PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   UK politics - Hamsterwheel (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/411282-uk-politics-hamsterwheel.html)

Seldomfitforpurpose 29th Oct 2012 19:53


Originally Posted by hellsbrink (Post 7492490)
Don't the TV broadcasters have access to the feed like they do in rugby?

Cant say I have ever heard it, would be an interesting improvement though :ok:

hellsbrink 29th Oct 2012 20:00

Well, how "interesting" it would be is open to question, especially with the prospect of hearing Rooney grunting at people.

But it's something that crossed my mind, and it's a genuine question because I can't remember hearing comments from the ref either. One thinks one shall have a look around and see what one can find on that.


Edit.

First thing I found is that it is a "closed" system, with only the 4 officials party to what is being said. Maybe that is a good thing......

Seldomfitforpurpose 29th Oct 2012 20:22


Originally Posted by hellsbrink (Post 7492520)

First thing I found is that it is a "closed" system, with only the 4 officials party to what is being said. Maybe that is a good thing......

I never did understand why the ref does not come out post match, like the managers do and simply shed some light on things.

Before retiring I worked in the same building as John Flynn, an RAF Flt Sgt who is also a premier league linesman and it was bloody interesting hearing his spin on things most Monday mornings.

hellsbrink 29th Oct 2012 20:28

Maybe because it would mean him calling someone a "whiny, cheating, Spanish/Italian/Manc/Scouse/<insert nationality, location, etc, of your choice here> t**t" and that simply wouldn't be good for the TV viewers.

Seldomfitforpurpose 29th Oct 2012 21:15

Someone would out that an anagram of Neil Warnock is Colin Wa.nker, suffice to say all the officials refer to him as Colin :p

hellsbrink 29th Oct 2012 21:41

And very apt it is.

Bet there's quite a few names for Ferguson.

stuckgear 30th Oct 2012 09:33

from guido:


Electoral Commission Investigating Luciana Berger
Labour MP Faces Dormant Donation Questions


http://orderorder.files.wordpress.co...80&h=205&h=205
The Electoral Commission have confirmed to Guido that they have asked the Labour Party for an explanation as to why Luciana Berger accepted an apparently illegal donation from a dormant company. Guido previously revealed how Berger’s CLP received a £5,000 donation from Purple Apple Facilities Management in April 2011, despite the company being declared dormant the previous year. Last night the Electoral Commission confirmed it had received a letter from Tory MP Karen Lumley enquiring as to whether Berger had broken the law on political donations:

and..

...

Cooper’s Cash from Shamed ‘Expenses Queen’

http://orderorder.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=480&h=191
You might have thought that any self-respecting ambitious shadow cabinet minister and future party leadership contender would want to keep a safe distance from the sleazy world of expenses cheats. Not Yvette Cooper.
The shadow home secretary trousered a donation of nearly £5,000 from shamed ex-Labour MP and so-called ‘Expenses Queen’ Barbara Follett this month. Follett lost her job at the last election after she was exposed as one of the worst expenses troughers of all, amongst other things claiming £500 to clean a Chinese rug. Her novelist husband Ken bankrolled Ed Balls’ leadership campaign, and overall the Folletts have donated almost £60,000 to the Balls-Coopers this Parliament. Last time round public pressure decided that Barbara Follett had no role to play in public life. Ed and Yvette clearly disagree…



Andy_S 30th Oct 2012 10:13

Did anyone else see the lady on BBC Breakfast this morning complaining about the changes in child benefit entitlement?

She had 6 kids, clearly lived in a large, pleasant house, and her husband earned in excess of £ 60,000 p.a.

She thought it was “extremely unfair” that they would no longer qualify for child benefit……….

stuckgear 30th Oct 2012 10:30

Andy S

and that's the nub of it.. 6 - kids STOP BREEDING and expecting the world to pay for your progeny !

of course the labourites will spin it that the cutting of child benefit will push people into poverty.. nasty tories blah blah

the rugrats were their choice not mine, tough.. cant afford them don't have them.

sitigeltfel 30th Oct 2012 10:50


Originally Posted by Andy_S (Post 7493415)
Did anyone else see the lady on BBC Breakfast this morning complaining about the changes in child benefit entitlement?

