The point of ICAC when it was set up was to root out corruption within the public service. To this end it was given powers far beyond that of any criminal court. It can coerce people to testify, hearsay is accepted as evidence, and generally the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty is thrown out the window.

To quote ICAC commissioner Megan Latham:

“On a concluding note, can I say that if any of you get tired of adversarial litigation, inquisitorial litigation is fantastic,” Ms Latham says. “You are not confined by the rules of evidence. You have a free kick. You can go anywhere you want to go and it’s a lot of fun.” Because witnesses had already been questioned in private, she said, the role of counsel assisting was like “pulling wings off butterflies”. ICAC does not have to follow the rules of evidence of courts, can compel witnesses to answer questions and does not recognize legal professional privilege.

The first and major flaw with ICAC is one that most people don't realise, is that because of the coercive factor, most of the evidence produced or testimony made in the ICAC can be used in a criminal court with the result that while ICAC can destroy reputations, it often effectively grants immunity from criminal prosecution to those it accuses.

Recently, however, ICAC has chosen to pursue investigations far beyond its original remit, choosing to broadly define corruption within the public service, to any illegal act that infringes on public service, and as admitted by council for ICAC can extend as far as the tax returns of the man in the street. The decision by the high court has reinforced the original definitions of ICACs remit leading to it facing huge liabilities for legal costs of the cases it pursued outside its jurisdiction.

For all those that are calling for ICACs powers to be extended, just look back in your past to tax returns or speeding tickets and consider yourself forced to testify in the dock with no assumption of innocence.

If to attempt anecdotally that democracy is real, being that people in powerful influential positions, must on occasions prove the democratic system is honest, must prove to the public that money directed towards favoured people's favourable outcomes aren't being carried out behind closed doors. To me these news media stories are no more than propaganda. The problem with democracies in real life is that people running for political office would be most likely to have corrupt intentions. Once in political office they would seek out politicians with similar intentions. Eventually a collective group of politicians would set up a birth right ruling class, allowing a limited number of families to occupy key positions, controlling the media and money. To achieve population compliance, media performances of exposing corruption would be performed. No one goes to jail. The problem with human behaviours are that humans will believe almost anything they're told by authority figures and nice looking smiling news presenters.

The people of New South Wales can be thankful for the job the ICAC has done in exposing the corruption in both the Labor and Liberal Parties. The challenge now is to enact retrospective legislation to give the act the necessary legal authority to make sure the corruption findings against business people and union leaders stick, these friends of the political elite, like their corrupt political cronies they too must be held to account for their behavior. Retrospective legislation must be enacted to ensure these people are unable to appeal and have those corrupt finding overturned.
The acid is now on the Baird Government to do the right thing and take the necessary action to see justice is served. The people of NSW demand it.

I should have known that the first person to display an unlimited ignorance of the law would be a green, as their ignorance is also unlimited.

The requirement to:
"to enact retrospective legislation to give the act the necessary legal authority to make sure the corruption findings against business people and union leaders stick ... Retrospective legislation must be enacted to ensure these people are unable to appeal".

Would require scrapping the constitutional separation between the judiciary and the state, to allow chucking out all the rules of evidence and allowing the investigators, the prosecutors, and the judges to be all from the same organisation.

How about instituting the old style kangaroo courts where the accused are arrested, tried and executed within the same day without any pesky defense.

So Paul, for your edification, and for other left whingers who wish to trample civil rights for political gain, the reason that the decisions of these "independent" bodies such as ICAC and ASADA are being tossed out like confetti are:

1) The right of access to a court to appeal a decision is a constitutional right, not a whimsy,
2) When the courts review any decision they use the normal rules of evidence and the hearsay and coerced testimony is inadmissible.

In fact the inquiry process merely by ignoring the rules of evidence may make a criminal case against a corrupt individual that was viable to prosecute before the inquiry impossible after the inquiry.

