Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • davemorton
    • By davemorton 30th Nov 18, 12:43 PM
    • 27,222Posts
    • 325,382Thanks
    davemorton
    Elite: Is this table taken please?
    • #1
    • 30th Nov 18, 12:43 PM
    Elite: Is this table taken please? 30th Nov 18 at 12:43 PM
    Just looking for a spare quiet table in the corner of the arms for a few exiled elite to chat, is this table free please?
    “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
    Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires
Page 629
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 12th Nov 19, 8:06 AM
    • 19,075 Posts
    • 41,093 Thanks
    Sleazy
    Morning all

    Just tried to do the quiz and it crashed before I answered the first question.
    Probably means I got none correct and an excessive times to boot lol.
    If it didn't register me as doing it, I'll try again later ....
    Weekly Distance Walked 26 km / Total For Year 1361 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 12th Nov 19, 9:03 AM
    • 22,045 Posts
    • 222,014 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Can't see your name on the quiz list sleazy.
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • Sunshinemummy
    • By Sunshinemummy 12th Nov 19, 9:05 AM
    • 16,861 Posts
    • 198,986 Thanks
    Sunshinemummy
    It looks like development aid was stopped in 2011 but other aid (total nearly £47 million) was being sent in 2016 - other Government departments were picking up the spend for the International Development Department instead and sending £2.6 million more between them the year before. This according to the Daily Mail (a Tory newspaper as well):
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5658151/Why-Britain-gives-47MILLION-China-foreign-aid-despite-promise-stop-eight-years-ago.html

    Another broken Tory promise it appeared. This, an article from eight years before and look how the newspapers write it - headline "UK terminates development aid to China and Russia" as if it had immediately already happened on the publication of the story as opposed to being a wait-and-see if this promise is ever kept, as we can never be sure with the Government:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jun/16/development-aid-uk-china-russia

    The headline appears to be an accurate reflection of what has happened, at least in relation to China (I have not looked into Russia as that wasn't mentioned in the original question, then again not everything below was in the question either). However, the headline is misleading as to what the article then appears to say. It opens by mentioning "aid", rather than development aid in "Britain is to stop giving aid to China and Russia as part of a government plan to target financial help to the world's poorest nations, the development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, said today."

    This appears to have been technically true as it seems to report a fact that that was what the then Development Secretary said, however what the then Development Secretary said seems to have been misleading as the promise to stop giving "aid" was not met. The two paragraph quotations attributed to him in the article then each mention "aid" not "development aid" and although it was a statement from the Development Secretary it seems to have been misleading as it wasn't clarified to be development aid only and instead he doesn't seem to have said well my department is stopping but the money is going to be sent by other departments instead - seems therefore to be misleading to me!

    The statement quoted in the strapline also appears to be misleading - 'Money should be spent helping the poorest people in the poorest countries,' says development secretary Andrew Mitchell.

    If we assume the stopping of development aid to China (I am assuming it hasn't been resumed since 2016) meant that sending to China was considered not to be sending to "the poorest people in the poorest countries", then it is misleading and a broken promise to still be sending aid to China (namely aid that falls outside of "development aid" and/or is sent by (or via - I have closed off that loophole!) departments other than International Development).

    Britain appears to be the only country in the G8 to send at least 0.7% of its GDP in foreign aid, even though I actually agree with sending at least this amount (although it might get less value if Brexit causes GDP to grow less quickly).

    This from the Daily Mail too.
    In fact, before I go there, first guess who the "father" in this case is. The Court of Appeal in 2013 said (emphasis is mine):
    The "fade factor" relied on by Mr Price carries little weight in this case. First, much that has been published by the media in relation to the claimant's paternity remains available online. It is also included in [spoiler removed], a book written by Sonia Purnell. Secondly, the permanent injunction sought by the claimant would only restrain the defendant from referring to the information, although many other media organisations have published the same thing. Thirdly, it is fanciful to expect the public to forget the fact that the man who is said to be the claimant's father, and who is a major public figure, has fathered a child after a brief adulterous affair (not for the first time). Nor are they likely to forget the outline facts of the story including the identity of the mother. The mother accepted in cross-examination that any woman who embarked on an affair with the father was "playing with fire" (day 3 p 90) and that such an affair was bound to attract "very considerable media attention in both the national media and the London press" (day 3 p 91). As Mr Browne puts it, once it was out, there could be no question of returning it to obscurity.

