It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

May set to be PM as Leadsom quits race

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Roosevelt actually died during WW2 and the American presidential system seemed to cope. Besides which its not the 1940's any more.

Roosevelt was not replaced by the calling of a fresh election.
Cumbersome procedures can be a disadvantage at any time. They would have been a disadvantage now, when we need to sort things out as quickly as possible. And you can't assume that a crisis demanding swift action will never occur again, just because we have moved on from a particular date.


That is kind of the point. There are systems that allow more direct say in the selection of the executive branch without requiring an election immediately in a crisis.




posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Roosevelt actually died during WW2 and the American presidential system seemed to cope. Besides which its not the 1940's any more.

Roosevelt was not replaced by the calling of a fresh election.
Cumbersome procedures can be a disadvantage at any time. They would have been a disadvantage now, when we need to sort things out as quickly as possible. And you can't assume that a crisis demanding swift action will never occur again, just because we have moved on from a particular date.


That was during a World War, where you would expect things to be done a little differently. I think you are trying to compare Apples with Pears.

When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, I remember the Tories calling for a General Election, because the Electorate had not voted for him to be P.M, which I agreed with at the time. The hypocrisy is mind blowing, but not totally surprising.


Edit- Also the electorate who voted for the Tories, voted for continuing Austerity. Now Theresa May claims Austere measures will be lifted, so it's not what those that voted Tory at the last G.E, voted for.
edit on 11/7/16 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I'm not exactly pleased that May will be P.M.

But Parliamentary procedure as it stands has been followed.

Its hardly unique.....only a few years ago people were complaining when Brown became PM.
Before that it was Major.

My feelings about May aren't complimentary - she appears to stand for everything that I despise, just more of the same old same old.
The party political merry-go round continues unabated and they'll continue to feed from the trough and skim off all the cream.

Just another reminder of how we need urgent and radical reform of both our electoral and Parliamentary systems and procedures - party politics is no longer fit for purpose!



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: uncommitted




I'm not sure what your problem is

It's here in the thread.



I'm having a hard time you 'voted' Tory believing you would get Cameron.

I didn't vote Tory.


I'm not sure what your problem is then. You don't like May, fairly sure you weren't a Cameron fan and you didn't vote for the party either way. As plenty of people on here have been happy to say about the EU referendum - get over it.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted




I'm not sure what your problem is then.

So you think May is just going to follow her predecessors manifesto ? , the country should have the right to decide if her vision of the future is the same as theirs.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: JAK

originally posted by: bastion
... who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S...


What evidence is there to support this claim?

If you are as concerned over the relationship between government and G4S then to avoid diluting your position through errors and so granting space to those who, for whatever reason, would rather the relationship doesn't come under scrutiny then it would seem of great importance to offer only arguments which stand on solid ground.


It's been in the public domain for three or four years, landlord is CID in Manchester, ask any high ranking police - here's a few news stories -

www.theguardian.com...

www.theguardian.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk... al-banner.html

www.telegraph.co.uk...



A few news stories none of which seem to say anything about May's husband being a major shareholder in G4S.

I don't like May but I think it is better to criticise based on things she has actually done wrong rather than apparently made up Internet rumours.
.



Erm all those stories were from when police were walking out because she cut 20,000 police and gave the contracts to SERCO and G4S.
It's not a rumour ask any police officer - I've been a journalist for 15 years - in the uk you can only access 6 stories out of 220,000 on him due to data protection. Write to the information comisioner or write to G4S or Serco and ask for a copy of their board member minutes if you don't want to take my word for it. It's a fact on legally binding paper and official government documents, not random online blogs. The whole reddit conspiracy about him and g4s is a complete lie though. I'm basing it on the true story I have the papers for.

Here's a taster, warning requires weeks of researcherch and to ctually follow and vet politics daily, not jut reading the odd blog.

Home Secretary Theresa May has rejected an accusation of a conflict of interest in Lincolnshire Police's decision to award a £200m contract to G4S.

At the Police Federation conference, Mrs May was asked about Tom Winsor, a partner of a law firm which advised the security company on the deal.

In 2010, Mr Winsor was appointed by the government to author an independent report on police reform.

Ms Adams said: "When you appointed Tom Winsor to carry out your independent review of policy, did you know that the law firm Tom Winsor is part of, which is White and Case, was negotiating the multi-million groundbreaking deal for G4S with Lincolnshire Police?

"How can it be fair and independent if there's a vested interest?"


Again nothing to do with May's husband holding shares in GS4. Saying police officers know (how would they) is not evidence.

I am not saying it is not possible May benefited from holding shares in GS4. But there seems to be no evidence that he did and certainly none that he was a major shareholder.

Claiming to be a journalist with super secret knowledge doesn't really cut it if you can't provide evidence.



I've already posted the evidence - go to your local council cite the 1982 Local Government Authroity Act Section 17- link here: www.legislation.gov.uk...