I should have known Shadow as a Liberal, you would want to don the wig and gown, and make yourself out to be the forums answer to "Rumpole of the Bailey" and use an oversight within the law to protect certain types within and without of the party who have been found to have acted corruptly by the ICAC.
The likes of Nick Greiner an elder statesman of Liberal Party in NSW, who as Primer was himself found to have acted corruptly by the Commission. Mr Greiner told the Herald in 2010 it was impractical to look at restricting what the ICAC investigates. "I think it's a bit easy to say that they shouldn't investigate small things. It's about trying to change culture and attitude. It's not whether this is a venal or mortal sin." So Greiner said in relation to the ICAC investigation into corruption by Labor MP Angela D'Amore. Today however, Mr Greiner sings a different tune, saying that even if ICAC had the power to investigate Ms Cunneen (the ICAC case brought before the High Court) – which the High Court found it did not – "no sensible organisation could have made a decision to pursue that matter". No doubt Greiner, like the good Liberal he is, has an eye on the ICAC corruption findings against a swag of businessmen being overturned.
cont.

The fact remains the Commission has done an outstanding job of uncovering systemic corruption in both the Liberal and Labor Parties here in NSW. The Greens through their Anti-corruption spokesperson Jamie Parker had this to say about the ICAC agreeing to set aside its findings of corruption by four businessmen in relation to the Obeids and Macdonald and the Mount Penny coal mining tenement.
"“The Premier’s equivocation since last week’s High Court decision has called into question the Liberal Government’s commitment to fighting corruption,” “This is a question of leadership for the Premier. He must decide whether NSW is open for corruption or not." “Earlier this week ICAC called on the NSW Government to consider amending section 8(2) of the ICAC Act ‘as a matter of priority’. The Greens reiterate our call for the government to commit to amending the ICAC Act to ensure NSW has an effective corruption fighting organisation. “The Premier’s refusal to actively support the ICAC will simply allow corruption to flourish,”.
The Greens is the party which is willing to stand up for the people on New South Wales and to see to it that the ICAC is given the powers to fight corruption in this state. No matter how much the Labor and Liberal Parties want to hide the corrupt activities of their members and supporters!

I should have known Paul as a Green, you would want to don the funny hat and shoes and make yourself out to be the forums answer to the circus clown, and call the act forming ICAC and the constitutional separation of law courts and government to be "oversights"

What you and others forget, is that ICAC has no power to prosecute, and the very best that ICAC can do is point the finger to declare that someone acted corruptly and then recommend prosecution. Neither the NSW or federal governments can give it any more power, nor shield ICAC's decisions from review by the law courts.

The only modification that can be done is to expand ICAC's terms of reference to give it powers to investigate pretty much anyone for any crime no matter how petty. However, this won't stop the courts from throwing out unsupported findings and charging ICAC with costs.

Shadow, if it had not been for the ICAC, how would the systemic corruption in The Liberal Party, and the corruption of Labors Obeid and Macdonald have been uncovered? You choose to play the rightest soul out to protect the civil liberties of scoundrels and criminals. Does this sudden indignation, have more to do with the fact these businessmen are seen as friends of the Liberal and Labor Parties. I doubt we would see the same concern had those involved been from The Green, which of course they are not.

Paul,

Firstly catching a few libs that deviated from funding laws that the greens happily flout federally is not systemic corruption, especially since the last time the law was challenged, it failed.

Secondly, the corruption of Obeid, Macdonald etc was pretty much open knowledge at the time which any decent police investigation would have rooted out. Finally, you fail to provide any guidance as to how Baird should bypass the constitution.

If ICAC does get extended powers, the next stop is a thorough investigation of the systemic corruption in the unions through which labor and the greens launder their donations.

Shadow,

We are getting to the nitty-gritty of your whole argument! Nothing to do with Jurisprudence, but a lot to do with sour grapes, as a conga line of corrupt Liberals have been paraded before the ICAC to answer for their wrong doing, So much mud has stuck, Liberals were falling like nine pins, including another Liberal Primer, Barry O'Farrell. Do your best to sling some of your surplus Liberal mud at The Greens, but it will not stick, as The Greens have done nothing wrong, unlike Liberal and Labor politicians they have nothing to answer, a party of honest and virtuous polys with no corruption.

Paul,

I should have expected someone from the morally bankrupt greens to try and deflect the discussion from their own unethical acceptance of bribes laundered via the federal greens and unions and their monumental ignorance of the law.

Just a reminder:
The constitutional separation of the judicial system from government is not an "oversight", and neither is the Act founding ICAC (the body formed to investigate corruption in the public service) which limits ICAC to the public service.

