They have learned nothing!
23 February 2015, 08:00 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have learned nothing!
Rifkind and Straw have today shown us that despite 15 years of falling public confidence in our politicians following one scandal after another they still do not get it and probably never will!
It has become par for the course for certain posters on this forum to poke fun at UKIP, well all I can say is take a look at the parties YOU are going to be voting for.
Greedy self serving pigs at the trough and you want to give them yet another term!
It has become par for the course for certain posters on this forum to poke fun at UKIP, well all I can say is take a look at the parties YOU are going to be voting for.
Greedy self serving pigs at the trough and you want to give them yet another term!
23 February 2015, 08:41 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rifkind and Straw have today shown us that despite 15 years of falling public confidence in our politicians following one scandal after another they still do not get it and probably never will!
It has become par for the course for certain posters on this forum to poke fun at UKIP, well all I can say is take a look at the parties YOU are going to be voting for.
Greedy self serving pigs at the trough and you want to give them yet another term!
It has become par for the course for certain posters on this forum to poke fun at UKIP, well all I can say is take a look at the parties YOU are going to be voting for.
Greedy self serving pigs at the trough and you want to give them yet another term!
23 February 2015, 09:19 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
24 February 2015, 05:59 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel sorry for these people, having to live on £67,000 a year. just how do they manage? 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10064438.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10064438.html
24 February 2015, 06:22 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What worries me about today's politicians is that to be a leader of one of the main parties all you have to do is to go to Eaton etc and study politics, none of them have ever run a business or even had much real life experience. Years ago and I'm showing my age now but the local Labour MP was an ex shop steward who at least seen and grown up in the real world and the local Tory MP was a business man with experience in managing and making a business profitable and let's get it right this country is one big business!
Last edited by FlatoutDave; 24 February 2015 at 06:24 AM.
24 February 2015, 06:35 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What worries me about today's politicians is that to be a leader of one of the main parties all you have to do is to go to Eaton etc and study politics, none of them have ever run a business or even had much real life experience. Years ago and I'm showing my age now but the local Labour MP was an ex shop steward who at least seen and grown up in the real world and the local Tory MP was a business man with experience in managing and making a business profitable and let's get it right this country is one big business!
*******.
24 February 2015, 07:53 AM
#11
Yep: Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE). Especially at Oxford has a lot to answer for today's politics.
Have a look at the PPE graduates from Oxford and you'll see a lot of familiar names.
It's a sad sorry state of affairs that our country is run by the whimsical notions dreamt up in a lecture room rather than being based on actual personal experience in the real world; We may as well have the lecturers run the country rather than their protégés.
Have a look at the PPE graduates from Oxford and you'll see a lot of familiar names.
It's a sad sorry state of affairs that our country is run by the whimsical notions dreamt up in a lecture room rather than being based on actual personal experience in the real world; We may as well have the lecturers run the country rather than their protégés.
Last edited by ALi-B; 24 February 2015 at 07:55 AM.
24 February 2015, 08:37 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
As I said in a post a year or two ago - Educated beyond their abilities
A collapse in social mobility, and a rigorous and effective maintenance of the status quo that only benefits those at the top
With the defence of the "asset" class, actual wealth creation and innovation is stifled
I said in a post 4 odd years ago, the to have a decent standard of living in the country you need at least a 100k income (at least) Malcom Rifkin, gets it (those at the top all get it) that why he said he did not have a salary - he knows his 67k salary does not even touch the sides
A collapse in social mobility, and a rigorous and effective maintenance of the status quo that only benefits those at the top
With the defence of the "asset" class, actual wealth creation and innovation is stifled
I said in a post 4 odd years ago, the to have a decent standard of living in the country you need at least a 100k income (at least) Malcom Rifkin, gets it (those at the top all get it) that why he said he did not have a salary - he knows his 67k salary does not even touch the sides
24 February 2015, 08:39 AM
#14
Got to maintain the "Status Quo"
If you've got money who needs brains or common sense, the system is set to favour those with money, after all they are the ones who set the system up in the first instance.
Sure the odd one or two can climb up the ladder from the outside but they have to "play the game" if they want to stay in the club and you won't get invited in unless you do.
Then you have to go to the right places, lick the right *****, send your kids to the right school.
But hey there is hope for the rest of us, one only has to look at Kate Middleton to realise that, her family are proper "Players" they'd do well in the "Ghetto"
If you've got money who needs brains or common sense, the system is set to favour those with money, after all they are the ones who set the system up in the first instance.
