PDA

View Full Version : Should Cherie Blair pay back the 7,700?


TOT
21st Apr 2006, 20:35
Should Sherrie Blair pay back the 7,700 for her hair dresser?
I think the Blairs have lost touch with the normal working vaues of people in the UK!!--- anyway it didn't make her any more attractive!!
:sad: :mad: :confused:

SASless
21st Apr 2006, 20:50
Pay it back?

Oh, dear Man...don't even go there. Just think if "all" government folks had to suffer such close scrutiny about expenses?

Can you imagine JugEars explaining to an auditor about his midnight commuting expenses prior to his current marriage? That just wouldn't do would it?:E

Bobs-Your-Uncle
21st Apr 2006, 20:58
how the hell did they get voted back in last year?

people have short memories!!!

Flashover999
21st Apr 2006, 21:26
An old favourite saying comes to mind here "You cannot polish a turd"

A true state of apathy has overcome the British people, cant wait to leave!

Bobs-Your-Uncle
21st Apr 2006, 21:29
did she have her public hair styled too? ;)

Whirlygig
21st Apr 2006, 22:56
Can you imagine JugEars explaining to an auditor
Just use your powers of imagination :ok: :E

It might just be because Cherie (sic) spent so long in and out of helicopters during the election campaign that she needed to have her hair done every hour!

Cheers

Whirls

topendtorque
22nd Apr 2006, 00:05
"imagination" ??

Especially when she has to fly around in those old english open carriage horse drawn models, and waving.

TheFlyingSquirrel
22nd Apr 2006, 00:39
she can keep it on condition she hangs herself......:eek:

anyway - slip of the old mouse there me ol' mucker - I think this is a Jet Blast area !!

g-mady
22nd Apr 2006, 13:50
YES - Of course they should pay it back!!! AND EVERY other pound they wasted using the royal JET!!!
He gets ridd of Her Majesties royal fleet, totally destroys the Queen lifestyle (which she cannot argue against becuase of the danger it could backfire) but then he keeps the royal jet because he is going to use it and waste a fortune and then moan about Global Warning!!!!
Absolute Tos**r
If you believe they got back into power leagally...
How can an opposing government compete for votes when this government pays so many "lazy" people benifits to stay out of work!!!
MADY
Just to cover myself 1) Government refers to no particular government and
2) Lazy refers to no specific person
(what has the world come to?)

nutcracker43
23rd Apr 2006, 16:34
Wonder what Mrs Thatchers hair dressing bill was when campaigning...nowhere near this amount I shouldn't think.

FanPilot
23rd Apr 2006, 19:00
If she don't pay it back, does that mean that I can now put vanity through my company as a tax efficient investment?

Now, let's see... My wife could do with some erm, enhancements to attract the customers. I could do with a little dental work, a decent haircut, a new wardrobe... the list goes on, so if cherie can do it, then we must be able to as well.

Hughes500
23rd Apr 2006, 19:59
Personally I would have given her a brown paper bag. Think of the saving 7000 plus me not having to see her ugly mug on tv

Letsby Avenue
23rd Apr 2006, 20:34
Can I just remind everyone on this forum that you all need to work harder - The great unwashed, the ne're do well's and the millions on benefits all desperately need your cash to sustain the three holidays in Spain per year plus their premium Sky Sports package. Cherie Bliar is but a pimple on our world of waste...

Remember – Work harder – The benefit's system needs you.:}

Barndweller
24th Apr 2006, 11:43
I'm not one to get in the way of a good rant or government bash, but... for the record, the dosh for her hair came from Labour campaign funds not the government, so its the poor mugs who are daft enough to still be Labour members who paid for it, not the long suffering taxpayer on this occasion.
Happy Trails

Robbo Jock
24th Apr 2006, 12:09
One thing that particularly worries me along these lines is the current mutterings of state funding of political parties. Just think what they'll start paying once the taxpayers are picking up the tab.

topendtorque
24th Apr 2006, 13:20
"~ A political system where participation consists of one paltry, propaganda adjusted,
vote every four years."