But if your want a little jurisprudence here is a little tidbit:

The law limiting donations has only been tested in court once when the unions challenged the limitation on their donations to Labor. This application of the law was tossed out as it infringed on the constitutional right to be involved in the political system via donations. I would suspect that the first attempted prosecution of any of the ex lib MPs will similarly be dismissed.

Shadow,

Your personal opinion of The Greens is of no consequence in this matter. The reality is members of The Liberal Party, or more accurately The Corruption Party, were found to have acted corruptly in relation to the laws of New South Wales. End of story. Say what you like, but these Liberals had to resign, or be sacked, because of their behavior. Not one or two, but ten or more, and that makes the corruption systemic in the view of a reasonable person. Possibly these bods could engage you as their 'Legal Council' should they wish to challenge such findings in a higher court.
The people of New South Wales are satisfied with the performance of the ICAC, and what it has achieved, despite the failure of both the Labor and Liberal Parties to fully support the Commission, and I wonder why? Let the people be the judge!

Fortunately, it is a long time since anyone in the Corruption party, led by Crusty Minge, has been considered reasonable. I would suggest that you look up the definition of systemic. That Crusty and her cohort of minions managed to launder its bribes, does not mean that it is any less corrupt. The election result giving the Labor/green coalition a hiding showed that the left whingers are considered more corrupt than the conservative side of politics.

I gather from your silence with respect to the expansion of ICAC's powers, that you have finally grasped how nonsensical your previous comments were.

Shadow,

Systemic, that's the word that best describes corruption in the NSW Liberal Party. It was not isolated to a couple of individuals but to ten or more. These people believe they are born to rule and therefore are above the law. No wonder that the corruption party approves 98% of developments, given the amount of illegal donations coming their way from developers!

I had a bit of a chuckle with this "the corruption of Obeid, Macdonald etc was pretty much open knowledge at the time which any decent police investigation would have rooted out." It made me think of a former Liberal Primer Robin Askin, one of the most corrupt politicians this state has ever seen, Askin was never investigated by police as so many of them were part of that very corruption which existed in this state.. No rooting out there my friend, none at all. LOL.

Paul,

It is a pity for you that most people don't care what you think. By your definition, the corruption in the Greens is systemic. PS, it is still illegal to take large sums from the unions or $1.5m bribes.

Good to see that you have given up the desire to re write the constitution.

Shadow, can I take it that by definition "most people" care about your cackling and crowing on this issue, or any issue for that matter. Unlike you I do not crave, or have that desire for acceptance by "most people". To give you an illusionary feeling of comfort, and to satisfy your need and desire to belong, I'll make the following statement;

"I Paul1405 want it to be known that MOST PEOPLE on this forum, and in the wider universe, from Alabama to Zanzibar agree with everything Shadow Minister has to say on everything! AND never agree or care about what I have to say even my kids and the family dog!

Shadow I hope that makes you feel better. As I advised before. a Bex, a cup of tea, and a good lie down. It will work wonders for you.

Back on the subject. Even though up to 50 findings of corruption against individuals dating back to 2005 could be overturned by the recent High Court decision, none of those 50 relate to Liberal and Labor politicians, the corruption findings against them are rock solid!
'Bugsy' Baird from the Liberal mob is to meet with ICAC Commissioner Meagan Latham this week. With public opinion on this matter the way it is, not wanting to see the corrupt get off, the introduction of retrospective legislation cannot be ruled out.

Paul,

You really did get a bug up your Rs.

I take it that you really do care what people think of you and the systemically corrupt greens. Don't worry, I'm sure that someone in Mongolia will hear your desperate cries for attention.

Unfortunately, once they see that you and most greens chirp loudest about the things they are clueless about, they will probably give up caring too.

Shadow Minister,
"The right of access to a court to appeal a decision is a constitutional right, not a whimsy,"
You live in a dream world.
At this very moment I am suing the NSW State government for sentencing me to an indefinite sentence (Turned out to be 10 years) at the age of eight years old for the crime of being an uncontrollable child.
I did the ten years with no remission or parole or whatever too.
There was no right for me to appeal to a higher court, no solicitors on my side, no social workers to look after my rights as a child. Not ever a parent allowed into the court room.

Chris,

While I don't know the specifics of your case or the decisions your guardians made everyone does have the right to appeal. However, most do not appeal as the judgements are appropriate.

