User talk:HenriettaVanLaer

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I am British citizen who does not necessarily support all of the agenda which is professed by the founders of Conservapedia. Nevertheless, I applaud its honesty and intellectual clarity in admitting that it does have an agenda. This is in marked contrast to the dishonesty and woolly thinking of the Wikipedia so-called encyclopedia. I attempted to initiate some revision of the Wikipedia article on Nick Clegg, the youthful leader of the British Liberal Democrat party who has been propelled to the position of deputy prime minister by means of unparalleled media domination and manipulation of the May 6th election. Clegg has changed his mind and policies about tax rises, nuclear weapons and immigration during the last three years, vacillating back and forth as it suits him. I put the following information first of all in the talk pages of the article, but I was blocked from putting any of it into the text although it is well sourced:-

Nick Clegg received a series of payments from party donors directly into his private bank account, totalling £20,000. The Liberal Democrat leader was paid regular monthly sums by three senior businessmen during 2006. The same account was used to pay his mortgage, shopping and other personal expenditure, documents seen by this newspaper show. • Clegg admits £20,000 was paid into his account The businessmen bankrolling Mr Clegg were Ian Wright, a senior executive at the drinks firm Diageo; Neil Sherlock, the head of public affairs at the accountants KPMG; and Michael Young, a former gold mining executive. All are registered as Liberal Democrat donors. Records of Mr Clegg’s personal bank account show the three men each paid up to £250 a month into the account. The Liberal Democrat leader is likely to face questions over the arrangement. MPs have historically sought to distance party donors from their personal finances to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Last night Mr Clegg denied the money had been used for his own personal spending and said that it had subsidised his parliamentary work. Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee of standards in public life, described the arrangement as “irregular”. “Given that he’s been very holier than thou about these things, it would seem he has some explaining to do to his party and the electorate,” Sir Alistair said. “One would expect donations to be paid to a party account – that would be the most straightforward arrangement. It would now make sense for someone independent to check these accounts.” Martin Bell, the broadcaster and former independent anti-sleaze MP, said the payments raised issues about Liberal Democrat funding. “There are clearly questions to answer here,” Mr Bell said. “Nick Clegg needs to show us that this arrangement was all above board and legitimate.” Source The same facts were published in the Financial Times :- The donors themselves admit that they paid the money:- Two Lib Dem offical website sources defend Clegg by saying that he used the donations to pay staff costs, but neither of them can name the member of staff. Nor has any other source named one. The fact remains that paying party donations into a personal account rather than the registered official party account, is illegal. Together with several other Lib Dem MPs, Clegg was caught up in the 2009 expenses scandal. It was revealed that he had not only spent tax-payers’ money on a new kitchen, garden wall and other garden landscaping, but he had claimed £80 for personal telephone calls. He agreed to repay the £80 but not the cost of the kitchen. The code is that expenses may be claimed only for activites wholly, necessarily and unavoidably incurred for the purpose of carrying out parliamentary duties. Another well-documented recent press story about the Lib Dems relates how the party briefed MPs on how to squeeze the maximum payments out of their expenses accounts in order to fund their election campaigns:- This, too, is illegal. According to the Guardian, itself a left-wing newspaper, "One of the Liberal Democrats' most generous donors has been accused of accepting tens of millions of pounds in kickbacks from an arms deal between an Israeli company and the Indian government. Sudhir Choudhrie, who has personally donated £95,000 to the party and whose relatives' companies have donated a further £475,000, was named as a key arms broker in foreign reports. The allegations have been rejected by Choudhrie, an Indian citizen based in Chelsea, west London. A source close to the family denies that he has ever profited from the arms industry. This is the second time that Choudhrie, 59, has been accused of being paid an illegal commission from a major arms deal in India. The allegations are said to be politically motivated, and to coincide with the country's general election. The timing of the allegations is embarrassing for Nick Clegg, the party leader, who called for a curb of the arms trade and a boycott of sales of arms to Israel earlier this year. The claims that one of their donors is an arms broker will concern senior Liberal Democrats, who are still smarting from the exposure of their biggest ever donor, Michael Brown, as a convicted serial fraudster in 2006. The party may yet be forced by the Electoral Commission to pay back £2.4m it received from Brown's non-trading company, 5th Avenue Partners, and is awaiting the outcome of an inquiry. The Mumbai-based newspaper DNA has alleged that Choudhrie was paid a share of £80.5m in illegal business charges from the sale of medium-range surface-to-air missiles by an Israeli company to the Indian government. Payments were supposedly part of a £1.3bn deal struck in January between the Indian defence ministry and the arms company Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), DNA claimed. The use of middle men to facilitate an arms deal is banned under Indian law. Choudhrie was also named as a key broker between the Israel defence industry and India by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz Indian police are investigating the deal, according to media reports. The businessman was previously implicated in a police inquiry into kickbacks from another Indian arms deal with the same Israeli company, in 2006, but Choudhrie was not charged with any offence. An Indian Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry revealed that Choudhrie and his companies "received a number of suspected remittances to the tune of millions of dollars from IAI Israel during the year 1998 to 2001". It suggested that IAI had a close relationship with two of Choudhrie's companies - Magnum International Trading Co and Eureka Sales Corporation. Sources close to the family believe that Choudhrie is the victim of a campaign to discredit him. "These allegations, as well as the ones from earlier, are completely and utterly unfounded. He has never been involved in arms deals of any sort," said a source. "He did have a role in Magnum but the company was involved in the export of tea and car parts, while Eureka was involved in building ships in Singapore. The confusion may have arisen because an Israeli company that Magnum once had business links with later became an arms company," he added. Choudhrie is believed to have moved to Britain in 2002 with his wife and lives in a £4m apartment in Chelsea. He first donated £50,000 to the Lib Dems in August 2006 and has followed this up with payments of £25,000 and £20,000. Two companies controlled by Choudhrie's son Bhanu and his nephew Dhruv - Alpha Healthcare and C&C Business Solutions - have donated a total of £475,000 to the Lib Dems. Choudhrie and his son are known to be non domiciled for tax purposes and base many of their business interests in tax havens, where businesses do not have to declare their accounts publicly. A Lib Dem spokesman declined to comment." Source [[1]