She had 6 kids, clearly lived in a large, pleasant house, and her husband earned in excess of £ 60,000 p.a.

She thought it was “extremely unfair” that they would no longer qualify for child benefit……….

I watched that.

What she was saying was unfair was that, a couple earning £49,900 each would not be penalised, whereas a household with a single breadwinner earning £50,100 would.

Andy_S 30th Oct 2012 11:03

Obviously I misunderstood that bit, but it's a fair comment.

Absolutely none of them should be getting a penny.......

ManUtd1999 30th Oct 2012 17:34


What she was saying was unfair was that, a couple earning £49,900 each would not be penalised, whereas a household with a single breadwinner earning £50,100 would.
This is a situation that's been raised time and time again since the proposals were announced, yet the government has never really answered the question. Why can't it just be altered to total household income?

hellsbrink 30th Oct 2012 18:25


This is a situation that's been raised time and time again since the proposals were announced, yet the government has never really answered the question. Why can't it just be altered to total household income?
Because that would be common sense?

Gertrude the Wombat 30th Oct 2012 18:37


Why can't it just be altered to total household income?
Because husbands would then get to find out what their wives were earning, and getting away from that was the result of a decades long campaign by the feminists.

(No, I don't get it either: what sort of marriage is it where people keep things like that secret from each other?)

OFSO 31st Oct 2012 22:29

Davbe Cameron gets a lesson.
 
So the PM was defeated today by 13 votes by MPs demanding that he not accept - at best - a continuation of levels in the EU budget but instead demand a real-term reduction in the 2014-2020 budget.

Great stuff. As an ex-EU civil servant on a meagre pension (yes, meagre: don't believe what you read in the "Daily Mail" because it's mostly bullsh*t) I and tens of thousands of others had to take a cut in my pension last year "because of the economic climate" - a cut which will continue as long as we live - a cut doubly bitter with the national income tax payable on that pension rising once more this year and next - and it infuriates me to see the unelected and unregulated wastrels in Brussels and Strasbourg demanding ever more money (5% per annum in this case) to continue their profligate ways. My heartfelt thanks to those MP's who put their collective feet down and voted with their heads.

(I notice the euro/sterling exchange rate has shifted in sterling's favour since the vote was taken so it's being noted in Euro circles as well).

hellsbrink 1st Nov 2012 09:03

To go back to the child benefit issue, here's one that should get some blood boiling especially given the words in the report AND the source of the report...

In a furious attack on the Government's child benefit cuts, Angela Epstein writes: 'It¿s outrageous. My family is losing child benefit just for earning £100k' | Mail Online

stuckgear 1st Nov 2012 11:33

Mrs. Ed in the taxpayers money...



Ed’s Wife and Her Cushy Labour Job

http://orderorder.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=150&h=182
Guido would hardly have thought £250,000-a-year* Justine Thornton would have needed the money, but Millionaire Miliband’s wife has landed a cushy new job nonetheless.
Justine has just been named on a roster of lawyers providing taxpayer-funded work for the Labour-controlled Welsh government.
She must have passed the interview with flying colours…
*Guido sources say that someone of her experience and seniority at her chambers would be on £500,000. She doesn’t work full-time so we have halved her estimated income. Leveson famed Robert Jay heads her chambers.



ORAC 1st Nov 2012 15:03

The Commentator: EXCLUSIVE: BBC left-wing political bias illustrated through UK political funding revelations

A freedom of information request has revealed shocking BBC bias towards left-wing political parties in the United Kingdom

A freedom of information (FOI) response seen by The Commentator has revealed unjustifiable bias in the BBC's approach to UK politcal parties. The request has forced the BBC into showing its financial levels of participation in political party conferences and events, as well as in traveling with political party campaigns.

The BBC has often come under fire for its 'political bias', a position that it has always robustly defended against. But the new revelations will once again create a problem for the BBC in defending its political coverage and indeed the very nature of the licence fee.

