|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 15, 2024 8:39:19 GMT
 www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8djply3z18oSo here's the thing If a rich bloke named Ali who appears to have got where he is today thanks to buying his peerage from Blair started lavishing twenty grand on my missus then got handed a back door key to the house, I'd have a few things to say Seeing as Starmer's missus is Jewish and this chap Ali seems to definitely NOT be ... Just how big can his knob BE .... |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 15, 2024 10:53:27 GMT
I'm left wondering why one of the richest men in the country needs donations from other people to buy his clothes for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 15, 2024 11:04:07 GMT
So Starmers on the take too.
Who’d of thought it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 15, 2024 11:50:55 GMT
As far as being above the rules is concerned, Starmer is a serial offender. Back in 2022 he breached the MP's code of conduct no fewar than eight times by failing to register interests which included among other things 'gifts' from football clubs - link
In opposition Starmer was scathing over Boris Johnsons failure to register interests. Across the despatch box he accused Boris of among other things - 'leading the Tories through the sewers' - over his alleged breaches of the MP's code of conduct. Yet Starmer has a history of doing exactly the same, and quite obviously he is still failing to register interests and in doing so he is guilty, again, of breaching the MP's code of conduct. It seems to me that Starmer is a great believer in the old left wing adage - do as I say, not as I do. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 15, 2024 22:22:11 GMT
I'm left wondering why one of the richest men in the country needs donations from other people to buy his clothes for him. Did you hear Lammy's excuse for this? It was hilarious. Lammy, the British foreign secretary (lol yes I know, bear with) said the US president and other leaders have a budget to ensure they always look appropriate, but [Millionaire] prime ministers and their partners don't have a [clothing] budget, so they rely on donors to help them look their best! I shit you not, that is what the excuse we have for a British foreign secretary said out loud. The man is an utter imbecile. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 15, 2024 22:31:41 GMT
I'm left wondering why one of the richest men in the country needs donations from other people to buy his clothes for him. Did you hear Lammy's excuse for this? It was hilarious. Lammy, the British foreign secretary (lol yes I know, bear with) said the US president and other leaders have a budget to ensure they always look appropriate, but [Millionaire] prime ministers and their partners don't have a [clothing] budget, so they rely on donors to help them look their best! I shit you not, that is what the excuse we have for a British foreign secretary said out loud. The man is an utter imbecile. Lets hope they have straight jackets in starmer and co sizes... |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 15, 2024 22:38:50 GMT
Did you hear Lammy's excuse for this? It was hilarious. Lammy, the British foreign secretary (lol yes I know, bear with) said the US president and other leaders have a budget to ensure they always look appropriate, but [Millionaire] prime ministers and their partners don't have a [clothing] budget, so they rely on donors to help them look their best! I shit you not, that is what the excuse we have for a British foreign secretary said out loud. The man is an utter imbecile. Lets hope they have straight jackets in starmer and co sizes... There's a thought, bespoke straight jackets for millionaire left wing politicians who are used to the finer things in life. I wonder if Lord Ali would pay for that. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 16, 2024 12:07:06 GMT
Lets hope they have straight jackets in starmer and co sizes... There's a thought, bespoke straight jackets for millionaire left wing politicians who are used to the finer things in life. I wonder if Lord Ali would pay for that. Well as regards the WFA he’s got cloth ears. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 16, 2024 18:26:05 GMT
The pass to No.10 is wrong.
But why can’t the local fashion industry be allowed to clothe senior UK statesmen and be charged for the privilege?