OUTCOME All the facts I put into the text of the article were immediately expunged by the Wiki-police, a band of fanatical vigilantes who work night and day to censor their website and make sure that it gives a whitewashed picture of liberals, socialists, greens and gays. Absurd and insulting explanations for this were put into the discussion page, where people who could not spell attempted to patronize me. What right have they got to put their garbage on the web and effectively interefere with the democratic process here in the UK?

I also attempted to inject some reality into their grossly slanderous article about the UK Independence Party, a conservative party which opposes the UK's EU membership, and wants electoral reform. As it stands, the article is not factual in any respect, it is just a collection of malicious gossip. It tries to suggest that UKIP is racist. I submitted to them the webpages of three UKIP candidates (three out of many possibilities) who are themselves members of ethnic minorities. I also pointed out the way that the British Electoral Commission is blatantly biassed against right-wing parties, and closes its eyes to violations by left-wing ones. But they just blocked me from making any changes at all to the insulting text of the article.

I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is run by dishonest people. They simply have no right to call it an encyclopedia. It has no interest at all in objectivity, neutrality or factual balance. And furthermore, it provides internet propaganda for politicians who are corrupt, hypocritical and completely lacking in principle.

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

Conservapedia:Debate Topics is a link resource, not a talk page. DouglasA 11:53, 21 May 2010 (EDT) Henrietta Van Laer says "I used the Debate Topics page for exactly what it is supposed to be used for - I opened a new subject of debate. I gave it a clear and accurate title. If you are not interested in that debate, maybe you should keep out of it. I included a link to my talk page in order to let people read some related facts about my personal experience. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Goodbye." HenriettaVanLaer