dude Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Is it the case that David Cameron's alleged indiscretions re expenses have only been reported by the Mail on Sunday?I haven't picked it up on the news - either BBC or Sky, nor has Guido Fawkes run with it, so is it just a M on S non-story or what? Is Cameron being protected by the wider media for instance? Well given the Torygraph has an agenda to get Labour ousted, I can't see them waving an anti-Cameroon flag too energetically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 It was only after great struggle through the 19th and 20th centuries did people win the right to vote in the UK. It was generally considered once people had won the right to vote the ordinary working people could vote for the party that would best represent them. This however has not proven to work out in practice. The labour party was formed by organizations representing working people such as trade unions but over the years has been changed into the party of big business like the Conservatives because thats the only way Capital and big business will allow any party to win power. It is much the same in the USA with the Republicans and Democrats. How much does the Labour Party or Democratic Party represent working people? not much. Even Obama is losing his popularity amongst the working people as he is beginning to look just like all the others before him. Its all a con. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indirectapproach Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I agree with you Fudge. The proletariat are a grave disappointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I agree with you Fudge.The proletariat are a grave disappointment. They are selfish and ignorant. Just how the politicians want them to be and the education system makes them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) Correct me if I am wrong but are not the operative words,“wholly, exclusively and necessarily†in connection with/the furtherance of .... parliamentary duties� How can it be necessary to charge 350,000 pounds to the tax payer when you have a tidy 75,000 just sitting around waiting to clear a liability elsewhere? Because you need to consider the "in persuance of the job" part. The "necessary" only referes to "does the job require it to be spent", not to your own personal financial position. tim Edited May 31, 2009 by tim123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Correction Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) Interviewed now on Channel 4 news, should be available on more4 later http://www.channel4.com/news/watchlisten/more4news.jsp Edited May 31, 2009 by correction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 This compliments the link I posted earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulfar Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 In addition to which £350k isn't a lot of house in that location. Look at London £350k was a one-bed new build. Cameron has just advised that the mortgage on the property is actually much greater than that so even if he had reduced the mortgage on this property by 75k it wouldn't have reduced it below this level so no change to how much the taxpayer pays. I am not surprised looking at the house it is very nice, is that the problem though that there is some envy in this. I still don't see why he should have saved the taxpayer money from his own assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Burglary, rape and violent attacks on people of colour. This lazy, predictable rhetoric really gets on my tits! 0.5/10 - Must try harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!) Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Nothing changesYou are ALL being manipulated yet again The owners of the Telegraph, the Barclay brothers are fiercely eurosceptic and this campaign is just designed to persuade as many people as possible to desert the main parties and vote for UKIP. If Labour get the lowest share of the vote in their history that will just be a bonus. Personally I am hoping UKIP come at least second to the Conservatives and that Labour come 5th after the Libdems and the BNP. Nu Labour have sold the ordinary people of this country down the river and deserve to be utterly destroyed as a party for what they have done IMO. :angry: good not that im happy with the power the media but the european union is a waste of money and only benefits big business, politicians, cronyism and hangers on im all for free trade but we dont need mountains of legislation to achieve that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grizzly bear Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article...nths-later.htmlOk, this I think is worthy of an investigation. A shame as I actually reasonably liked David Cameron and certain would prefer to see him installed instead of Brown. This is every bit as bad as the mortgage flippers like the Chancellor. In essence, he had a genuine mortgage for his own home, and he has transferred that liability to the taxpayer by moving the debt to another property. This is morally and possibly legally as bad as the MPs who claimed for non existent mortgages. Remember, expenses are supposed to be used wholly and exclusively for Parliamentary business. This is analogous to an MP taking out a mortgage on a property they already own outright, getting to the taxpayer to pay the new loan back whilst sticking the money in the bank to receive the interest- - its a bit like having an offset, offsetting his own interest liability by transferring it to the taxpayer. That in my book looks like fraud and smells like fraud! But I am sure they'll say its within the rules. I don't have a problem with his at all - he bought a house in the constituency, which he only needs as he was an MP there. Why should he have used any of his own money to fund it? So big deal he paid down his London mortgage after that - its his money. Are you suggesting as because he is rich he should have (part) funded his 2nd home from his own money and hence shouldn't have taken the full mortgage allowed? I don't really get why this is a story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Correction Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 In addition to which £350k isn't a lot of house in that location. Look at London £350k was a one-bed new build.Cameron has just advised that the mortgage on the property is actually much greater than that so even if he had reduced the mortgage on this property by 75k it wouldn't have reduced it below this level so no change to how much the taxpayer pays. I am not surprised looking at the house it is very nice, is that the problem though that there is some envy in this. I still don't see why he should have saved the taxpayer money from his own assets. This is a really good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinnamon Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Why should he have used any of his own money to fund it? So big deal he paid down his London mortgage after that - its his money. Because he keeps the profit whilst we pay the cost of buying his investment. Ths entire thing is a question of basic ethics and principles, and it's clear that Mr. Cameron, along with most of the parliament is grossly lacking here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southmartin Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Burglary, rape and violent attacks on people of colour. The majority of recorded rape attacks by a single ethnic group, are commited by young muslim males - I bet you won't find that on the BBC though will you! http://bnp.org.uk/2008/03/racism-cuts-both-ways/ “To put it as simply as possible: if you wanted to draw a police profile of the typical racist murderer in Britain in the seven years covered by the IRR report, he would be forty times more likely to be non-white than white.†Open your eyes, the white people of this land are more likely to be victims of racism. Though you wouldn't know it from listening to all the 'well balanced' immigrants (though to be fair, they're only well balanced because they've got a chip on EACH shoulder) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
