but my understanding was the amount involved was far more significant than other cases that might have some similarities; where we depart is that this is some kind of political persecution - if she has broken the law, she should face the consequences of her actions subject to the appeal she will lodge. In many ways, exactly the same as Trump should have done for the events of Jan 6th. You may like/agree with their views on a range of matters but surely they shouldn't be above the law?
As an aside, I don't follow every single post you put up any more than you do mine. If you feel you have addressed the points before, feel free to not respond.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I might be wrong, but my understanding was the amount involved was far more significant than other cases that might have some similarities; where we depart is that this is some kind of political persecution - if she has broken the law, she should face the consequences of her actions subject to the appeal she will lodge. In many ways, exactly the same as Trump should have done for the events of Jan 6th. You may like/agree with their views on a range of matters but surely they shouldn't be above the law?
As an aside, I don't follow every single post you put up any more than you do mine. If you feel you have addressed the points before, feel free to not respond.

Really? That's interesting.

And what gives you this understanding?

Also you just seem to ignore the fact that while she broke the law that's no different to most of the EU parliament when it comes to this funding. This is a selective political prosecution. That's my whole point and you just gloss over it.

 

[nead1]

Really? That's interesting.

And what gives you this understanding?

Also you just seem to ignore the fact that while she broke the law that's no different to most of the EU parliament when it comes to this funding. This is a selective political prosecution. That's my whole point and you just gloss over it.

Apparently E4.8m or £4m was siphoned off between 2004 and 2016 to pay RN workers from EU funds; that was the charge and she was found guilty as being at the heart of the scheme.
As I mentioned before, my understanding of the severity of the court judgement was (a) due to how long this had been ongoing (b) she was found to be front and centre of it and (c) the amount involved.
I don't see it as political prosecution at all; she was found guilty of a significant crime and paid the penalty. Not to say, of course, that the scale of her punishment won't be watered down on appeal although personally I would be surprised if the inability to run for public office will change. Anyway, lets see in the months to come when the appeal is heard - not sure of the timescale under the French system.
As an aside, it could well let in Les Republicans and especially the current interior minister Bruno Retailleau rather than Bardella would be my guess.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Apparently E4.8m or £4m was siphoned off between 2004 and 2016 to pay RN workers from EU funds; that was the charge and she was found guilty as being at the heart of the scheme.
As I mentioned before, my understanding of the severity of the court judgement was (a) due to how long this had been ongoing (b) she was found to be front and centre of it and (c) the amount involved.

This isn't really what I asked is it. I said why is your understanding that this is higher than what goes on in the EU? The misuse of EU funds is the accepted norm in the EU parliament and a blind eye is turned to it.

I don't see it as political prosecution at all; she was found guilty of a significant crime and paid the penalty. Not to say, of course, that the scale of her punishment won't be watered down on appeal although personally I would be surprised if the inability to run for public office will change. Anyway, lets see in the months to come when the appeal is heard - not sure of the timescale under the French system.
As an aside, it could well let in Les Republicans and especially the current interior minister Bruno Retailleau rather than Bardella would be my guess.

She is the most popular politician in France by polling. A fine is one thing and was expected. However but banning a politician from standing in the next national election these judges....who are appointed and not elected, have interfered in the democratic process in a clearly politically biased ruling.

This hasn't just been seen here in France it's now becoming the norm lawfare practice of the left....as seen in the US, Brazil, Romania, Germany and now France.

 

[nead1]

This isn't really what I asked is it. I said why is your understanding that this is higher than what goes on in the EU? The misuse of EU funds is the accepted norm in the EU parliament and a blind eye is turned to it.




She is the most popular politician in France by polling. A fine is one thing and was expected. However but banning a politician from standing in the next national election these judges....who are appointed and not elected, have interfered in the democratic process in a clearly politically biased ruling.

This hasn't just been seen here in France it's now becoming the norm lawfare practice of the left....as seen in the US, Brazil, Romania, Germany and now France.

Its not my understanding that misuse of funds within the EU had a blind eye turned to it - what specifically was on your mind that might be relevant to the Le Pen case?
I read an analysis of this case recently and the following is an interesting perspective - "Anyone who followed the court case against her and her party in an impartial fashion would struggle to conclude the verdict in Le Pen's case was unreasonable. The evidence of a massive and coordinated project to defraud the European Parliament and its associated taxpayers included jaw droppingly incriminatory emails suggesting officials knew exactly what they were doing and the illegality of their actions. Le Pen and her party made a strategic blunder in their approach to the case by not showing an awareness of the need for probity of an elected officer"
That last sentence could be applied to the legal scenarios in many of the other countries you mention; not "warfare" by the so called left but holding people to account for the actions that they took to either stay in office or get elected; I guess the overall message is that nobody is/should be above the law a sentiment I assume you would agree with?

 

[Stirlingsays]

It's like I'm conversing in a different language.

No point.

 

[nead1]

It's like I'm conversing in a different language.

No point.

Exactly, but a fairly typical response when challenged with the facts that don't suit your narrative.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Exactly, but a fairly typical response when challenged with the facts that don't suit your narrative.

You're delusional dude.

 

[cryrst]

Exactly, but a fairly typical response when challenged with the facts that don't suit your narrative.

So the amount she used over how many years broken down would equate to a lot less than the EU piss up the wall sponsoring anyone on their side.

 

[NMPalace]

Its not my understanding that misuse of funds within the EU had a blind eye turned to it - what specifically was on your mind that might be relevant to the Le Pen case?
I read an analysis of this case recently and the following is an interesting perspective - "Anyone who followed the court case against her and her party in an impartial fashion would struggle to conclude the verdict in Le Pen's case was unreasonable. The evidence of a massive and coordinated project to defraud the European Parliament and its associated taxpayers included jaw droppingly incriminatory emails suggesting officials knew exactly what they were doing and the illegality of their actions. Le Pen and her party made a strategic blunder in their approach to the case by not showing an awareness of the need for probity of an elected officer"
That last sentence could be applied to the legal scenarios in many of the other countries you mention; not "warfare" by the so called left but holding people to account for the actions that they took to either stay in office or get elected; I guess the overall message is that nobody is/should be above the law a sentiment I assume you would agree with?

I don't see what the big issue is here. LePen is clearly guilty and should be held to account. Yes she has been stopped from running, but her party National Rally can, so if you support the party you can still vote for them. In fact they might get more support now, who knows.

I suspect the way Trump managed to delay every court case until the point when his running for president meant the cases were deferred for good, had an influence in the punishment here as they didn't want a repeat.

 

[cryrst]

I don't see what the big issue is here. LePen is clearly guilty and should be held to account. Yes she has been stopped from running, but her party National Rally can, so if you support the party you can still vote for them. In fact they might get more support now, who knows.

I suspect the way Trump managed to delay every court case until the point when his running for president meant the cases were deferred for good, had an influence in the punishment here as they didn't want a repeat.

Strange though how cases for violence and the like are deferred over and over.
This is about more than money and the angst you show about trump, who used the law available which you say was so great here speaks volumes.