andygardener Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 It is tolerate my friend. There is just one "r" in that word. Hope this helps. Did sibon teach you English? Ah, you spotted a typo. Tollerate, how eroneous. Still just one "r" in it though is there not when you spell it correctly? FYI, Sibon has taught me a few things, caused me to change my mind on issues through reasoned argument and while we don't agree on many matters he's one of the posters I most respect on here. Unlike a repeatedly banned tedious troll like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidgeon Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 ******.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 But where is the hard evidence. Where is the "caught with the pants down" video that depicts this? Anyone can give links to stuff that allegedly happened! Anyone can edit wicki and put their own stuff on! But where is the hard video evidence that is similar to the evidence that proves that cameron is totally corrupt? GO NOW CAMERON! It's behind The Sunday Times' paywall, you have to pay to see the article, but they got plenty of video evidence. Just click on the Wiki links & read them, you obviously haven't yet. Anyway, a few available sources for 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8049412.stm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldprivi/88/8802.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7858297.stm Dispatches, the Channel 4 documentary did the investigation in 2010, unfortunately that episode is no longer available on 4od: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3051050 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8578597.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/21/lobbying-sting-labour-mps-influence http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/22/stephen-byers-lobbying-claim-watchdog http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7500690/Lobbying-row-Lord-Adonis-admits-he-had-private-discussion-with-Stephen-Byers.html http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/15579686 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petminder Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 It appears from this thread that we have two corrupt parties that take it in turns to run the corrupt and wasteful government, at the moment these two parties are funded by corrupt businesses and unions, some people don’t like that so think we the ordinary tax payer should pay more tax to fund the corrupt parties so they can run the corrupt and wasteful government. How would that make people feel better about government? We could create a peoples party which I imagine would become corrupt as they gain more power but then we are back in the same situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 If we had taxpayer funded political parties & banned all political donations then it'd make it easier to catch corrupt politicians. There are problems with the idea, but I like it more than selling laws & government contracts to fund politicians & their parties. Ban politicians from having jobs elsewhere while they're supposed to be representing us in parliament too. Stop the second homes thing & put them all in flats near Westminster. Have 'none of the above' on the ballot paper for when all the candidates are known to be corrupt, so we can still vote. I don't think we can ever beat the problem of corrupt politicians, but there are a few things that we could do to make it a bit harder for them. A new party would probably end up just as corrupt as all the old ones, we need to change the rules instead. It'll probably mean that we need to spend a lot more money "keeping them straight", but it should more than pay for itself in having less corruption. As other posters have said, you don't pay £250,000 just to have a friendly chat about the weather with the Prime Minister, you're going to be wanting a big government contract, or a change to a law that benefits your business. Each one of those chats will cost taxpayers a few million at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Unbelievably there already is one for the Tories - they don't even try to hide it. Donor Club price list 50 Grand gets you into the 'Leader's Group' The Leader’s Group is the premier supporter Group of the Conservative Party. Members are invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches. Cached version for when they decide to take down the page - here All very transparent then. Obviously Peter Cruddas tries to squeeze a bit more from them, but that's salesmen for you, and the customers choice if they want to pay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereolab Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 All very transparent then. Obviously Peter Cruddas tries to squeeze a bit more from them, but that's salesmen for you, and the customers choice if they want to pay it. Although Cruddas was selling direct one to one access with the PM for off the record influence directly into the policy unit. Pure corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Although Cruddas was selling direct one to one access with the PM for off the record influence directly into the policy unit. Pure corruption. £250k sounds a bit of a rip off, but may be worth it for big business. The PM isn't obliged to accommodate lobbyists demands (same goes for all MPs), even if they've paid for a meeting. Right now they're wanting to tighten up on booze sales and pricing. If the CEO of a brewery paid £250k to meet the PM and said "actually we'd quite like to run a 'get pis*ed for a penny' campaign this summer" or "we'd like to start giving a four pack away with a pack of nappies", that's up to them, doesn't mean it will be adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereolab Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 £250k sounds a bit of a rip off, but may be worth it for big business. The PM isn't obliged to accommodate lobbyists demands (same goes for all MPs), even if they've paid for a meeting. Right now they're wanting to tighten up on booze sales and pricing. If the CEO of a brewery paid £250k to meet the PM and said "actually we'd quite like to run a 'get pis*ed for a penny' campaign this summer" or "we'd like to start giving a four pack away with a pack of nappies", that's up to them, doesn't mean it will be adopted. Wow - you are defending a corrupt system as if its nothing to worry about. Are you Francis Maude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 £250k sounds a bit of a rip off, but may be worth it for big business. The PM isn't obliged to accommodate lobbyists demands (same goes for all MPs), even if they've paid for a meeting. Right now they're wanting to tighten up on booze sales and pricing. If the CEO of a brewery paid £250k to meet the PM and said "actually we'd quite like to run a 'get pis*ed for a penny' campaign this summer" or "we'd like to start giving a four pack away with a pack of nappies", that's up to them, doesn't mean it will be adopted. Actually it's the other way round, people who sell alcohol would rather sell it for a higher price, not a lower price. They make more money if they can charge more for the same product, the only thing that stops them is the threat of their competitors undercutting them. Hence the proposed minimum price on alcohol. If the government really wanted to increase prices for our own good, they'd just increase duty, but alcohol producers & retailers will be lobbying against that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.