three pint princess Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 The majority of recorded rape attacks by a single ethnic group The BNP do seem to disproportionately represented online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starsky Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Burglary (well theft), rape and violent attacks on people of colour seem to be popular amongst members of all political parties. Have a look at http://liarsbuggersandthieves.blogspot.com and maybe (although I doubt it), maybe you will change the record. Or maybe you have been so brainwashed by this government that you cannot admit, or accept, the fact that people from all political parties do horrible things? The BNP are vile scum and the mainstream parties are nothing like them. As for Cameron, the guy is a slimeball, a fake and a chancer. He does not deserve to be in govt, he just exploits whatever he thinks the public gives a shit about on any particular day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southmartin Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 The BNP do seem to disproportionately represented online. guess that's what happens when you attempt to stifle debate in the traditional media? (BNP website gets more visitors than labour, tories and libdem put together!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherSTR Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 In addition to which £350k isn't a lot of house in that location. Look at London £350k was a one-bed new build.Cameron has just advised that the mortgage on the property is actually much greater than that so even if he had reduced the mortgage on this property by 75k it wouldn't have reduced it below this level so no change to how much the taxpayer pays. I am not surprised looking at the house it is very nice, is that the problem though that there is some envy in this. I still don't see why he should have saved the taxpayer money from his own assets. I agree that MPs shouldn't be subsidising taxpayers with their own money, but the question is how much is a reasonable amount for providing accommodation. I think a one or two bed flat is probably the basic requirement for a second 'home' to enable MPs to work in Westminster. It's easy to see Cameron's requirement as greater because he is leader of the opposition, but should that be subsidised by us? I think probably not and that any extra requirement over the norm should be funded by either himself or the Conservative party. On the whole I think that a £350K mortgage is pushing it. It equates to around £2200 in mortgage repayments and in terms of rent that's a lot for a flat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Loblaw Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 The BNP are vile scum and the mainstream parties are nothing like them.As for Cameron, the guy is a slimeball, a fake and a chancer. He does not deserve to be in govt, he just exploits whatever he thinks the public gives a shit about on any particular day. Vile scum in your opinion. The mainstream parties are exactly the same, they have their fair share of rapists, thieves and liars and for you to declare that the main three are somehow different is naive at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
three pint princess Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 guess that's what happens when you attempt to stifle debate in the traditional media?(BNP website gets more visitors than labour, tories and libdem put together!) Do you have a source for this, covered by peer review. Also it just proves my point ?. Judging by acutal votes cast the BNP would be over represented by a massive amount if they had website views above the major groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Spart Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) I rather like the Green Party's policy of 'smashing up' the banks into organisations small enough to fail. That way if the lend stupid money they go bust, and don't get a bailout. I suspect however if they ever got close enough to implement it they'd be sent on a collective walk in the woods by the banking mafia. I wonder if the phones are busy at common purpose attempting to rig who gets into the minority parties leadership ? I suspect we're seeing that now. The banksters have had their boom/bust wealth transfer super-heist courtesy of the politicians who couldn't help but fall over themselves to show willing. As a show of gratitude the banksters are now dragging the politicians' names through the mud. Just a theory, probably wrong, but if right I wouldn't be surprised. Edited May 31, 2009 by Dave Spart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starsky Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Vile scum in your opinion. The mainstream parties are exactly the same, they have their fair share of rapists, thieves and liars and for you to declare that the main three are somehow different is naive at best. Find me the openly racist members of the Lib Dems or the Labour parties. You're making nonsensical claims based on a frigging blog of all things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Find me the openly racist members of the Lib Dems or the Labour parties. You're making nonsensical claims based on a frigging blog of all things. I think he said "rapists, thieves and liars". Anyway - I am certain there are plenty of racist members of the Lib Dems and Labour. To think otherwise would be rather naive - no ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Loblaw Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Find me the openly racist members of the Lib Dems or the Labour parties. You're making nonsensical claims based on a frigging blog of all things. Ah the truth hurts I guess. A blog it may be but its a blog of stories gathered from the media ... http://liarsbuggersandthieves.blogspot.com/ Unless you feel the stories presented on the site are all made up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Loblaw Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I think he said "rapists, thieves and liars".Anyway - I am certain there are plenty of racist members of the Lib Dems and Labour. To think otherwise would be rather naive - no ? Yes, plenty of racists members of the main three: http://liarsbuggersandthieves.blogspot.com...ch/label/Racism An inconvenient truth for some? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.