    Conclusion
    For all these reasons, and on the defendant giving the undertaking to which I have referred at para 50 above, I would dismiss this appeal. The judge carefully considered all the issues and reached a conclusion which is beyond challenge. It is not in dispute that the legitimate public interest in the father's character is an important factor to be weighed in the balance against the claimant's expectation of privacy. The core information in this story, namely that the father had an adulterous affair with the mother, deceiving both his wife and the mother's partner and that the claimant, born about 9 months later, was likely to be the father's child, was a public interest matter which the electorate was entitled to know when considering his fitness for high public office."
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/554.html

    You are entitled to know.

    Now the Mail article:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328067/Boris-Johnsons-secret-lovechild-daughter-Stephanie-victory-publics-right-know.html

    Can't keep it down, we have a right to know what happened in the past as this looks highly relevant to character now. We don't actually know how many children our Prime Minister has as he won't tell us.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/21/boris-johnson-fathered-child-affair

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/37-lies-gaffes-scandals-make-18558695

    37 says the original link, but I have far more than that. I found around 37 false or misleading statements in his speech of under 9 minutes at Downing Street on 6 November alone. And also identified around 15 false or misleading statements in a five minute interview last week by Nadhim Zahawi. I thought virtually the entire interview throughout was just so untruthful. Hardly anything that is actually factually correct in it and misleading by omission statements given in it several times, although I suppose partial information is part of the job of politicians - it's for the opposing parties to give the other parts, though sometimes they don't do so and it just annoys me that the original politician is allowed to get away with all that without challenge on the vast majority of it - the newscasters do try but they don't know all the facts to hand on everything and if everything had been challenged on that interview, we would never have got more than one or two points. Eventually I just stop listening and just let their untruths keep coming with no way to stop them.

    The Mirror has upped to 43 lies, gaffes and scandals at the time of writing but I have far more. Broken promises everywhere - Johnson promises and then doesn't deliver. A track record of non-delivery/blaming others for the very thing he has done throughout.
    I originally noticed about 7 untruths in his Downing Street speech - the first in the sentence immediately after "Good afternoon" (I even almost had to check the time of day to see if he was correct about that). The first part of the sentence immediately after those two words was true (as I think he did see the Queen) but the second part I think was a lie. A couple of hours later BBC Reality Check made me aware of a further misleading part that I didn't know was wrong. He spoke of free ports and suggested they are a benefit of Brexit (the one that he campaigned for in the first place which never involved the checks down the Irish Sea that he now denies will be the case) - however the UK apparently had free ports as a member of the EU and last had one in 2012. So we can have these without leaving, thus not a benefit of Brexit.

    I think the other two benefits also fall down, as well as every, or almost every, promise in the speech. In my course of researching other parts of the speech, I found further parts that were misleading and further broken promises, such as the
    "an infrastructure revolution … gigabit broadband in every home" promise which has no specific end date failing to point out this has abandoned the previous unrealistic and unachievable pledge for full fibre for all by 2025 that he referred to in his first Downing Street speech. His "biggest programme of NHS investment in a generation" seems only true for recent years that the NHS is getting more money (as a result of Theresa May's plans) but it looks like this is a below average increase over the history of a generation. The 40 hospitals have not got money for building, it's only six that are getting upgrades to provide new buildings on existing sites - they are not completely new hospitals on new sites but money for building on existing ones. "Up to" 38 other hospitals have money to develop plans for upgrades over the next five years but not for any actual building works. It is just repetitive playing of a broken record - I could form a Prime Minister's speech from him merely from splicing together the same slogan sentences he repeats again and again - nothing new in anything, it seems, just repeats of the same misleading statements and broken pledges until eventually they are faded away.

    There was also a separate row earlier in the year over whether more money for the NHS was "new" or not. Money is going in next year but more has already come out due to urgent repairs in a recent 12 month period. I did start writing the figures and more detail but I have got rid of that as I think people have all lost any interest in largely meaningless figures. In short, don't believe any pledge you hear from him or his ministers as it seems it is all either misleading or needs more context to it and the Opposition are probably providing a better offer, whilst he is dressing his up to make it look good.

    It also seems he may be about to go back on what he said in July when he claimed he would not nominate a UK Commissioner to the EU: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/11/boris-johnson-expected-break-pledge-not-nominate-eu-commissioner-brexit

    Instead of more figures at the moment, I need to add more to the original post as further was said than I heard earlier. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (in charge of the Department that it seems a few years ago sent the most of UK aid to China) also said that medium to long term, it was "likely" that there would be an expansion in jobs. It was near all current ones that would be kept. So it depends, it seems to me, what they are expanding into because, even if there is an expansion, some current ones may go or might not be in areas expanded into and, whether there are fewer that go than are created elsewhere, the total figures don't matter to individual people that lose their jobs: at the end it doesn't matter if yours is one of the fewer jobs that is lost and you're not in the expanded area.