The freedom of information request shows that over the past 10 years, the BBC has spent £335,000 with the Labour Party, £295,000 with the Liberal Democrats and just £96,000 with the Conservatives.

The letter, signed off by Nigel Etienne, BBC Projects and Planning Manager, states, "I can confirm that the BBC has spent the following amounts with registered political parties in United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, in the last 10 complete financial years (being 01 April to 31 March for the Financial Years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011). These figure comprises items such as conference fees, exhibition space and conference pass fees.

The breakdown is as follows: http://www.thecommentator.com/ckedit...t_17_01_08.png

............It appears now that the BBC did not simply once hold an anti-Thatcher bias, but rather holds an inherent anti-Conservative bias. The figures, already hard enough to defend against, shows the Liberal Democrats getting more financing and more attention from the BBC, despite the fact that the party is now the 3rd or 4th largest party in Britain, while the Conservatives hold the majority of the seats in government.............

lenhamlad 2nd Nov 2012 20:11

Yet another MP caught with his fingers in the till.

BBC News - MP's expenses: Denis MacShane resigns over false invoices

Despite claims by all parties to be clean, yet more evidence of the mire these pigs will sink their snouts into and is evidence of the contempt with which they treat the general populace.

OFSO 6th Nov 2012 11:10

Watching SKY News the past few days makes me wonder whether the United Kingdom has now become the 51st state of the USA. Election election election hammering out 24 hrs a day plus thinly-disguised adverts for one or the other candidate.

Sky's being turned off in this household until November 8th.

ManUtd1999 6th Nov 2012 18:01

BBC News - MP Nadine Dorries suspended as Tory MP in I'm a Celebrity row

So Nadine Dorris apparently thinks it's appropriate to leave her job as an MP (which we're paying her for) to live in the jungle for a month. I'd just heard about it (I guess I would have heard about it sooner on here if she'd been a Labour MP....) and it came up with breaking news that she's been suspended.

tony draper 6th Nov 2012 18:15

As I understand it even if she is sacked by her local party she would continue to be a MP on full pay until she is beaten in a election,I could be wrong.
There should of course be a method whereby her local electorate could sack her immediately,but I do not think there is,cant see parliament allowing the peasantry that much power.
:uhoh:

hellsbrink 6th Nov 2012 18:17

Doubt you would have heard about it earlier, the story didn't exactly break a long time ago.

ORAC 10th Nov 2012 10:30

Oops..... They're all the same, Tory or Labour, hypocritical barstewards one and all.....

Margaret Hodge's family company pays just 0.01pc tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK

Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, is facing embarrassing revelations over the tax affairs of her family company just days before she is due to lead the grilling of US companies over controversial tax arrangements.

The Labour MP has been one of the fiercest critics of tax avoidance by companies such as Starbucks, Google and Amazon. However, she is likely to face questions over the limited tax paid by Stemcor, the steel trading company in which she owns shares and which was founded by her father and is run by her brother.

Analysis of Stemcor’s latest accounts show that the business paid tax of just £163,000 on revenues of more than £2.1bn in 2011. However. it is not known whether the company – which made profits of £65m – used similar controversial tax avoidance measures criticised in the past by Mrs Hodge. Stemcor’s tax bill to the exchequer equates to just 0.01pc of the revenues it booked through its UK-based business. In accounts filed with Companies House, Stemcor revealed that despite generating about one third of its revenues in Britain, its UK tax contribution made up only 2.7pc of the tax the company paid globally.

Stemcor was founded by Mrs Hodge’s father Hans Oppenheimer more than 60 years ago. Today, the business claims to be the sixth largest private UK company by turnover. Last year the company, which employs 2,000 people in 45 countries, generated sales of £6bn from trading about 20m tonnes of steel.......

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, Mrs Hodge defended Stemcor’s behaviour and said that the company had “assured” her it paid “every penny of tax that is owed”, adding that she was only “a very small shareholder”. “Clearly, I have asked them the question,” said Mrs Hodge. “They have always promised that they do absolutely nothing to avoid tax. I would be very mad if I found out differently.”

