Jacqui Smith?

chewmylegoff

wouldn't mind seeing them strung up by their feet with a cart of rotten fruit nearby.

ad9898_3

SGE1 wrote: »

I think you're an angry nutter.

The end.

Angry nutter:D, don't forget it's you who supports the Labour Party, it's like shootin' fish in a barrel.

MrFonzerelli

The rules are ambiguous so it allows them (MPs) to fiddle expenses. The balls are probably at it too.
Need the rules to not be tightened to resolve the issue.

chewmylegoff

MrFonzerelli wrote: »

The rules are ambiguous so it allows them (MPs) to fiddle expenses. The balls are probably at it too.
Need the rules to not be tightened to resolve the issue.

build a big student halls of residence type building next to westminster and they can stay in there for free whenever they want. if they want another house, they can pay for it themselves.

Rochdale_Pioneers

It doesn't matter how you think she should be able to classify her main home - if the rules are so vaguely worded as to allow such definitions then she has done nothing wrong. If you're upset with the rules (and I know I am) then its them that should be changed.

"MP obeys the rules" isn't quite as good a story is it?

ad9898_3

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

It doesn't matter how you think she should be able to classify her main home - if the rules are so vaguely worded as to allow such definitions then she has done nothing wrong. If you're upset with the rules (and I know I am) then its them that should be changed.

"MP obeys the rules" isn't quite as good a story is it?

In her position though shouldn't she be doing 'the right thing' instead of hiding behind the rules ? TBH, I just think that they know they are finished as a government and are just helping themselves to 'seconds' at the trough, before the party ends in summer 2010.

Graham_Devon

SGE1 wrote: »

*sigh*

Exactly my point. You think 'public opinion' wants the cabinet to be hanged.

I think you're an angry nutter.

The end.

Public opinion does.

There was a survey done for one of the major papers, 91% of people thought she was wrong.

Go on, tell me that 9% who answered the survey didn't think she was wrong therefore thats not true publc opinion or something daft.

You said it's a waste of time getting perspective into the thread (when the perspective you advocate, is wrong factually), maybe you should instead of just trying to divert everything away from your beloved labour?

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

It doesn't matter how you think she should be able to classify her main home - if the rules are so vaguely worded as to allow such definitions then she has done nothing wrong. If you're upset with the rules (and I know I am) then its them that should be changed.

"MP obeys the rules" isn't quite as good a story is it?

So the people, who are running our county, who are our voice, should bend the rules? Is that what you are saying?

Should I then, given her example, bend the rules when it comes to my tax return? Or would that get me into a little bit of bother?

Lead by example. It's a good saying, and there are plenty of MP's who can, and do do so. Even a couple of labour ones. You have to remember, even some of her labour peers were against this. It's not just "labour haters".

Errata

MrFonzerelli wrote: »

The rules are ambiguous so it allows them (MPs) to fiddle expenses. The balls are probably at it too.
Need the rules to not be tightened to resolve the issue.

Apparently not, they've been investigated and cleared.
The rules don't need tightening, we need MP's who weren't off sick the day the lesson on morals, ethics and public probity was taught.

HelpWhereIcan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So the people, who are running our county, who are our voice, should bend the rules? Is that what you are saying?

Should I then, given her example, bend the rules when it comes to my tax return? Or would that get me into a little bit of bother?

Lead by example. It's a good saying, and there are plenty of MP's who can, and do do so. Even a couple of labour ones. You have to remember, even some of her labour peers were against this. It's not just "labour haters".

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Public opinion does.

There was a survey done for one of the major papers, 91% of people thought she was wrong.

Go on, tell me that 9% who answered the survey didn't think she was wrong therefore thats not true publc opinion or something daft.

You said it's a waste of time getting perspective into the thread (when the perspective you advocate, is wrong factually), maybe you should instead of just trying to divert everything away from your beloved labour?

I commend both of these opinions to the house and refer the honourable members to the answer I gave some days ago...

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

$$£"£%$%£^ ^$% ^!!!£ %$%^ $^^%^:eek: Jaqui ~~***##! Smith :mad: #@')* aaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgh ****&^%** scumbag $$££***!!! <<&&!! £"$$** F€CKIN **&% £" sanctimonious *&^%) TEACHERS!!!!

'I'm afraid that I was very, very drunk"

thanks just needed to get that off my chest.

Carry on, nothing to see here.

... as for claiming that the minutes of all cabinet meetings should be exempt from FoI legislation just to protect the crooks who falsified info to send us to war ... :mad: even !!!! !!!! ballbag Peter Hain looked embarrased trying to defend that one on Question Time.