    As to China buying huge amounts of the UK, it may be China, USA and everywhere non-EU able to do so as the UK the weaker party that desperately needs the deals after leaving the EU, weaker as one country than as part of 28 and currently able to benefit from the trade deals that the EU has, and thus may have to take whatever it can get from the others - has, predictably perhaps, already failed to get many rollover trade deals, no need for Canada to do a trade deal with us after the no deal tariff proposals of 0% were proposed, so it may be everywhere else buying huge parts of the UK as well as Macron able to get what he wants of the UK through the withdrawal deal that, from the point of view of France, is very clever on his part as leaves us having to accept what France wants in some respects. So much for having a "successful" and "strong" economy in this country.

    I think I will abandon being objective, although I still say it is because the truth is on my side and the rest is all lies. As such it has got me to feel so strongly against it that I do need to point my point and stick by it. I am not objective - I am biased. I have an opinion (several of them, to be pushed because they are right). It is an issue of trust, and with all the lies, we know whom we can't trust. The Conservative Party clearly tweeting things that are false and they just seem to be making things up, probably because they are. I may return to this at some point because I actually didn't think their tweeted "fake news" was fake news to me, because when I saw it it came across as obviously untrue and then I thought another party was worse, shouldn't have done that, but at the end it is a matter of trust and I don't have any at all in the Tories as virtually everything they say seems to be (and then I find it is) untrue, whilst the other parties are largely telling the truth and (sadly perhaps) not beating them at their own game as not wanting a negative campaign (can put people off) and actually restraining themselves whilst the Tories just make things up.

    They know there are no rules about politicians. They can lie as much as they like in this context - people do believe them and are getting taken in by it, the light voter that hears the stuff that filters through from repetition and isn't the detail so that they don't know it is untrue. Yes people do say politicians lie, but actually (apart from this bunch on one side only) they don't lie all the time, when they do, there are lots of people who believe them and then inevitably will be let down when the promised undeliverable thing will not materialise (because the facts said it would not do so all along) and worse still there isn't an offence of misconduct that applies because that was suggested to involve some element of covering up to it - whereas because the lies are out in the open, apparently that's fine - to me, it is even worse as they are in greater circulation and more people able to believe them when they are openly distributed rather than being more secret. Any other job you'd be sacked (and Mr Johnson has been at least twice), making things up and deceiving former partners as found by the courts, he will deceive you if you accept what he says.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-50184281
    "They define narcissists as being likely to 'engage in risky behaviour, hold an unrealistic superior view of themselves, are over-confident, show little empathy for others, and have little shame or guilt'.
    With such negative qualities, the researchers wanted to know why narcissism seemed to be so visible and often rewarded rather than penalised."

    It seems to me because people like to believe their lies are true because they make them feel good, appear to be good and narcissists are experts in making things look good.

    This I think (even though I have no experience of the problems of relationships, since, as an autistic people, I manage to avoid such things) sums it up.

    "They might have trampled over others and left a trail of emotional damage around them - but narcissists also seem to be insulated against feeling bad about themselves."

    Such as the brief periods of twice adultery and then quickly dump people. Others suffer their emotional twisting and misuse and are made to carry the blame by the narcissist taking none and buy using them ruthlessly for their own ends. They are happier because they have no shame. The people currently being used - or attempted to be used and I hope it doesn't work but it probably will - are the electorate. It's because he doesn't seem the nasty, manipulative individual that he is and perhaps comes across as bumbling (I have no idea on the latter aspect as I don't know how things come across) that he seems so benign when he is not.

    If it were an attempt on character assassination or lies on my part, both of which I could never really know how to succeed in doing, it would be based on rumours, gossip and unsubstantiated information and tittle-tattle from any Jo Public on the internet, rather than references to court judgements and reliable information from reputable sources of news and academic researchers. If people think it is cynical to present this at an election time, it is not, instead it is being presented at the most vital time for it to be presented and it would not be able to be presented had no-one committed any adultery in the first place. People may of course dig things up about the Opposition, that seem to have been presented far more widely of late, but this is part of a character assassination especially by the right-wing press as based on what someone said decades ago rather than any actual ruling and, after identifying Johnson's claim that Corbyn and Labour "sided with Putin" over the Skripal incident as one of needing to look into to see if it had validity, and not being aware of much of the facts around this allegation, I have looked into it and found it to be misleading. They didn't actually side with Putin - they may not have had evidence that the Government had and therefore were requesting the evidence and arguably carrying out the functions of what the Opposition should do. It is clear Corbyn condemned the Skripal incident. It's been taken out of context and presented to suggest something that it was not. If anyone has any claims made by Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else that they want me to try to look into, let me know.

