southmartin Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Whatever point you are trying to make - you are not helping yourself !! true - still, what else can you expect from someone from a nation of convicts? (oooh - i'm such a stirrer!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 true - still, what else can you expect from someone from a nation of convicts?(oooh - i'm such a stirrer!) Come on - you are just doing the same !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southmartin Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Come on - you are just doing the same !! Guilty as charged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blankster Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 where the conclusion was that whips have coerced MPs into claiming as much as possible. One MP who didn't drive was told - 'well, claim for taxis then'. Sounds like the old Heathrow trick being used! Edited May 31, 2009 by blankster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indirectapproach Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 “There should be one standard amount claimable that reasonably reimburses MPs, both rich and poor. The amount shouldn't change because one has lots of money.†We can consider “should†this and “could†that and that’s a worthwhile discussion. But the question for now in my mind at this time is the “is†one. “Is†what Cameron claimed lawful? And in my view that is a point for the jury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indirectapproach Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 “There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 where the conclusion was that whips have coerced MPs into claiming as much as possible. One MP who didn't drive was told - 'well, claim for taxis then'.†That would never stand up in a court of law. Mitigation, maybe. Defence, never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 But the question for now in my mind at this time is the “is†one.“Is†what Cameron claimed lawful? And in my view that is a point for the jury. Except it's not a jury he has to convince, it's the electorate. The point cogs made above was a good one -- how can the townsfolk trust the new sheriff to clean up the town, unless they believe he's beyond reproach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indirectapproach Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 He would have to convince a jury if he’s had up in front of one and that, in my view, is what should happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UK Debt Slave Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) This compliments the link I posted earlier. Carlin was one of the greatest social commentators of the age No wonder he was never given any exposure in the UK media. Edited June 1, 2009 by UK Debt Slave 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.