donuticus Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Yes absolutely. See Tony Blair banning tobacco advertising in F1 right up until a Mr B Ecclestone made a £1m donation at which point he changed his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Imitation is a form of flattery,thanks:hihi: Did Labour want to allow F1 drivers to smoke during races? Me careless and bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Did Labour want to allow F1 drivers to smoke during races? I think that should be compulsory. It might make F1 worth watching again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I think that should be compulsory. It might make F1 worth watching again. Where would they put the ashtrays,and doing roll-ups is tricky on corners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Where would they put the ashtrays,and doing roll-ups is tricky on corners? Now your just being silly..... you know F1 cars are convertibles , so no need for ashtrays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a wasp Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Well Bernie Ecclestone donated money to Mr Blair's coffins for an exemption for Formula 1 racing,designed to circumvent laws on advertising. Can government policy be influenced by wealthy doors? - Maybe it was a coincidence that Bernie Ecclestone donated a million pounds to the Labour party just around the same time when the Labour government decided to make F1 exempt from the smoking ban. This is a trick of some sort, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 It happens on all sides, and some cash rich contributors to one political party in the UK has that much influence they can install their own leader at the top of their supported party in opposition to will of the party and its supporters. The Unions and Ed Milliband? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davyboy Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Can government policy be influenced by wealthy donors? He who pays the piper calls the tune. nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivetide Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 The Unions and Ed Milliband? The Unions do happen to represent working people, and were set up to combat exploitation of the majority by the wealthy few. The Labour Party was founded by the unions, in order they could have a representative voice in the political debate, instead of only being able to express their views by withdrawal of labour from production. (The clue is in the name.) Not really the same thing is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Maybe I’m being very cynical here and there’s absolutely no connection between the two, but Chris Grayling the Justice Secretary declared an award of £71,000 from Tony Wood in September 2009, whilst a Peter Wood is a founder of Direct Line insurance company. A couple of years later, whilst the Justice Secretary the same person announces reductions in legal support for whiplash victims, which over time will lead to reduced payouts for insurance companies. This raises a couple of concerns, firstly are Tony and Peter Wood connected/related, and if they are should government ministers be taking such large financial grants from organisations were government policy can influence their profits? http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/blogs/news-blogs/grayling-falls-great-insurance-con-trick?utm_source=emailhosts&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GAZ+14%2F12%2F12 http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/01/Conservative-Party-Financial-Interests-Relating-to-the-Insurance-Industry_clear_edits.pdf You might try to imply that there is a link between these two facts. But it's a common complaint that insurance prices keep going up, and the reason for that is the high number of whiplash claims which have proliferated in the last decade. The government is doing what the public wish it to do by restricting the ability to claim for whiplash without good proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.