Sure the odd one or two can climb up the ladder from the outside but they have to "play the game" if they want to stay in the club and you won't get invited in unless you do.
Then you have to go to the right places, lick the right *****, send your kids to the right school.
But hey there is hope for the rest of us, one only has to look at Kate Middleton to realise that, her family are proper "Players" they'd do well in the "Ghetto"
24 February 2015, 08:41 AM
#15
As I said in a post a year or two ago - Educated beyond their abilities
A collapse in social mobility, and a rigorous and effective maintenance of the status quo that only benefits those at the top
With the defence of the "asset" class, actual wealth creation and innovation is stifled
I said in a post 4 odd years ago, the to have a decent standard of living in the country you need at least a 100k income (at least) Malcom Rifkin, gets it (those at the top all get it) that why he said he did not have a salary - he knows his 67k salary does not even touch the sides
A collapse in social mobility, and a rigorous and effective maintenance of the status quo that only benefits those at the top
With the defence of the "asset" class, actual wealth creation and innovation is stifled
I said in a post 4 odd years ago, the to have a decent standard of living in the country you need at least a 100k income (at least) Malcom Rifkin, gets it (those at the top all get it) that why he said he did not have a salary - he knows his 67k salary does not even touch the sides
24 February 2015, 10:28 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not about to defend sleazy politicians, you shouldn't vote because it just encourages them.
But let's have a look at the process here.
Does anyone else wonder about how many other similar under cover investigations by our caring and public spirited journalists like this are carried out but have no consequence and as such are non-events?
Yet somebody's privacy has still been compromised.
In order to catch one or two prime candidates such as Rifkind and Straw, how many other people from public service must be subject to covert filming?
Now you can argue that people working in the world of public service have to forgo their right to privacy. Is that just and fair?
The point I'm trying to make is that, for example, the police can't (supposedly) tap your phone without showing due reason to do so. Yet it appears that a journalist can set up a 'sting' situation, covertly film the procedure, and post the results for all to see. The reason we don't see the results of the non-events is that they're not news worthy.
You never see any headlines shouting about the times they must interview public servants in a 'sting' scenario and are unable to find some dirty laundry. When was the last time anyone saw news headlines to the effect that Joe Bloggs MP is a thoroughly decent bloke because we couldn't tempt him with generous back hander?
Does this kind of secret activity constitute entrapment? Invasion of privacy? Pre-judgement of guilt?
Do the covert activities of Rebecca Brookes et al ring any bells with any one? There was huge public indignation at journalistic phone tapping of public figures in the name of making column inches.
How is secret filming so different?
And I scarcely dare mention Millie Dowling.
If there's one thing I loathe more than a greedy politician, it's a scum bag journalist.
But let's have a look at the process here.
Does anyone else wonder about how many other similar under cover investigations by our caring and public spirited journalists like this are carried out but have no consequence and as such are non-events?
Yet somebody's privacy has still been compromised.
In order to catch one or two prime candidates such as Rifkind and Straw, how many other people from public service must be subject to covert filming?
Now you can argue that people working in the world of public service have to forgo their right to privacy. Is that just and fair?
The point I'm trying to make is that, for example, the police can't (supposedly) tap your phone without showing due reason to do so. Yet it appears that a journalist can set up a 'sting' situation, covertly film the procedure, and post the results for all to see. The reason we don't see the results of the non-events is that they're not news worthy.
You never see any headlines shouting about the times they must interview public servants in a 'sting' scenario and are unable to find some dirty laundry. When was the last time anyone saw news headlines to the effect that Joe Bloggs MP is a thoroughly decent bloke because we couldn't tempt him with generous back hander?
Does this kind of secret activity constitute entrapment? Invasion of privacy? Pre-judgement of guilt?
Do the covert activities of Rebecca Brookes et al ring any bells with any one? There was huge public indignation at journalistic phone tapping of public figures in the name of making column inches.
How is secret filming so different?
And I scarcely dare mention Millie Dowling.
If there's one thing I loathe more than a greedy politician, it's a scum bag journalist.
Last edited by Blue by You; 24 February 2015 at 10:29 AM.
24 February 2015, 10:56 AM
#17
For me, it's the other way round: the journo, at least, does try to bring into the public domain stuff like this.
His means reflect how cozy are the politicians with the forces of law and order.
Was watching a VERY young new female candidate on TV last night, and the wife said, "What does SHE know, what can SHE do?"
My answer: "Fill her pockets, just like the rest of them.!
His means reflect how cozy are the politicians with the forces of law and order.
