Skip to main content

Catz Club - the real issue

The link is to the report on the Charities Commission website about the repayment of the Catz Club's £15,000.

Much less money that Bernie Ecclestone's "loan" of £1m.

From the report:
The Charity confirmed that it had issued a cheque for a general donation of £7,500 to the Labour Party. However, it explained that ‘the payment to the Labour Party was an administrative error’. The Charity had contacted the Labour Party who had agreed to reimburse the Charity’s donation. The Charity advised that the donation should have been made by the trading subsidiary, Catz Club Services Limited (“the trading subsidiary”).

Our enquiries identified that Catz Club Services Limited was the Charity’s trading subsidiary company. The Commission made clear to the Charity that as the trading subsidiary was a charitable asset owned by the Charity, it was therefore not permissible for the trading subsidiary to make a donation to the Labour Party either.

The Charity advised that in total £15,000 had been paid to the Labour Party, £7,500 of which was a general donation to the Party and separately £7,500 to attend a Labour Party event where the charity engaged with and lobbied senior politicians to encourage increased funding for after school childcare facilities. The Charity explained that they were also engaging and arranging to attend meetings and events with senior Conservative Party Members for similar purposes, although to date it had only done so through one to one meetings.

So basically they paid the money as part of persuading Labour "to encourage increased funding for after school childcare facilities".

Let us not dispute the merits of having more after school facilities. However, a system of lobbying whereby a party gets an argument for a particular policy accompanied by a bung links policy to payment. "Cash for policies".

With Bernie Ecclestone he did get delivery on his objective and probably would have had a return even if the "loan" was a "donation" (as was originally intended).

Still it does show how money is used to get access to the Labour Party.


PoliticalHack said…
Michael 'Catch Me If You Can' Brown. £2.4 million.

How much has been repaid?
john said…
The money was not paid to obtain the opportunity of talking to the party.

I even talk to members of the Labour Party for free.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…