I can see Paul's Point and also see what SM is doing, Hiding is argument behind obscure laws that only a high paid lawyer would use.
If these allegations came to head in any private business that said employee would be 1. unemployed the next day or 2. moved to another area of the business where this can't be repeated. Why is it different for public office ?
Secondly All Politicians are corrupt, KNOWN fact its just the degree of corruption that's in question.
Thirdly all Political donations must stop, this does not benefit anyone except more corrupt politicians and Big business.
Lastly VET all Politicians to TSPv level, Start at the top then work our way down all the way every government official.
It's time to clean house
Could you imagine what it would be like to have a government that was actually concerned about Australia and Australians not just their pocket money and retirement fund

AB,

Just because you don't understand something does not mean that it is extremely specialised. I am not a lawyer and only did one semester of commercial law, and in the first week the powers and responsibilities of the courts and legal bodies was discussed.

Sorry SM just trying to point out we have a 2 tier system in Australia. 1 for Rich 1 for Poor.
Any comments on my other proposals ?
And good to see you up bright and early on an absolutely great day (so far)
AB

Don't worry.

Paul obviously didn't understand it either.

SM
Your still ducking my question, Are you yourself in Politic's ?

AB, I would go along with your proposal that a more thorough investigation of politicians is certainly called for in NSW, and in Australia generally. Although Obeid, Macdonald and Tripodi were the major political players in the Labor corruption scandal, there were many others within and without of the ALP who were "touched" by the Obeid tentacles, some of which still sit happily in parliament. Much the same can be said for the corruption within the Liberal Party, I suspect the ICAC only scratched the surface.
As for ALL politicians being corrupt, generally I think not, but the line between doing your best and acting corruptly is somewhat blurred at times. A Liberal politician that takes developer donations and then approves developments from that benefactor is obviously corrupt, if having failed to disclose that relationship. That is clear cut, but the politician who gets a school "scholarship" for his child without seemingly giving anything in return is he or she corrupt? Maybe not.

Shadow, <<only did one semester of commercial law>> A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

AB,

No I am not in politics, and secondly I didn't want to be rude.

Vetting people firstly is a privacy issue, and secondly, can only pick up what is on the record. If there are no convictions, even crooks like Obeid can slip through.

Shadow, what I understand is you are doing your best on this thread to hide the LIBERAL PARTY cupboard full of corrupt skeletons, without success!

I once walked past a police station, does that make me as "qualified" as you on the law. I think so.

AB,

To continue, much can be said about the corruption in the Greens taking bribes and dirty money, and their bigotry. No one is untouched.

SM evidence please, otherwise just a perverted wild accusation without substance, on your part! Clean out that corrupt Liberal cupboard first, before trying to throw mud at The Greens for things your party are guilty of. Provide one single finding of corruption against The Greens, or one of it members. Put up or shut up! That's the call.

I agree Sm Vetting is a privacy issue
But all public servants need to be vetted now
and tspv you have to 1 not lie 2 divulge all investments/dealings shares etc
you have to divulge all known persons
any if all crimes
And if you are found to have lied about these things Clearance is not given or is revoked
How many current members do you think would still be in office i recon 50% gone before vetting started and at least another 25% gone during vetting. Politicians lord it over Public servants that HAVE to be cleared why not them as well ?

Paul,

I congratulate you on walking past a police station without being arrested.

A little knowledge is not as dangerous as complete ignorance. All I was saying the limits and responsibilities of the various bodies is the very base of law, much like the times table is taught at the beginning of maths.

Without even the basics you can easily say something wildly stupid.

Put up or shut up! I am waiting, waiting, still waiting, my "learned friend". Law, evidence, Shadow Minister, should not been used in the same sentence. on the same thread, even in the same century.

You mean the $1.5M bribe they took from Wotif, and the dirty money they took from the crooked CFMEU?

Shadow, please put up the evidence of corruption by the Greens, what sort of lawyer are you, just because you say it, does not make it true.
How about the million dollar sponsors to The Liberal Party, just to name a few, Cormack Foundation Pty Ltd $1,500,000, Nimrod Resources Limited 500,000, who is Jiebo Huang, who gave The Liberal Party $250,000, is he a member of the Communist Party of China's Politburo, I don't know.

I have called you on those fictitious claims of your, and you have been shown to be full of the good old fashioned P&W when it comes to providing evidence. I ask for the umteenth time where is your evidence, you have none, because there is none. Me thinks its time for you to cut and run, again!