Mrs Hodge said unlike other companies under the spotlight, Stemcor did not try to shield profits or “hide information” and that was the difference between Stemcor and Starbucks. However, when pressed about the details of why so little tax was paid by Stemcor despite the billions of pounds it makes, Ms Hodge said that she had not done “enough detailed work” and did not have the information............

Seldomfitforpurpose 11th Nov 2012 09:14

Justice is finally done

BBC News - Cell-push policeman Mark Andrews wins job ruling

G-CPTN 12th Nov 2012 14:46

Granted bail, too . . .
 
BBC News - Abu Qatada wins appeal against deportation

G-CPTN 13th Nov 2012 13:05

BBC News - Margaret Moran took £53K in false MP expenses

vulcanised 13th Nov 2012 15:23

Another bent MP looking to escape consequences of her thieving by any means (and probably getting away with it).

sitigeltfel 13th Nov 2012 16:12

Do you know this woman?
 
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...DFV7EoLuplG7Ww

Well, if you don't, she is Gareth Peirce, the human rights lawyer who has been instrumental in making sure that Abu Qatada is not deported to Jordan to face justice.

Video: Abu Qatada's lawyer reacts to ruling - Telegraph

It has been reported that the legal manoeuvrings to get him deported have cost millions, and it does not take many brain cells to deduce where the cash has ended up.


From the Guardian...

Her attitude towards "the establishment" remains ambiguous. Six years ago she accepted a CBE for "services to justice", but later wrote back declining the honour. "It was not my intention to accept it and, through undoubtedly my own error, it was included in the list," she later explained to the Times.
A columnist for that newspaper, Michael Gove, now a Tory candidate, has accused her of being a "passionate, committed and effective supporter of the Trotskyist Socialist Alliance", an organisation intent on "destabilising the props of the establishment".
....and she seems to be very effective on that front. What better way to undermine the fabric of a country, threaten its institutions and its population, than by campaigning on behalf of a man whose stated aims are just that!

Qatada is unwittingly a proxy for the ambitions of those like her, and she can claim a clean pair of hands when the next bomb eviscerates your family an friends.

And the beauty of it all is, (for her anyway) is that if you are a UK citizen, you are actually footing the bill for it all. That's right, all the fees are being taken from your tax payments and being spent on a man who would like to see you dead!

Seldomfitforpurpose 13th Nov 2012 17:11

Sorry but can't agree with that. She is a defence lawyer so it's her job to defend people and that is all she has done here.

Sadly it's the state that have kept screwing up, each time they bring their case to court the defence out manoeuvres them.

As repugnant as it is in some cases each of us is fully entitled to a proper defence in law and sadly in this case the lady in question is doing her job very bloody well.

vulcanised 13th Nov 2012 17:53


Sorry but can't agree with that

I most certainly can! It's almost a foregone conclusion that if an alien undesirable is rightly on trial then she will be party to getting them off the charge on a technicality where guilt or innocence don't even feature.

Loathsome parasitic woman.

hellsbrink 13th Nov 2012 18:02

But, vulcanised, surely the issue lies with the actual "law of the land" itself and not with some lawyer who knows the law better than the Government and it's lawyers (Be afraid, sffp, be very afraid. I am actually agreeing with you!)?

If Qatada had been in France, Germany, Belgium or almost any other EU country, he would have been on a plane a long time ago. Why not Britain? Answer, UK law is the issue, not lawyers who actually know what they are doing.

It may be morally repugnant, but that is not said lawyer's fault. And since there is no chance of the law actually being changed, there will be no change in the situation.

aviate1138 14th Nov 2012 11:33

Surely a Fund could be raised via the internet to charter an exec jet to Jordan with Al Q and some 'minders' and I am sure the Jordanians would be delighted to see him on their soil.

He could be fitted with an aged person's Nappy so he can't ask for toilet facilities and as for "Human Rights" surely if he is passed on to Jordan what can happen? The French seem to be able to deport anyone at the drop of a hat. So should we and we need a PM with balls to say

"Al Qatada on your way and good riddance". Human Rights/UK Law needs a big readjustment IMHO.