Was watching a VERY young new female candidate on TV last night, and the wife said, "What does SHE know, what can SHE do?"
My answer: "Fill her pockets, just like the rest of them.!
24 February 2015, 11:07 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not about to defend sleazy politicians, you shouldn't vote because it just encourages them.
But let's have a look at the process here.
Does anyone else wonder about how many other similar under cover investigations by our caring and public spirited journalists like this are carried out but have no consequence and as such are non-events?
Yet somebody's privacy has still been compromised.
In order to catch one or two prime candidates such as Rifkind and Straw, how many other people from public service must be subject to covert filming?
Now you can argue that people working in the world of public service have to forgo their right to privacy. Is that just and fair?
The point I'm trying to make is that, for example, the police can't (supposedly) tap your phone without showing due reason to do so. Yet it appears that a journalist can set up a 'sting' situation, covertly film the procedure, and post the results for all to see. The reason we don't see the results of the non-events is that they're not news worthy.
You never see any headlines shouting about the times they must interview public servants in a 'sting' scenario and are unable to find some dirty laundry. When was the last time anyone saw news headlines to the effect that Joe Bloggs MP is a thoroughly decent bloke because we couldn't tempt him with generous back hander?
Does this kind of secret activity constitute entrapment? Invasion of privacy? Pre-judgement of guilt?
Do the covert activities of Rebecca Brookes et al ring any bells with any one? There was huge public indignation at journalistic phone tapping of public figures in the name of making column inches.
How is secret filming so different?
And I scarcely dare mention Millie Dowling.
If there's one thing I loathe more than a greedy politician, it's a scum bag journalist.
But let's have a look at the process here.
Does anyone else wonder about how many other similar under cover investigations by our caring and public spirited journalists like this are carried out but have no consequence and as such are non-events?
Yet somebody's privacy has still been compromised.
In order to catch one or two prime candidates such as Rifkind and Straw, how many other people from public service must be subject to covert filming?
Now you can argue that people working in the world of public service have to forgo their right to privacy. Is that just and fair?
The point I'm trying to make is that, for example, the police can't (supposedly) tap your phone without showing due reason to do so. Yet it appears that a journalist can set up a 'sting' situation, covertly film the procedure, and post the results for all to see. The reason we don't see the results of the non-events is that they're not news worthy.
You never see any headlines shouting about the times they must interview public servants in a 'sting' scenario and are unable to find some dirty laundry. When was the last time anyone saw news headlines to the effect that Joe Bloggs MP is a thoroughly decent bloke because we couldn't tempt him with generous back hander?
Does this kind of secret activity constitute entrapment? Invasion of privacy? Pre-judgement of guilt?
Do the covert activities of Rebecca Brookes et al ring any bells with any one? There was huge public indignation at journalistic phone tapping of public figures in the name of making column inches.
How is secret filming so different?
And I scarcely dare mention Millie Dowling.
If there's one thing I loathe more than a greedy politician, it's a scum bag journalist.
Last edited by FlatoutDave; 24 February 2015 at 11:10 AM.
24 February 2015, 11:08 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you rationalise this...
With this...
The public probably does have a right to know.
But at what price?
Do the covert activities of Rebecca Brookes et al ring any bells with any one? There was huge public indignation at journalistic phone tapping of public figures in the name of making column inches.
How is secret filming so different?
And I scarcely dare mention Millie Dowling.
How is secret filming so different?
And I scarcely dare mention Millie Dowling.
But at what price?
24 February 2015, 11:10 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least governments are elected bodies acting on behalf of even a slightly suspicious electorate.
Who grants journalists the right?
24 February 2015, 11:15 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree journalists take the ****! The phone hacking proved that, it's all about selling papers etc. But don't you think that we are all now living under big brother?
24 February 2015, 11:16 AM
#22
For me, it's the other way round: the journo, at least, does try to bring into the public domain stuff like this.
His means reflect how cozy are the politicians with the forces of law and order.
Was watching a VERY young new female candidate on TV last night, and the wife said, "What does SHE know, what can SHE do?"
My answer: "Fill her pockets, just like the rest of them.!
His means reflect how cozy are the politicians with the forces of law and order.
Was watching a VERY young new female candidate on TV last night, and the wife said, "What does SHE know, what can SHE do?"
My answer: "Fill her pockets, just like the rest of them.!
24 February 2015, 11:26 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However in both cases I believe it is the system that permits both kinds of transgression to happen.