Paul,

I can see that you want to deflect from your deep ignorance of the law, but this is pathetic.

The evidence is clear, the systemically corrupt gangreen party led by Crusty Minge took the largest ever bribe of $1.5m. This is on top of payments from the organised crime mob known as the CFMEU.

Shadow, what kind of lawyer are you? Is your real name Dennis Denuto. I have obtained footage of Shadow arguing Green corruption in the High Court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ

Just when I have painted Shadow into a corner on the issue of Liberal corruption in New South Wales, what does he do, disappears down a rat hole!

The first day of the new parliament in NSW.

With public opinion solidly behind the ICAC, 'Bugsy' Baird has reluctantly been forced to take action on the issue of retrospective legislation to make corruption findings against business types, who have had adverse ICAC findings, stick! Baird, copped out somewhat and passed the issue to a couple of legal eagles, Murray Gleeson AC QC and Bruce McClintock, SC, Shadow Minister DB, didn't make the team, I wonder why? We will let these blokes have a gander and come up with a proposal. lets us wait and see.

Paul,

With you completely failing to white wash the systemically corrupt greens, I declined to comment on your childish post.

As for Baird consulting lawyers on changing legislation, Only half arsed politicians such as the greens would consider drafting legislation in a difficult area without assistance, as it would simply be chucked out of court

Shadow, what is childish, is your feeble attempts to deflect the corruption debate onto the honest Greens. I asked you to put up evidence of Greens corruption which you constantly prattle on about. You simply make up lies to suit your argument, pathetic in the extreme and childish.

<<As for Baird consulting lawyers on changing legislation, Only half arsed politicians such as the greens would consider drafting legislation in a difficult area without assistance,>>

take note of the above statement from Shadow. Now I quote from todays SMH

"Premier Mike Baird announced on Tuesday the government would legislate next week to ensure all previous corruption findings made by the ICAC remain intact."

Now based on the Shadow comment, and what Baird is doing WITHOUT consulting lawyers that must make Baird one of the HALF ARSED types that Shadow ridicules. Talk about a clanger! How does it feel me old salt!

As one of the systemically corrupt greens I see that you also harbour a half arsed delusion of being psychic?

Where have you seen anything that says Baird is not using legal representation to draft legislation?

I see Crusty Minge has resigned after suffering stabbing back pains, and the new troika has also shafted Adam Bent.

Shadow, an old ploy, when losing the debate simply change subject, your first comment dealt with << The point of ICAC when it was set up was to root out corruption within the public service.>>
having lost that debate you move on to <<I see Crusty Minge has resigned>>

You lack of knowledge of the operations within Australian parliaments is astounding, then again ignorance has never prevented you from commenting in the past.

Every member of parliament has access to considerable parliamentary, and private resources, if that member or a party wishes to introduce legislation, even a private members bill. Resources for drafting a bill, and legal advice, are available for all MP's and parties to call upon, not just the government of the day. In the highly unlikely event that you should ever become a parliamentarian, if you so desired to present a private members bill, there would be no need to sit at home on your clapped out virus infected Commodore 64 'puter playing 'Pacman' and typing furiously at the same time, relying solely on your "vast" legal knowledge, there would actually be a decent and better way, and no need to rely on your own limited rubbish.

Shadow, I was going to say, three strikes and your out. but that would be most unfair considering you are up to strike number 10 on this subject already.

It would seem Bugsy Baird did not seek the learned council of Shadow Minister DB on this. Poor old Shadow has been left completely in the dark by one of his two, 'one true loves', Tax Em' Tony being the other, I wonder why! The Baird government moved yesterday to fast track retrospective legislation through the NSW Parliament to make ICAC corruption finding of business types and a bunch of Liberal Party luminaries stick. This has not been brought about by a sudden conversion of faith leading to a shift in corruption policy, by the Liberal Party, they have been up to their armpits in corruption since Askin was a boy. No! It has been public opinion, and the honest Greens that has force Baird's hand.

Advice, if you are new to the Forum, and are thinking of stating a discussion thread, please do not follow the example of Shadow Minister, and start commenting on something you know absolutely nothing about, and are completely in the dark with, Foot In Mouth Disease is not a pretty sight, right Shadow.

