Quantcast
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
This is pretty good! 11:01 - Oct 24 with 336 viewsgordon

If you like seeing Ben Bradley squirm.

1

This is pretty good! on 11:11 - Oct 24 with 300 viewsNthsuffolkblue

Except that's hardly much squirming there. The interview should last much longer and get a lot more uncomfortable for him. Maybe the detail on why he voted against it, why he thinks it is acceptable to subsidise the Commons restaurant (and probably pay the rest on expenses anyway) but not to continue free school meals for the poorest outside term time. Does he only think it is important children eat while they are at school? Perhaps he thinks they can earn their money for a meal in holiday term (by going up chimneys?).

Poll: Who should leave the club?
Blog: [Blog] Ghostbusters

0

This is pretty good! on 11:31 - Oct 24 with 289 viewsDarth_Koont

Bradley’s Wikipedia page shows a pattern.

This story was good:
“In February 2018, Bradley falsely accused Jeremy Corbyn on Twitter of having "sold British secrets to communist spies" during the 1980s. Corbyn responded by instructing his solicitors to require Bradley to delete his tweet or face legal action on the grounds of libel. Bradley deleted the tweet following this legal complaint from Corbyn. He subsequently issued a full apology, agreed to make a substantial donation to a charity of Corbyn's choice and agreed to pay Corbyn's legal costs. A spokesman for Corbyn stated that the donation would be split between a homeless charity and a food bank, in Bradley's constituency of Mansfield.”

The ending would have been sweet but for the next line:
“Two Conservative Party donors paid the £15,000 donation to the charities on behalf of Bradley.”

These clowns aren’t unaccountable, they’re just unaccountable to the people they’re meant to represent.
2
This is pretty good! on 11:34 - Oct 24 with 282 viewsNthsuffolkblue

This is pretty good! on 11:31 - Oct 24 by Darth_Koont

Bradley’s Wikipedia page shows a pattern.

This story was good:
“In February 2018, Bradley falsely accused Jeremy Corbyn on Twitter of having "sold British secrets to communist spies" during the 1980s. Corbyn responded by instructing his solicitors to require Bradley to delete his tweet or face legal action on the grounds of libel. Bradley deleted the tweet following this legal complaint from Corbyn. He subsequently issued a full apology, agreed to make a substantial donation to a charity of Corbyn's choice and agreed to pay Corbyn's legal costs. A spokesman for Corbyn stated that the donation would be split between a homeless charity and a food bank, in Bradley's constituency of Mansfield.”

The ending would have been sweet but for the next line:
“Two Conservative Party donors paid the £15,000 donation to the charities on behalf of Bradley.”

These clowns aren’t unaccountable, they’re just unaccountable to the people they’re meant to represent.


Wow! So 2 rich Conservative Party donors were so encouraging of his lying that they saved him from the ignominy of having to donate to the homeless!

Poll: Who should leave the club?
Blog: [Blog] Ghostbusters

0
This is pretty good! on 11:41 - Oct 24 with 263 viewsDarth_Koont

This is pretty good! on 11:34 - Oct 24 by Nthsuffolkblue

Wow! So 2 rich Conservative Party donors were so encouraging of his lying that they saved him from the ignominy of having to donate to the homeless!


It’s what they do. As we’re seeing with the cronyism going on, these are tiny investments that can easily get a 100,000% return without any real effort.

Labour is also embracing private and corporate donors and moving away from its members and affiliated unions. But it’s something you have to actively counter with unimpeachable principles or it’s all the same sorry mess.
1

Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2021