    Alternatively or additionally, if anyone wants me to revisit any of my judgements, please present me with the reasons why you think I should and I will have a look into any facts you present, that you think I may have omitted to consider, and I will see if I keep my original judgement or whether I might want to revise it and possibly decide something else instead.
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    Savvy, thanks for the information about the aid/developmental aid.

    I have to say you lost me when you was talking about Boris/Daily Mail. I never believe anything that is wrote in the Daily Mail... on point of principle
    10
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 12th Nov 19, 3:10 PM
    • 19,075 Posts
    • 41,093 Thanks
    Sleazy
    Savvy, thanks for the information about the aid/developmental aid.

    I have to say you lost me when you was talking about Boris/Daily Mail. I never believe anything that is wrote in the Daily Mail... on point of principle
    Originally posted by Sunshinemummy
    I quite like the Daily Mail and its factoids!
    I don't believe most of them either, and that's a fact ....
    Weekly Distance Walked 26 km / Total For Year 1361 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • tweets
    • By tweets 12th Nov 19, 3:35 PM
    • 34,163 Posts
    • 446,715 Thanks
    tweets
    Good Afternoon
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 12th Nov 19, 4:20 PM
    • 56,927 Posts
    • 649,023 Thanks
    bubbs
    Afternoon all
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018 £1295 for 2019
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • Sarahdol75
    • By Sarahdol75 12th Nov 19, 5:08 PM
    • 7,259 Posts
    • 93,602 Thanks
    Sarahdol75
    Evening. Its soo cold. Even Harley doesnt want to go out.
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 12th Nov 19, 5:33 PM
    • 19,075 Posts
    • 41,093 Thanks
    Sleazy
    Afternoon all and cold here as well
    Weekly Distance Walked 26 km / Total For Year 1361 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 12th Nov 19, 6:39 PM
    • 56,927 Posts
    • 649,023 Thanks
    bubbs
    Evening. Its soo cold. Even Harley doesnt want to go out.
    Originally posted by Sarahdol75
    Afternoon all and cold here as well
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    Let's have a group hug and get warm
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018 £1295 for 2019
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 12th Nov 19, 6:41 PM
    • 19,075 Posts
    • 41,093 Thanks
    Sleazy
    Let's have a group hug and get warm
    Originally posted by bubbs
    Weekly Distance Walked 26 km / Total For Year 1361 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 12th Nov 19, 6:49 PM
    • 56,927 Posts
    • 649,023 Thanks
    bubbs
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    That's better thanks
    How are you?
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018 £1295 for 2019
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 12th Nov 19, 7:11 PM
    • 56,927 Posts
    • 649,023 Thanks
    bubbs
    Doesn't someone here like this?
    Boursin Full Fat Soft Cheese Garlic/Herb & Pepper £1 @ Tesco



    Boursin Full Fat Soft Cheese Garlic/Herb & Pepper £1 @ Tesco
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018 £1295 for 2019
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • Sunshinemummy
    • By Sunshinemummy 12th Nov 19, 7:19 PM
    • 16,861 Posts
    • 198,986 Thanks
    Sunshinemummy
    I quite like the Daily Mail and its factoids!
    I don't believe most of them either, and that's a fact ....
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    Thank god, you don't believe most of them.... the ones you do believe...please take with a pinch of salt!

    10
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 12th Nov 19, 7:42 PM
    • 22,045 Posts
    • 222,014 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    tweets, message from TM, she played the quiz

    "I played to keep our tweets happy��

    I got 9 right but I'm not even near the top������"
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 12th Nov 19, 7:56 PM
    • 21,675 Posts
    • 270,409 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Savvy, thanks for the information about the aid/developmental aid.

    I have to say you lost me when you was talking about Boris/Daily Mail. I never believe anything that is wrote in the Daily Mail... on point of principle
    Originally posted by Sunshinemummy
    If I am in the dentist's waiting room - which is the only time I really encounter the Mail these days - I find it impossible to read much of the Mail, it makes me so angry! Such biased, twisted articles. Their reporting over the Christchurch shooting earlier this year made me avoid their website for a while. I don't go there unless an article comes up relevant on a search.

