Will MP's cut their expences

[hackey lad]

14 minutes ago, m williamson said:

 

This is very amusing, it's pretty obvious who's the angry one here.  It's hilarious, keep digging. Every time I see a reply from you I start to smile wondering what nonsense you'll come up with this time.

 

What I know you won't come up with is an answer to a the very straightforward question I asked you. Keep it up I'm intrigued to see how far you're prepared to dig yourself into the hole you created for yourself. 😉

I've already answered your question .

[m williamson]

11 hours ago, hackey lad said:

I've already answered your question .

 

Have you?  I must have missed that.

 

The question was ' In what way does someone asking a perfectly understandable question of a poster who had posted an ambiguous comment cause another poster to accuse them of being angry '?

 

I don't remember you giving an answer as to why you did that, please humour me and explain again, or point me in the direction of the post where you claim to have already done so.

 

Thank you. 👍

[Annie Bynnol]

2 hours ago, m williamson said:

 

Have you?  I must have missed that.

 

The question was ' In what way does someone asking a perfectly understandable question of a poster who had posted an ambiguous comment cause another poster to accuse them of being angry '?

 

I don't remember you giving an answer as to why you did that, please humour me and explain again, or point me in the direction of the post where you claim to have already done so.

 

Thank you. 👍

      That question(my bold) does not exist in this thread.

      A very different question from you appears in this thread:

"Has it occurred to you that someone daft enough to think that asking a perfectly reasonable question means that the person asking it is angry might not be capable of assessing anyone's mood in any set of circumstances?"

    The original is clearly an insulting rant  and deserves no response .

    Reasonable -it is not. Understandable- it is not.

    Nothing more than "yes" or "no" is requested by you in response.

    A reasonable person's response to this type of leading question would, in any case be an explanation.

    

    

[Mister M]

On 04/09/2024 at 00:38, hackey lad said:

Those  last few sentences could apply to you . 

Hi Hackey, where are you with the subject on discussion?

[hackey lad]

28 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Hi Hackey, where are you with the subject on discussion?

I think there is no chance of MPs giving up their expenses or perks .  You ?

[Mister M]

11 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

I think there is no chance of MPs giving up their expenses or perks .  You ?

Me neither 

[m williamson]

2 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

      That question(my bold) does not exist in this thread.

      A very different question from you appears in this thread:

"Has it occurred to you that someone daft enough to think that asking a perfectly reasonable question means that the person asking it is angry might not be capable of assessing anyone's mood in any set of circumstances?"

    The original is clearly an insulting rant  and deserves no response .

    Reasonable -it is not. Understandable- it is not.

    Nothing more than "yes" or "no" is requested by you in response.

    A reasonable person's response to this type of leading question would, in any case be an explanation.

    

    

 

There is a forum rule stating that if a poster refuses to answer a reasonable question, runs away and then engages with the questioner on another thread the previous encounter cannot be raised?

I never knew that, do forgive my oversight, do I need to check in with you for further instructions on the rules and regulations before  engaging with other posters?

 

And for your information the question you highlighted was in response to an ad hominem comment by hackey lad who then conveniently disappeared off the thread where he posted it.

 

I seldom if ever start the insults but when they are aimed at me I respond in kind.  Apologies if you find that upsetting.

 

[m williamson]

And no, there isn't a chance in hell of MPs giving up their expenses or milking the system in any way they can.

 

There are honourable exceptions, but not nearly enough of them.

[crookesey]

On 02/09/2024 at 13:24, cuttsie said:

Our millionaire prime minister is cutting OAP heating allowances, As well as increasing every thing in price that affects the working people that he and his so-called socialists pretend they represent.;

 In light of this will they set an example by stopping  their perks , You know the subsided meals , second housing they rent or buy in London , travel , wage rises,    way beyond what others get ,  Free admission to events  (you can often see them smirking away sporting events inc snooker, football and so on ) .

 

I mean if we work away from home we have to pay our own way , travel lodging etc so why is it free for them  .

•  will they come out in support of the ordinary working people and stop pocketing the perks ,  

Sorry but can’t resist this. The late Queen was once asked if both she and Prince Philip liked football, so replied that they didn’t, her questioner then asked if they could have their Cup Final tickets. 😀

[m williamson]

3 minutes ago, crookesey said:

Sorry but can’t resist this. The late Queen was once asked if both she and Prince Philip liked football, so replied that they didn’t, her questioner then asked if they could have their Cup Final tickets. 😀

 

I believe it was Tommy Cooper while stood in one of those reception lines where royalty move along and talk to each person individually.

Sounds like the type of thing he'd say.  Didn't get the tickets though 🙁