Spot on quote, and manipulated by very shrewd marketing agencies.
To wit the one below.
From there you can check out the spin doctors involved in all OZ / NZ/ UK labor campaigns. Reason for mention is that they do not shirk at the odd hiring of rotory craft to get to out of the way places, Timor- Iraq? even aboriginals on walkabout in the middle of Arnhem land as seen on ABC TV in the last NT elections.

suggest any RW charter co put their contact details on their list.

http://www.hawkerbritton.com/services/political_campaigns.htm

Also on Parkinson in OZ last sat we got to see the PM that you guys all just love to hate, luckily Kevin Spacey was there with him to let us know about the human element.

Hover Bovver
24th Apr 2006, 14:35
I wonder if Mrs Blair declared it on her tax return? Always seems like one rule for them and another for us!

arismount
25th Apr 2006, 00:16
because I take a conservative, right wing stance. Yet unrelated, liberal-slanted posts remain. The bias of pprune and the moderators is very clear. You folks should be ashamed of yourselves. When someone disagrees with your worldview, you don't engage with them, you shut them down. The Muslim world would approve.

212man
25th Apr 2006, 02:38
I think Barn dweller has made the most relevant comment so far.

With anyone in the public eye; you're dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't!

tilewood
25th Apr 2006, 07:54
The one who is not daft is her hairdresser!! It's enough
to make you talk with a lisp!! :p

Unwell_Raptor
25th Apr 2006, 08:16
This is an absolutely down-the-line Jetblast rant at Labour, and the Blairs. So dreadful are they that TB has been elected three times, and the Opposition has been so hammered that there will probably be a fourth Labour Government.

When Labour was elected the tabloids (in particular the appalling Mail) were absolutely merciless with Cherie, who does not always photograph well, and she was constantly attacked for her appearance. So in response she sharpened up her act, and determined not to be caught out again.

Top-level politics is now like showbiz, and to be in the game you have to look right on TV. Politicians of the past would never get elected these days (Lincoln, Disraeli, Churchill, Wilson - too ugly, too Jewish, too bald, too stumpy).

The Labour spokesman's response to the synthetic fuss about the hairdresser was 'so what'. I agree. In the same election Michael Howard spent £3638 on make-up and Charles Kennedy spent £4800 on new suits. The Tories spent £3500 importing two groundhog outfits (FFS!)

It's not a party issue. I would defend a PM's wife whatever party she was from, because it's about fairness. There is a nasty mean-spirited side to this country sometimes, and a lot of it is right here.

Grainger
25th Apr 2006, 08:43
Michael Howard spent 3638 on make-up Crikey ! If ever anyone deserved to ask for their money back . . .

Thanks U_R for giving tme the best laugh this morning ! Michael Howard in make-up :uhoh: :eek: :yuk:

acbus1
25th Apr 2006, 10:03
This would never have happened when the Wigs were in power.

acbus1
25th Apr 2006, 10:10
There ya go.......worth every penny...:rolleyes:


http://www.martynmaxey.co.uk/images/celebs/Cherie%20Blair.jpg

Onan the Clumsy
25th Apr 2006, 13:19
Oddly enough, when I left the UK, albeit 23 years ago, my annual salary was 7,700

419
25th Apr 2006, 13:53
The Labour spokesman's response to the synthetic fuss about the hairdresser was 'so what'. I agree. In the same election Michael Howard spent 3638 on make-up and Charles Kennedy spent 4800 on new suits. The Tories spent 3500 importing two groundhog outfits (FFS!)


But apart from the fact that Howard and Kennedy would have been using party funds that were donated by sponsors, and not taxpayers money, they were trying to get elected.
I don't recall ever seeing Cherie Blair's name on a voting slip.

Surely she earns more than enough to pay for her own hairdresser.

Curious Pax
25th Apr 2006, 13:57
But apart from the fact that Howard and Kennedy would have been using party funds that were donated by sponsors, and not taxpayers money, they were trying to get elected.
I don't recall ever seeing Cherie Blair's name on a voting slip.
Surely she earns more than enough to pay for her own hairdresser.

It was Labour party funds, not taxpayer's money, so it is exactly the same as in the case of Howard and Kennedy.

phnuff
25th Apr 2006, 14:02
It was Labour party funds, not taxpayer's money, so it is exactly the same as in the case of Howard and Kennedy.

Hey 419, that is what comes from believing what is written in the Daily Mail

419
25th Apr 2006, 14:23
I stand corrected.

I didn't get the info from the Daily mail, but from reading this thread. It didn't mention anywhere that it was party funds.

Curious Pax
25th Apr 2006, 16:22
Check out post #15 in this thread!