    It's not just political parties with their deflection. Here is ITV's changing of the topic and avoidance of the Jeremy Kyle Show issues:
    https://twitter.com/thismorning/status/1194210623653068800
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 12-11-2019 at 7:58 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 12th Nov 19, 8:01 PM
    • 21,675 Posts
    • 270,409 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    I quite like the Daily Mail and its factoids!
    I don't believe most of them either, and that's a fact ....
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    Which means you believe some of them, it must do logically - and if what you say is true, that's a fact as well.
    • Sunshinemummy
    • By Sunshinemummy 12th Nov 19, 8:01 PM
    • 16,861 Posts
    • 198,986 Thanks
    Sunshinemummy
    If I am in the dentist's waiting room - which is the only time I really encounter the Mail these days - I find it impossible to read much of the Mail, it makes me so angry! Such biased, twisted articles. Their reporting over the Christchurch shooting earlier this year made me avoid their website for a while. I don't go there unless an article comes up relevant on a search.

    It's not just political parties with their deflection. Here is ITV's changing of the topic and avoidance of the Jeremy Kyle Show issues:
    https://twitter.com/thismorning/status/1194210623653068800
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    oh god do not get me on the Jeremy Kyle show, I once spent a full weekend searching through all the shows trying to find a specific episode (work related)....I needed therapy afterwards!
    10
    • Sarahdol75
    • By Sarahdol75 12th Nov 19, 8:26 PM
    • 7,259 Posts
    • 93,602 Thanks
    Sarahdol75
    Let's have a group hug and get warm
    Originally posted by bubbs
    • tweets
    • By tweets 12th Nov 19, 8:42 PM
    • 34,163 Posts
    • 446,715 Thanks
    tweets
    tweets, message from TM, she played the quiz

    "I played to keep our tweets happy��

    I got 9 right but I'm not even near the top������"
    Originally posted by Enterprise 1701C
    Tell her 9 is good

    Also I hope Oswald is ok and he being a good lad
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 12th Nov 19, 10:59 PM
    • 21,675 Posts
    • 270,409 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    So, what Labour say on this is basically correct:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50395117

    (We'll take 19.1% as being roughly 20% and reasonable to round up to this as that is what people often do, so it is broadly true.)

    Meanwhile what the Conservative says is incorrect.
    "£2.6bn has been spent on projects to improve flood defences..."

    It hasn't - it's the amount planned to be spent by March 2021, so not all of that appears to have been spent at all. Unless all the money has gone and there is now nothing being spent on flood defences between now and March 2021, the claim that the £2.6bn has been spent is plain untrue.

    I can also doubt this - "it's been the number-one priority of the environment agency for the last few years." I'm sure that another matter would replace flood defences and be "the number-one priority" if whatever other matter were to become an issue being discussed instead.

    EDIT: I've now found a number of pages from the Agency online such as this one, which surely must throw into serious doubt the (paraphrase) 'flood defences are its number 1 priority' claim:
    https://environmentagencyjobs.tal.net/vx/mobile-0/appcentre-1/brand-2/candidate/so/pm/1/pl/1/opp/4673-Field-Maintenance-and-Emergency-Response-Team-Member-1-2-4673/en-GB

    On this page, only a few years old, the Environment Agency claimed (under Competence 3) "As an employee of the Environment Agency, your health and safety as an employee is our number 1 priority." So not flood defences after all it seems. It doesn't mention anything about flood defences there, which seems a strange omission surely because, if flood defences were its number 1 priority and it is mentioning about what is (it says) its "number 1 priority", then surely it would have mentioned flood defences there? At the least, obviously deprioritised from being number 1 to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or even below by mentioning health and safety of employee and failing to mention, and thus pushing down the list to not number one, the matter of flood defences. If the health and safety of its employees is the Agency's "number 1 priority", then flood defences can't also be its number one priority and I note it clearly didn't see them as a priority enough to mention them equally to a number one priority of health and safety of employees as, if it had, it would have expressly mentioned them. Which of the two things is its number 1 priority, health and safety of its employees or flood defences? Either it is one or the other and, on the Agency's own words, the statement that flood defences is the Agency's number-one priority is thrown into doubt and probably untrue.

    Not saying that either one should take precedence over the other but just pointing to what has being claimed only to find a contradictory statement that has been made by the Agency itself (I'm sure this statement continues to be the Agency's statement in job competences today even though the copy I've found was dated back to 2017 but still, it's recent enough and last few years). In short, she seems to be talking rubbish to me, but whom am I to say?, as she either hasn't read what the Agency has put there or she has, has ignored it and either way has claimed something contradictory. So, we have the Conservative and the Environment Agency, and which one of them is telling the truth? Or are both lying, who knows? But then if it was something else other than either health and safety of employees or flood defences, then I would doubt that the unmentioned thing whatever else it was to be could really be its number one priority when it hadn't even been seen to be fit to mention it.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 12-11-2019 at 11:36 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,737Posts Today

6,267Users online

Martin's Twitter