Jump to content

Recommended Posts

dc Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You can't use parliamentary allowances for any

> form of hospitality.


But you can use up to ?10,000 a year (new allowance) to "communicate" with your constituents. HAve you not noticed the new glossies we're getting thru' the letter box extolling MPs performance? Creates an inbuilt bias for sitting MP - who should be relying upon their performance, not their PR machine and expenses, to be re-elected.

Theres always a "way" of palming off the cost onto someone else - HH is slippery enough to know that.


Sadly this chap little gimmick often works, dazzling people for long enough to get them onside.


I however have pride and respect for myself - a few drinks and a canape or two will not rid me of my utter cynicism of the whole back slapping, pocket lining political circus typified by Harman and her kind.


Proud of your involvement in Iraq Harriet ? would you vote for it now ? still, a few hundred thousand dead is a small price to pay for your career on the gravy train.Still at least you have your plus side - like your support of ID cards

and expanded anti terrorism laws ( even though the vote for eerak invasion probabaly turned more people into potentuial terrorists than any other event in the UK)


you and your kind make me sick Harriet.


I dont know how you sleep at night


Im sure your simpering lackeys will check out this post and may even attempt what is now refered to as an " Osborne Stewart" defence - i.e. a bogus post intended to promote a cause or opportunity on a public forum

HH is exactly the type of intense, turkey-necked, unimaginative careerist, with her steely-glare and "I pretend to be nice but get in the way of my career and I will slaughter you" slag that I have identified elsewhere on this board, ie. just like TJ.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Pointless unless Southwark will make money from this being erected.  If that’s the case, it will be allowed.
    • Yes, there's no way anyone would want a Wi-Fi hub in Lordship Lane. Absolutely pointless. Anyone who actually wants or needs to communicate or access data will already have their 5G phone or satellite phone on them to get fast data. And of course we are lucky that we have such a strong and unbroken mobile signal from all suppliers locally. With no dead spots. 
    • I see from the Site Notice https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/B867B0B45973C03BE4D45CE4513BDE35/pdf/25_AP_2825-SITE_NOTICE-4151698.pdf that the "Comment by" date is 5 November. My understanding is that comments submitted after that date can and ?will still be considered if the decision-making hasn't yet been done; so I wouldn't let the date in itself deter you if you  want to comment now.   Was the site notice actually posted near the location, btw? Does the hub have any claimed functions other than advertising?
    • Whilst reading about what was Poundland, I saw that BT has applied to install (block the pavement with) one of its large screen advertising 'street hubs' outside the building. This seems like a terrible idea in my opinion - others may disagree - but you might want to look at the planning application and comment. There is still a day or two to do so.  Here's the relevant application 25/AP/2825 https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=T3G4H5KBH1500 and how it will look https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/BDF327FA0103A31946387A251B9C9D45/pdf/25_AP_2825-ELEVATION_PLAN-4143504.pdf
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...