clownaround Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I was there when Fathers 4 Justice held a demo on her roof. She wasn't keen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 This might clear a few things up for you. I've read it twice. Where does it mention members of the current government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I've read it twice. Where does it mention members of the current government? It doesn't. I assume that you have read the rest of the conversation that Andy and I had the other night. This article sheds a little bit of light on some of the things that we discussed. No doubt, more will emerge shortly. For now, I'd prefer my posts to stay on the right side of the moderation team:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 This might clear a few things up for you. It really doesn't. A rather roundabout question at PM's Q's by Mr Watson which doesn't name names despite parliamentary priveledge. If his assertions have any merit then clearly they need investigating, it it turns out that not only Harmen and Hewitt were going into bat for PIE but also it had members close to the government of the time who were commiting offences then they need exposing and if still alive jailing. However it would have been better if Mr Watson had named names, or if he felt unable to at least confirmed to Parliament that he had made a complaint to the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 It is indeed funny. The hypocrites campaigning for fair play and the common man are the ones taking most for themselves. You couldn't make it up. Not half as funny or hypocritical as the boardroom dullards calling for wage restraint, but giving themselves huge pay rises. 'Because they're worth it". Wish it was made up, but all too real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 It really doesn't. A rather roundabout question at PM's Q's by Mr Watson which doesn't name names despite parliamentary priveledge. If his assertions have any merit then clearly they need investigating, it it turns out that not only Harmen and Hewitt were going into bat for PIE but also it had members close to the government of the time who were commiting offences then they need exposing and if still alive jailing. However it would have been better if Mr Watson had named names, or if he felt unable to at least confirmed to Parliament that he had made a complaint to the police. It very clearly fingers someone close to the Thatcher Government. You did ask for a hint:wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 It very clearly fingers someone close to the Thatcher Government. You did ask for a hint:wink: It didn't clearly finger anyone. Let's get this out in the open if anyone has a name. Hewitt and Harmen were PIE shills, if anyone else who was in power was involved lets have some names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 It didn't clearly finger anyone. Let's get this out in the open if anyone has a name. Hewitt and Harmen were PIE shills, if anyone else who was in power was involved lets have some names. We clearly don't know that. You have to head off to the wild west of the internet to even think you might have found evidence to back up such a claim. Obviously, I can say the Ted Heath is rumoured to be involved... because he is dead. As for the rest. The names will come out as they are arrested. The article and the Panorama programme do clearly finger folks though. You just need the correct lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Not half as funny or hypocritical as the boardroom dullards calling for wage restraint, but giving themselves huge pay rises. 'Because they're worth it". Wish it was made up, but all too real Surely it's only MPs and the self-employed who can set their own salaries? Don't the 'boardroom dullards' have to persuade the shareholders to pay the salaries they want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Don't the 'boardroom dullards' have to persuade the shareholders to pay the salaries they want? Not really. I object to the bloated salaries of all of the RBS board. I'm a shareholder too. They haven't persuaded me... or the majority of the UK population. Yet, they get away with it. Now, how could that happen:huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.