But think of the expenses you'd be able to claimFelix wrote:Who'd be a politician eh? not me for one, not on that salary...

Cheers,
- Pete
But think of the expenses you'd be able to claimFelix wrote:Who'd be a politician eh? not me for one, not on that salary...
Oh pure speculation obviously! Martin Warren must have been wasting his time at the meetings where this proposal was discussed.Pete Eeles wrote:An interesting development, or perhaps pure speculation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12377215
Cheers,
- Pete
My "media" are "The Times" @ £1.00 per day and the "I" @ 20 pence (mini Independent).The media (and the opposition parties) then screech "U-Turn", or at best accuse Jack of watering down his proposals.
Next you'll be admitting to watching Sky newsJack Harrison wrote:My "media" are "The Times" @ £1.00 per day and the "I" @ 20 pence (mini Independent).
I like to keep myself informed like. Know what I mean? Yeah. OK?
Jack
...surely you mean Fox newsJohnR wrote:Next you'll be admitting to watching Sky newsJack Harrison wrote:My "media" are "The Times" @ £1.00 per day and the "I" @ 20 pence (mini Independent).
I like to keep myself informed like. Know what I mean? Yeah. OK?
Jack
Hi Terry, Bentley Wood has been in privately owned for nearly 30 years now. In this instance FC agreeing sell it, was the best thing that could ever of happened to it.tmhotten wrote:A lot of FC woods have been privatised by the last two governments such as Bentley Woods that remains open access
Nick, you're so anti-establishment! You remind me of...NickB wrote:It will surely help if the most-important butterfly sites are bought/saved. (And an important tactic for the government to deflect criticism and bribe our conservation organisations with...)However, in the end it will be of little import, as our butterfly zoos will become increasingly isolated and vulnerable, if the rest of the countryside outside these areas becomes a desert of monocultures which do not support the conditions our butterflies require.....
I think we have the germ of a solution to the bankers' bonus issue:Jack Harrison wrote:Nick had a go at politicians and bankers.
They don't risk lives if they get it wrong. If a bomb-disposal soldier gets it wrong he pays with his life and his widow is left to live on a pathetic annual pension, perhaps the equivalent to one day of a banker's bonus.
Jack "Citizen" Harrison
As my chaplain friend said: " It is Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor!"millerd wrote:And what kind of risk-taking is it if when you get it wrong, someone else bails you out? That's no risk at all.
Dave
I am not in the least obsessed with celebs who have opulent life styles. But I do have a code of ethics. Astronomical pay levels for bankers who are doing "just another job" is quite simply immoral.fail[s] to understand why so many people are so obsessed with the life styles of such a tiny minority of citizens.
Jack Harrison wrote:Astronomical pay levels for bankers who are doing "just another job" is quite simply immoral in my opinion.
Jack