That would be good for the UK and good for the party in power — not only would the PM then, hopefully, not look like a tousle-haired blonde slob, but UK tailoring would be given an additional stage…
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 16, 2024 18:31:05 GMT
The pass to No.10 is wrong. But why can’t the local fashion industry be allowed to clothe senior UK statesmen and be charged for the privilege? That would be good for the UK and good for the party in power — not only would the PM then, hopefully, not look like a tousle-haired blonde slob, but UK tailoring would be given an additional stage… Why should a wealthy senior politician get freebies from a businessman? If you have to ask then you are telling us a great deal about your moral compass |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 16, 2024 21:30:52 GMT
The pass to No.10 is wrong. But why can’t the local fashion industry be allowed to clothe senior UK statesmen and be charged for the privilege? That would be good for the UK and good for the party in power — not only would the PM then, hopefully, not look like a tousle-haired blonde slob, but UK tailoring would be given an additional stage… I agree with you Pat - companies should be allowed to hand out as many freebies as they want to political figures.. ..after all nothing could go wrong with that. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 17, 2024 7:18:04 GMT
The pass to No.10 is wrong. But why can’t the local fashion industry be allowed to clothe senior UK statesmen and be charged for the privilege? That would be good for the UK and good for the party in power — not only would the PM then, hopefully, not look like a tousle-haired blonde slob, but UK tailoring would be given an additional stage… Now that's a good point actually I suppose we are already back to the days when makers of Gannex Macintosh's got honours for it I don't know if we have a fashion industry today but you make a good point. If we did and if senior Politicians and their wives were used as models for their wares at no cost to themselves, well, that's fair enough I think. Even if said Politicians allowed foreign companies to advertise themselves as suppliers of their clothes and shoes then I'd have few objections as that would, for me, highlight the lack of patriotism inherent in such a politician happy to allow a foreign firm free advertising. But i think it's one thing for a manufacturer or retailer with sales to gain for their product to supply said product free of charge to Politicians, who they might view as little more than 'influencers' It would be quite another if said manufacturer sought to gain trading or tax and duty advantages over another as a result of those free gifts. We have acts of parliament from Gordon Brown's time designed to put a stop to that, because Blair didn't But what we have here is something else altogether. Here we have a dodgy businessman making large cash and material donations to political leaders and receiving VIP access in return. Didn't give Tories throw Hamilton out of the commons for something similar ?? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 17, 2024 12:11:48 GMT
To clarify my question for those who once again illustrate that some posters here aren’t capable of understanding and handling more than one idea at a time — I am asking why fashion designers and manufacturers should not be offered (for a substantial fee) the opportunity to have members of the government wear their designs.
Such income would go towards govt receipts through whatever department or function that handles govt/state advertising and publicity (Cabinet Office ?), not to the individual clothes horse…
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 17, 2024 12:17:24 GMT
To clarify my question for those who once again illustrate that some posters here aren’t capable of understanding and handling more than one idea at a time — I am asking why fashion designers and manufacturers should not be offered (for a substantial fee) the opportunity to have members of the government wear their designs. Such income would go towards govt receipts through whatever department or function that handles govt/state advertising and publicity (Cabinet Office ?), not to the individual clothes horse… If you can’t work out why giving freebies to powerful politicians is a bad thing then I suggest that you are the one who can’t handle more than one idea at the time , in fact it suggest that you can’t handle one idea at a time . |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 17, 2024 12:50:30 GMT
The pass to No.10 is wrong. But why can’t the local fashion industry be allowed to clothe senior UK statesmen and be charged for the privilege? That would be good for the UK and good for the party in power — not only would the PM then, hopefully, not look like a tousle-haired blonde slob, but UK tailoring would be given an additional stage… ! Starmer is a millionaire, he's worth c£8 million. He is paid £165,000 salary and his wife receives a £50,000 NHS salary. He has spent the last five years constantly criticising the Tories over sleaze, breaking the rules, breaking the ministerial code. It now transpires he failed to declare thousands of pounds worth of 'gifts' including £5,000 worth of designer clothes for his wife and unbelievably, he said he didn't know he was supposed to declare gifts given to his wife! Christ almighty who's advising him? Can you imagine what he would be saying if the boot were on the other foot? Starmer would be screaming for resignations, he is an absolute hypocrite, the classic champagne socialist. |
|
