Elsewhere in Lewisham - Millwall Compulsory Purchase Order


It is a free country and everyone is free to have their own opinion, we also have freedom of speach, havn’t we? You can have you own opinion, i can have mine, no one can dictate how should i think or say. And what I say is based on the info that I read. The infi fact is that lewisham council was prepared to engage in dealing with an offshore company. The info fact is offshore companies are widely used for money laundries. It may be ok with the law but it is not ok as any government has to work in ways that prevent any criminal activity and loss of funds. The government has duty to protect and be moneywise and money efficient because it is public money. And the have to be scrutinised the most.

Now, I give you some insight how the laundry scheme work in general: (how i know it? I watch russian news, the amount of government people caught in those schemes and put behind bars hitting records high, all cases are public and well published). In general, a government body chooses to make a contract with a company to provide some service or work. Government agrees to pay x amount of money to the company. The actual cost of works, lets say, 40% cheaper in reality. The company, because it is official, produces receipts, invoices for the works it does. The government body uses those company invoices to proof and justify its spendings. Now, through back stage connections, high people from the government body and this company agree that the invoiced work will not show the actual costs, it will show agreed costs and all invoices will be written for the agreed costs. A company can write anything it wants in those invoices. They can write any amount of money. Government pays those invoices and funds are transfered to the contractor. When works are finished and all monies are paid, the workers are paid actual costs and anything above is nicely shared between the contractor and a government person or persons and goes in their pockets . The trick with offshore companies is they can be opened and closed within one day, they are out of country’s legislation reach and in case of investigations it is impossible to establish the chain of works and invoicing. On the face, everything is legitimate, but another side is very dark and murky.

I am very sorry you are upset. And I am very grateful that public raised concerns and started investigations. People should know the truth.


And you you know what else? I want the government to support british business and british workers in any way or form. We are Brexiting and this is the time when the government has to invest money inside the country. Yes, it will be a bit dear, but i dont mind because at the end, the british workers will earn money, the british workers will spend them inside the country and the british business will prifit and reinvest again inside the country. The time is up for unthoughtful investments, not building the ground now may result in a disaster for the country in the future after Brexit.


I understand why emotions are running high here, and can sympathise with both sides. However we’re drifting off topic, and into @general_politics territory here. #local-politics is not the right place to discuss Brexit.

Please can we stick to the topic in hand and avoid criminal accusations that are, so far, unsubstantiated.


The next proposed Labour Mayor is against the proposals allegedly :wink:but we could get a Tory or Liberal Mayor etc who is!


I am not upset, thank you. Yes we have freedom of speech but to me that does not mean it is ok to make all kinds of unchallenged personal and corporate allegations when there has clearly been a great deal of investigation but no evidence of wrongdoing.

Maybe the New Bermondsey development would not be that unusual in using companies or money based offshore. many public contracts for building schools, hospitals, care homes and other public facilities awarded to contractors under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) have been relocated to tax havens. This means that contractors can avoid UK taxes on profits funded by taxpayers. So far it seems UK governments have shown little interest in changing regulations around this.

However I do hope that whatever comes next for this Millwall site they make a better job of transparency, planning and consultation.


Painfully reminds me the soviet regime :ghost: i was born in. Was not allowed to talk bad about leaders, local or central, party members.

))))) I wonder WHY?

I hope Tory will win. Definitely wont be voting for Labour, not after what i read.


never thought of myself as a Stalinist before but enjoying the idea.

The Millwall planning fiasco might look very different if government had a firm grip on the offshore funding\public contract issue as you suggest. But here’s a surprise. guess who is planning to make these changes! :wink:

"Labour has pledged to stop this.
How can it do that? It can ask companies to repatriate PFI projects, unless they were specifically negotiated with an offshore entity, so that tax is paid in the UK on all profits and dividends. Labour can introduce legislation and force companies to bring contracts home. It can make it unlawful to shift financial aspects of future PFI projects to offshore havens without express Treasury approval.

In case any companies still want to indulge in creative games, the Labour manifesto has other pledges. These include no public contracts for tax avoiders and requiring large companies to publish their tax returns so that we can all see how they shift profits and avoid taxes. Such policies can check organised tax avoidance and release millions for public services."


The “regime” :ghost: just sent me a warning for bad behavior, therefore sorry but getting out of this thread.


The “regime” would like to politely ask members to stick to local politics in the #local-politics category.

Party political broadcasts in @general_politics please. :slight_smile:



In last but one paragraph of Lord Dyson report, he mentions Cllr Smith and the same journalist of the above article as well.

‘422. Before concluding this report, I need to say a little more about MFC. Like almost everybody else, MFC supports the idea of redeveloping the Site. This also is the position of the Association of Millwall Supporters, whose submission to the Inquiry expressed full support for the regeneration of the area and stated that it “would back with all its enthusiasm a scheme designed to benefit all in the area”. As I have already stated, the Site is crying out for redevelopment. It is entirely understandable that MFC would prefer to be able to develop the Millwall Land itself. But it has not persuaded the Council that this is a practicable proposition. Some have said that the Renewal scheme would threaten the very existence of the Club at the Den. A flavour of their remarks is captured in Mr Ronay’s article of 27 January 2017 entitled “How the battle to save Millwall’s stadium was won” and his statement that “Millwall are staying in South London”: see paragraph 262 above. But it has always been the clearly stated intention of the Council that MFC should stay at the Den and that measures should be introduced to ensure that it remained at the heart of any proposed development of the Site and that the interests of both MFC and MCS should be fully protected. I refer, for example, to the statement to that effect by Councillor Smith at the M&C meeting of 15 December 2015; the concern expressed by the Council when, very late in the day, MFC raised the issue of the possible loss of its English Football League Category 2 status if there were a move to Energize (see paragraphs 239 to 241 above); Councillor Smith’s statement to Mr Kavanagh on 19 January 2017 that the Cabinet were unanimous that, in any development, MFC’s future must be secure and MCT must be able to continue its fantastic work in the local area (see paragraph 247 above); and what Sir Steve Bullock said in his statement of 25 January 2017 (see paragraph 260 above). It is unfortunate that this clear publicly stated position of the Council seems to have been ignored in some quarters. I hope that this will not recur during any future discussions. What is now required is a period of calm reflection as was urged by the Council in its statement of 25 January 2017 (paragraph 259 above.)’

I would really recommend reading the full report.


Can a section of the report really address the revelations of a new email leak? The report pre-dates the revelation…


The Mayor has pulled £20m in funding