Politicians know that they are permitted under certain conditions to have other sources of income, but there don't appear to be sufficiently robust controls in place to ensure those conditions are adherred to.
Journalists are allowed to conduct covert operations without seeking the agreement of the Judiciary. (BTW I don't think the fundamental pre-requisite of free speech would be necessarily compromised if the Judiciary were consulted on such matters).
24 February 2015, 11:29 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: JDM MY97 Type R - 2.1 Stroker
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly, I dont vote as I truly believe they are all the same.
Just out for their own gains.
I am sure not all are like that but I can be sure that I know what human nature is like. So yes, the majority dont really give two monkeys.
Just out for their own gains.
I am sure not all are like that but I can be sure that I know what human nature is like. So yes, the majority dont really give two monkeys.
24 February 2015, 11:34 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not about to defend sleazy politicians, you shouldn't vote because it just encourages them.
But let's have a look at the process here.
Does anyone else wonder about how many other similar under cover investigations by our caring and public spirited journalists like this are carried out but have no consequence and as such are non-events?
Yet somebody's privacy has still been compromised.
In order to catch one or two prime candidates such as Rifkind and Straw, how many other people from public service must be subject to covert filming?
Now you can argue that people working in the world of public service have to forgo their right to privacy. Is that just and fair?
The point I'm trying to make is that, for example, the police can't (supposedly) tap your phone without showing due reason to do so. Yet it appears that a journalist can set up a 'sting' situation, covertly film the procedure, and post the results for all to see. The reason we don't see the results of the non-events is that they're not news worthy.
You never see any headlines shouting about the times they must interview public servants in a 'sting' scenario and are unable to find some dirty laundry. When was the last time anyone saw news headlines to the effect that Joe Bloggs MP is a thoroughly decent bloke because we couldn't tempt him with generous back hander?
Does this kind of secret activity constitute entrapment? Invasion of privacy? Pre-judgement of guilt?
Do the covert activities of Rebecca Brookes et al ring any bells with any one? There was huge public indignation at journalistic phone tapping of public figures in the name of making column inches.
How is secret filming so different?
And I scarcely dare mention Millie Dowling.
If there's one thing I loathe more than a greedy politician, it's a scum bag journalist.
But let's have a look at the process here.
Does anyone else wonder about how many other similar under cover investigations by our caring and public spirited journalists like this are carried out but have no consequence and as such are non-events?
Yet somebody's privacy has still been compromised.
In order to catch one or two prime candidates such as Rifkind and Straw, how many other people from public service must be subject to covert filming?
Now you can argue that people working in the world of public service have to forgo their right to privacy. Is that just and fair?
The point I'm trying to make is that, for example, the police can't (supposedly) tap your phone without showing due reason to do so. Yet it appears that a journalist can set up a 'sting' situation, covertly film the procedure, and post the results for all to see. The reason we don't see the results of the non-events is that they're not news worthy.
You never see any headlines shouting about the times they must interview public servants in a 'sting' scenario and are unable to find some dirty laundry. When was the last time anyone saw news headlines to the effect that Joe Bloggs MP is a thoroughly decent bloke because we couldn't tempt him with generous back hander?
Does this kind of secret activity constitute entrapment? Invasion of privacy? Pre-judgement of guilt?
Do the covert activities of Rebecca Brookes et al ring any bells with any one? There was huge public indignation at journalistic phone tapping of public figures in the name of making column inches.
How is secret filming so different?
And I scarcely dare mention Millie Dowling.
If there's one thing I loathe more than a greedy politician, it's a scum bag journalist.
24 February 2015, 11:36 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am convinced that, just by the law of averages, there are some really good and well intentioned politicians around. However their genuine efforts are swamped by the needs of the Party and greater political ambition.
24 February 2015, 12:06 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rifkind and Straw have today shown us that despite 15 years of falling public confidence in our politicians following one scandal after another they still do not get it and probably never will!
It has become par for the course for certain posters on this forum to poke fun at UKIP, well all I can say is take a look at the parties YOU are going to be voting for.
Greedy self serving pigs at the trough and you want to give them yet another term!
It has become par for the course for certain posters on this forum to poke fun at UKIP, well all I can say is take a look at the parties YOU are going to be voting for.
Greedy self serving pigs at the trough and you want to give them yet another term!
Even the BBC have been getting in on the act.
24 February 2015, 12:12 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
the rise in CCTV usage in the UK predates 911, it saw massive growth in the 80's and 90's - to the point that by the 00's the UK population was the most surveilled on earth.
it can't all be blamed on 911 - not in the UK at least