EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 401
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9956 Posts
There was a Home Affairs Select Committee meeting in Parliament today with the Commissioner of the Met Police about the challenges facing modern policing in the UK and how the government can help reduce crime. Number of Tory MPs present: Zero. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On November 08 2017 04:17 Jockmcplop wrote: While all of this is going on, you would think that the tories would be interested in trying not to make themselves look worse. Here's a bit of info that won't make any headlines but is just as damning as anything else you'll hear today. There was a Home Affairs Select Committee meeting in Parliament today with the Commissioner of the Met Police about the challenges facing modern policing in the UK and how the government can help reduce crime. Number of Tory MPs present: Zero. They haven't realised that the lose-the-general-election-and-blame-it-on-the-other-party boat has already set sail. | ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
Like how fucking stupid and odious do you have to be.. to do nothing but stick your moronic nose into things you dont understand, Act all high and mighty giving stupid speeches under the pretense of being an environmentalist,.and then take #money given to you by tax payers, invest it offshore and then lobby to protect the places you invested. I actually hope he gets killed, i'm that angry. | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On November 08 2017 06:02 KelsierSC wrote: I hope Prince Charles faces actual punishment for this shit. Like how fucking stupid and odious do you have to be.. to do nothing but stick your moronic nose into things you dont understand, Act all high and mighty giving stupid speeches under the pretense of being an environmentalist,.and then take #money given to you by tax payers, invest it offshore and then lobby to protect the places you invested. I actually hope he gets killed, i'm that angry. You're not making any sense. It makes perfect sense for an individual who has 30 years of public support for environmental causes to invest in a company which does carbon offset trading. That's called putting your money where your mouth is. Furthermore his money is not taxpayer money, it's a hereditary estate. He's not rich because he's exploited the taxpayers, he's rich because he's a member of a landed hereditary aristocracy. If you object to that then you've got a long list of people to be angry at. His environmentalism is very clearly not a pretense. Charles has a very, very long track record of defying the establishment and speaking out on causes he believes in, of which environmentalism is one. Similarly his Duchy Originals company was a leader in organic and sustainable farming within the UK (and incidentally donates all of its profits to charity). The level of delusion you need to have to paint Charles as either greedy or a phony environmentalist is insane. The evidence to the contrary is staggering. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9956 Posts
None of the above has anything to do with Prince Charles, I agree with KwarK on this one. | ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On November 08 2017 06:30 KwarK wrote: You're not making any sense. It makes perfect sense for an individual who has 30 years of public support for environmental causes to invest in a company which does carbon offset trading. That's called putting your money where your mouth is. Furthermore his money is not taxpayer money, it's a hereditary estate. He's not rich because he's exploited the taxpayers, he's rich because he's a member of a landed hereditary aristocracy. If you object to that then you've got a long list of people to be angry at. His environmentalism is very clearly not a pretense. Charles has a very, very long track record of defying the establishment and speaking out on causes he believes in, of which environmentalism is one. Similarly his Duchy Originals company was a leader in organic and sustainable farming within the UK (and incidentally donates all of its profits to charity). The level of delusion you need to have to paint Charles as either greedy or a phony environmentalist is insane. The evidence to the contrary is staggering. If you read the story he secretly bought shares in a company and then directly tried to influence policy to boost it's share value. If he was putting his money where his mouth was why did it all take place in such a shady way. There are plenty of environmental initiatives to push but he happens to support the one where he has a huge investment. Yeh ok he's a real stand up guy. It's a shame nothing will happen as a result mexcept public opinion of Charles will dip even lower. due to his long track record of pontificating about topics he doesn't understand. I'm not interested in debating this, i am already too biased to the idea that Charles is an obnoxious retard to have an objective discussion. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
| ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On November 08 2017 07:26 KwarK wrote: Huge investment? It was 100k. He gives millions to charity every year. How does this story even begin to make sense in your head? He's the Crown Prince of Great Britain, he has absolutely zero motivation to try and do some stock pump and dump shit. What the fuck would he even buy with the 200k he's alleged to have made? He's already got Cornwall! ok you're right. | ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On November 08 2017 07:34 Zaros wrote: https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/928020582200995840 https://twitter.com/Peston/status/928017894465769472 Interesting | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9956 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On November 08 2017 07:52 Jockmcplop wrote: The most interesting thing to me is wondering who's in a position to be making decisions about sackings. I doubt its our PM. I'd say everyone except Rudd and Gove in the Cabinet is in some sort of trouble or taint associated with them now that May could probably sack people without any immediate opposition from the Cabinet, the trouble is anyone she sacks adds a name to Grant Shapp's letter to the 1922 committee and she must be close to the number to trigger a leadership challenge. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:04 sc-darkness wrote: Strong and stable leadership. The problem is Boris Johnson is much worse. Boris has Zero chance of becoming leader now, most of the parliamentary party hate him for his disloyalty leading up to conference and now his latest blunder has only made it worse. So getting rid of May won't lead to Boris without some bizarre turn of events. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9956 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
![[image loading]](https://www.conservativehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Cabinet-League-Table-Oct-17-768x725.png) I don't think Williamson will get past the MPs he does seem pretty unpopular but I think he is the one May wants to succeed him. You pretty much need to be a brexiteer to win over the conservative party membership and being an experienced minister I imagine will give you a big advantage over someone brand new as the party would be deciding the actual PM. I actually think if Gove has nothing to do with getting rid of May he could actual win it this time. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On November 08 2017 06:30 KwarK wrote: He's not rich because he's exploited the taxpayers, he's rich because he's a member of a landed hereditary aristocracy. Let's just think about this statement for while... On to the topic at hand, the issue is that there is a conflict of interest here - lobbying for environmentalism (which you're quite right it has been well-known for for decades) but also for a position that he stands to make undisclosed profit from. Carbon trading is iffy anyway from a environmental perspective. | ||
| ||
