Shock Horror from yesterday's Sunday Times, Prime Minister has meals with big sponsors, just a thought but has anyone spotted the big stink of hypocrisy, from the News International paper, having seen plenty of evidence of wrong doing by the News of the World and evidence that other papers like the Sun have been up to no good, and never having seen theses papers ever criticise Rupert Murdoch's access to Downing Street and indeed Leaders around the world, just what games are Murdoch's lackeys upto??
Even more worrying is how the media, is following the Murdoch press.
Have we forgotten Rupert Murdoch's back door access reported here or other visits proof if you need it that Britains press are little more than sheep
So two wrongs make a right then?
ReplyDeleteTony drops his standards and principles as easily as Peter Checksfield drops his knickers.
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with Cameron having a meal with backers 6 18,,
ReplyDeleteWho knows what rascals in Labour got up in the recent past, wonder why Labour never touched Murdoch's grip on UK media.
And just think of the crooks diverting union funds to the Labour party
Explain if you can 6 27
ReplyDeleteExplain if you can 6 27
ReplyDeletefor £250,000 I would want to meet him as well. my £1.00 wouldnt get me a chat with the cat.
ReplyDeleteBeen saying this for years sheep beget sheeple news
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flQ4ijrFUfg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Amusing to note that in one of his twisted and embittered cartoon-like jibes at Worrow, Moores (Westgate Wonder) dribbled (22 February):
ReplyDelete"Performances nightly. Name a cause. No applause. Just throw money".
Who could have known he was in fact referring to his own Tory Prime Minister.
The real issue is not whether donors to political parties get an audience with dinner but whether they influence policy.
ReplyDeleteFor years one has felt that big business money influenced the Tories whilst union funds manipulate Labour. Take your pick but then ask yourself the million dollar question.
Do you really want to fund political parties through taxation out of your earnings?
Note 10:11 sees yet another opportunity to leap to the defence of Worrow. You two in a relationship or something?
ReplyDeleteAnon 11.50, I have offered no defence of Worrow here, so your cheap, insulting and deliberately offensive remark does nothing but show you to be nothing more than a mischievous fantasist.
ReplyDeleteI realise that, like most of your "brethren" who are posting in such large numbers on Thanet Life, you are hiding behind supposedly moderate "observations" and "criticisms" and "comments", but your fundamentalist views on sexuality do show through, I'm afraid.
Now go and don your pointed white hat and gown so that we can all understand you more clearly.
12:07, my most humble apologies if my little jibe offended you despite your equally offensive response about my views on sexuality. As to the pointed white hat, surely that was about racism which, as someone of African extraction I find particularly tasteless. Frankly you are way out of order here whereas at least I can claim I was trying a touch of humour.
ReplyDeleteThere are many instances of the KKK extending their hatred beyond race, Anon. Check it out. And your "little jibe" was anything but. A cheap, childish suggestion that I might be in a relationship with Worrow as a means of attacking my comment - a "jibe" which no-one who is at ease with others' sexuality would even think of making or would think of as humour.
ReplyDeleteBut it is still OK for you to make racially offensive comments without regard to who you may be directing them at. Your self righteousness does you no credit.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to see what Murdoch is publishing in any of his rags but don't want the insidious varmint to profit from it, take a sharp pair of scissors to the newsagent, pay for your paper, then neatly cut out the front page title 'The Times' including the day's date and leave it on the counter. Just say to the newsagent, "I don't want that bit, don't want anyone to see me walking home with this sh*t"
ReplyDeleteAnon 2.56, your attempt to gain some moral high ground is as pathetic as your original sentiments were hostile and offensive. There was nothing racially motivated or offensive in what I said - unless you think my castigation of the KKK is unfair of course.
ReplyDeleteNot wishing to interfere in your little spat, chaps, but the KKK is an arm of the CIA/global elite, a political tool to divide and rule, as is Al Qaeda and a plethora of other little gangs of misguided halfwits, dotted around the globe.
ReplyDelete3:13 Somehow it is not offensive in your book to accuse someone of being of KKK orientation. You also suggest I am uneasy with other people's sexuality.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest accusing someone of belonging to such a vile and racially motivated organisation is a lot worse than a comment made in jest about why you defend Worrow. Obviously, for some reason, that is touchy ground with you.
As to your other dig, I am totally at ease with my own sexuality. Frankly I am not interested in yours or anybody elses and it is up to you how you feel about it.
Anon, perhaps if you read what was written you would not be so off-the-wall in your comments. I made no reference to your being at ease or otherwise with your own sexuality. That is entirely your business. I said that no-one who claims to be at ease with the sexuality of others - that means other people - would make the sort of remark you originally did. Your remark was not funny, and I doubt you meant it as "humour" - despite your claim.
ReplyDeleteYou are stamping your foot now only because you were caught out and challenged.
Like I said, I don't have to be at ease with anyone's sexuality other than my own as it is nothing to do with me. If you have a problem with yours don't take it out on me.
ReplyDeleteI was just trying to engage in a bit of banter arising out of your tendency to bring Worrow and Moores into every thread. It was you that came up with all this KKK nonsense.
PS 5:30 - Think I will leave the foot stamping to you being more your thing than mine.
ReplyDeleteAnon - 07.12 and 07.27 - the substance of my original comment was the allegations being made about further Tory Party corruption and how these sit alongside a previous remark made by a local Tory. Sorry you failed to grasp the point, but it allowed you to advance the off-the-wall insult that so excited you.
ReplyDeleteSorry to disappoint 09:17 but I don't do excitement anymore than I do foot stamping. Anyway, you see things your way and I will stick with mine. Well at least until the next time you come in with one of your anti Moores pro Worrow contributions.
ReplyDeleteOh, and reading through your comments, no where have I ever claimed to be at ease with other peoples' sexuality. Frankly it is nothing to do with me and, as long as they don't confront me with it, I really could not care less.
That's good to know, but completely at odds with your original "jibe". I suggest you quit before you dig yourself an even bigger hole.
ReplyDeleteNot really 12:25 since I simply asked if you were in a relationship with Worrow. I did not specify what type and since, in this day and age, almost anyone could be in a relationship with anyone else, it was a reasonable enquiry. Especially as, apart from you and possibly Mr Driver, most other people seem utterly brassed off with Worrow.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, as holes go, is that deep enough for you!
Dead and buried, Anon. Forgive me if I doubt your every word.
ReplyDeleteThanks for begging my forgiveness but afraid I do not have the authority to oblige. Mind you, if you pray sincerely I am sure he who does will. He welcomes repentant sinners.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't begging anything, nor would I ever. You really do operate in an imaginary world, don't you? And I don't believe in any god.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I am sure you wrote "Forgive me." If you have changed your mind so be it though it is sad to hear of your godless existence. That could explain a lot though!
ReplyDeleteYou cannot be "godless" when you don't believe in the existence of the thing/person in the first place. And it explains nothing, Anon.
ReplyDeleteOoops, touchy!
ReplyDeleteNot at all, you are just desperate to pick a fight and to pursue your mischievous fantasy. Now I really think this exchange has reached a particular depth of pojntlessness.
ReplyDelete