Too much bias to allow the criminal elements/terrorists to get away with actual Murder.

Terrorists should be disallowed HR by their actions!

My contribution is waiting.......

Andy_S 14th Nov 2012 11:55

I don't think it's a question of balls.

I'm not a legal or constitutional expert, but I believe that the French judicial system is much more closely aligned with the political one than our own. As such, one would assume that if the French government want to deport someone who they see as a threat, the magistrates generally support them rather than (as ours do) thwart them.

AlpineSkier 14th Nov 2012 12:17

"..

If Qatada had been in France, Germany, Belgium or almost any other EU country, he would have been on a plane a long time ago. "
Can't speak about Belgium, but that is wishful thinking as far as Germany is concerned, and to some extent France too.

Germany has had/has numerous militant Islamists - usually called "Hassprediger " ( hate-preachers ) - that they have fought for years to get rid of with varying degrees of success. France seems to fare better, but I remember at least one case where the authorities put an imam on a jet to Morocco or somewhere p.d.q. and judges then said he had to be allowed back because his case/appeal whatever hadn't finished

Seldomfitforpurpose 14th Nov 2012 17:47


Originally Posted by aviate1138 (Post 7519031)
we need a PM with balls to say

"Al Qatada on your way and good riddance".

I suspect it was mostly posted with your tongue firmly in your cheek but if we simply ship him off where would we stop with that solution?

Don't misunderstand me if someone was to simply slot the guy I would lose not a wink of sleep over the matter but if that is to be our national solution to this sort of problem just how far down the food chain do you go before you decide he/she can live as opposed to die?

As others have said our legal process is simply not robust enough to deal with these people and that is where the problem lies.

tony draper 14th Nov 2012 17:51

The trick would be not to let the feckers in in the first place.:suspect:

hellsbrink 14th Nov 2012 18:47


Can't speak about Belgium, but that is wishful thinking as far as Germany is concerned, and to some extent France too.

Germany has had/has numerous militant Islamists - usually called "Hassprediger " ( hate-preachers ) - that they have fought for years to get rid of with varying degrees of success. France seems to fare better, but I remember at least one case where the authorities put an imam on a jet to Morocco or somewhere p.d.q. and judges then said he had to be allowed back because his case/appeal whatever hadn't finished
That's the thing, AS, it wasn't too long ago when I posted a random selection of "undesirables" who had been deported from assorted EU countries, whereas the UK had a problem with doing the same. I only stuck to Imams, Muslim preachers, suspected terrorist, etc, and not the illegal immigrants and non-muslim "undesirables", but easily found examples from places like Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, France, etc, over the last few years, during the time that the UK wasted trying to get people like Qatada and others out of the country.

There is a simple difference between the UK and all the others, it's called the Human Rights Act. As I have said on many occasions.

stuckgear 14th Nov 2012 19:01

Another Labour Legacy, brought foward by Blair, no doubt the hatched mouthed harridan had input..

by the way..


The Labour government incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into law through the Human Rights Act 1998. The 1997 white paper "Rights Brought Home"[2] stated:
It takes on average five years to get an action into the European Court of Human Rights once all domestic remedies have been exhausted; and it costs an average of £30,000. Bringing these rights home will mean that the British people will be able to argue for their rights in the British courts – without this inordinate delay and cost.

*my bold and italic for emphasis.


Ironic isn't it that everything Labour touches turns to $hit, yet they still have their rabid supporters..

While the likes of Qatada, who entered into the country illegally on false papers, showing his contempt for the rule of law, now uses those very law he is contempt of to escape his destiny.

like i've said before the labour rabid support is akin to treason.

as an aside, what's the betting that if Qatada's legal proceedings were not on the inexhaustible account of taxpayer funding he would have run out of road, when 'his' money ran out.

G-CPTN 15th Nov 2012 12:29

BBC News - Lord Hanningfield used council credit card for foreign trips


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:14.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.