Paul,

Considering that it is you that changed the subject from ICAC over extending its mandate, and you that mocked Baird for using lawyer to draft legislation, to claim that I am changing the topic and am ignorant of the use of lawyers in Parliament is shooting yourself in the foot while it is firmly lodged in your mouth.

I feel sorry for you now that your systemically CORRUPT darlings Crusty Minge, Disease Rhiannon, Syphilitic Hanson Young and Adam Bent have tossed aside and you are left with the effete Dinner Tally, Dudlam and Lesser Waters.

Despite the forlorn wishes of the conservative supporters, like my good forum buddy Shadow Minister, that the ICAC in New South Wales would be put to the sward and stop investigating corruption in the Coalition Parties, I am happy to report it is very much alive and well, in fact it is in tip top shape and fighting fit! The Commission is about to receive its next unsavory character for investigation in the form of ex deputy premier and National Party member Andrew Stoner. What has this bloke been up to that gets him an invite to the hot seat down at the ICAC? Seems Andy once quitting parliament has taken a highly paid job as "senior adviser" with investment bank Moelis Australia, a bank good old Andy was dealing with as minister when in office. Andy never informed anyone including the primer Bugsy Baird as required about the juicy job he had lined up for himself. You cant do that Andy, even if it is one of those "jobs for the boys" ex Coalition polys like to land for themselves after quitting parliament with a megma supa payout, right Shadow?

Paul,

I still feel sorry for you now that your systemically CORRUPT darlings Crusty Minge, Disease Rhiannon, Syphilitic Hanson Young and Adam Bent have tossed aside and you are left with the effete Dinner Tally, Dudlam and Lesser Waters.

Also, the point of the thread was ICAC over reaching their mandate and trying to investigate people in their private capacity. Anyone with the IQ above that of a squirrel would get that by now.

Shadow, your attempts to incriminate members of The Greens as corrupt, is pathetic. The honest people who's names you try to smear have had no relationship with the ICAC, they have never been called before the commission, they have never been named by the commission in any way, and you know that. Unlike you who name people who are totally unrelated to the topic, I have put forward a long list of Liberals , who have been adversely named in the Commission. You cannot deny that.

it is most disappointing that you are a supporter of corrupt Liberal politicians.

By starting this thread you jumped the gun with the implications of a High Court ruling in the case of state prosecutor Margaret Cunneen and the adverse finding of the ICAC. You thought the implications from the Cunneen case would be that those corrupt Liberals and their business lackeys you admire were about to receive a "get out of jail free" card, all thanks to the High Court. Your were cock-a-hoop with the thought that corrupt Liberals were about to escape the wrath of the people. Not so, your beloved leader in NSW Bugsy Baird has been forced to act, for no other reason than the people demanded it.

No comment on former Coalition deputy primer Stoner? Another heading for the ICAC hot seat!

Paul,

It is most disappointing that you are a supporter of corrupt Green politicians. I still feel sorry for you now that your systemically CORRUPT darlings Crusty Minge, Disease Rhiannon, Syphilitic Hanson Young and Adam Bent have tossed aside and you are left with the effete Dinner Tally, Dudlam and Lesser Waters.

Secondly you personally are being dishonest. Now are you just verballing me and lying to boot

Shadow,

No comment on former Coalition deputy primer Stoner? Another heading for the ICAC hot seat!

Your silent loyalty to Stoner is touching, but misguided. Your support of Liberal Party corruption in NSW is again touching, but misguided. The fact is large scale political corruption in both the Labor and Liberal Parties in NSW has, thanks to the ICAC, been exposed for all to see. Unfortunately some one eyed supporters, like your good self, are in denial to this systemic corruption.
It is simply pathetic that you delude yourself this way, naming people who have absolutely no connection with the topic, simply because they are honest members of The Greens.
Next thing you will be trumpeting the names of Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer and their like, deluding yourself into believing they must have been corrupt members of The Greens.
Shadow, dear friend, if I can help free you of your delusional demons, please call, I am only a post away, help can, and must be found, even for one so far gone as yourself.

Paul,

It is most disappointing that you are still a supporter of corrupt Green politicians.

Still no comment on your systemically CORRUPT darlings Crusty Minge, Disease Rhiannon, Syphilitic Hanson Young and Adam Bent being tossed aside and you are left with the effete Dinner Tally, Dudlam and Lesser Waters?