Write to G4S, SERCO or White and Case to obtain minutes from meetings proving he owns shares and was instrumental in the del as the mutes contain his vote and campaign for G4S. - Here's the law and guide how to do it

As explained it's illegal for me to post due to super injunction - this what a super injunction is - www.bbc.co.uk...

I'm not going to jail because you're too lazy to write a letter or use your democratic rights.

---------

Sorry if I see like I'm having a go at you, it's the law that pisses me off as we have all the rights to know this but only people with ability to sift through thousands of books and legal paperwork get to know their rights - section 17 is the most important law in the UK and burried in a 1250 page document.
edit on 11-7-2016 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: uncommitted




I'm not sure what your problem is then.

So you think May is just going to follow her predecessors manifesto ? , the country should have the right to decide if her vision of the future is the same as theirs.



You didn't vote for her predecessors manifesto did you, so why is it something you feel the need to whinge about?

Leadsom was a flash in the pan, shown very quickly to be naive in dealing with the press not only in an interview but post interview expressing shock and horror that they had dared to actually quote her. For what it's worth, I believe the lies that the Leave campaign used were exposed to such an extent that Gove and Johnson had little credibility and Leadsom has shown that if she can't keep her composure and give her views with the Times in a way that she wouldn't feel comfortable having to justify then she would have been a disaster at a bargaining table with the EU.

We have the political system we have. Just because the next leader of the Conservative party, and by the virtue of that the next PM is not someone you are keen on is neither here nor there really.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: JAK

originally posted by: bastion
... who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S...


What evidence is there to support this claim?

If you are as concerned over the relationship between government and G4S then to avoid diluting your position through errors and so granting space to those who, for whatever reason, would rather the relationship doesn't come under scrutiny then it would seem of great importance to offer only arguments which stand on solid ground.


It's been in the public domain for three or four years, landlord is CID in Manchester, ask any high ranking police - here's a few news stories -

www.theguardian.com...

www.theguardian.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk... al-banner.html

www.telegraph.co.uk...



A few news stories none of which seem to say anything about May's husband being a major shareholder in G4S.

I don't like May but I think it is better to criticise based on things she has actually done wrong rather than apparently made up Internet rumours.
.



Erm all those stories were from when police were walking out because she cut 20,000 police and gave the contracts to SERCO and G4S.
It's not a rumour ask any police officer - I've been a journalist for 15 years - in the uk you can only access 6 stories out of 220,000 on him due to data protection. Write to the information comisioner or write to G4S or Serco and ask for a copy of their board member minutes if you don't want to take my word for it. It's a fact on legally binding paper and official government documents, not random online blogs. The whole reddit conspiracy about him and g4s is a complete lie though. I'm basing it on the true story I have the papers for.

Here's a taster, warning requires weeks of researcherch and to ctually follow and vet politics daily, not jut reading the odd blog.

Home Secretary Theresa May has rejected an accusation of a conflict of interest in Lincolnshire Police's decision to award a £200m contract to G4S.

At the Police Federation conference, Mrs May was asked about Tom Winsor, a partner of a law firm which advised the security company on the deal.

In 2010, Mr Winsor was appointed by the government to author an independent report on police reform.

Ms Adams said: "When you appointed Tom Winsor to carry out your independent review of policy, did you know that the law firm Tom Winsor is part of, which is White and Case, was negotiating the multi-million groundbreaking deal for G4S with Lincolnshire Police?

"How can it be fair and independent if there's a vested interest?"


Again nothing to do with May's husband holding shares in GS4. Saying police officers know (how would they) is not evidence.

I am not saying it is not possible May benefited from holding shares in GS4. But there seems to be no evidence that he did and certainly none that he was a major shareholder.

Claiming to be a journalist with super secret knowledge doesn't really cut it if you can't provide evidence.



I've already posted the evidence - go to your local council cite the 1982 Local Government Authroity Act Section 17- link here: www.legislation.gov.uk...

Write to G4S, SERCO or White and Case to obtain minutes from meetings proving he owns shares and was instrumental in the del as the mutes contain his vote and campaign for G4S. - Here's the law and guide how to do it

As explained it's illegal for me to post due to super injunction - this what a super injunction is - www.bbc.co.uk...

I'm not going to jail because you're too lazy to write a letter or use your democratic rights.

---------

Sorry if I see like I'm having a go at you, it's the law that pisses me off as we have all the rights to know this but only people with ability to sift through thousands of books and legal paperwork get to know their rights - section 17 is the most important law in the UK and burried in a 1250 page document.


So you post links from the Guardian that don't in any way support what you are saying, you say if any one needs proof they need to write to G4S or other parties to vindicate you, but the actual proof is a result of a super injunction so you can't say anything to prove your claim. I can see how that works, it's called bollox.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted




You didn't vote for her predecessors manifesto did you, so why is it something you feel the need to whinge about?

Because I live in this country.



We have the political system we have. Just because the next leader of the Conservative party, and by the virtue of that the next PM is not someone you are keen on is neither here nor there really

I'm not keen on any politician , May has shown herself to be an authoritarian Home secretary and I have no doubt she will not change as PM.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion

Actually, I'll go further. You said earlier in this thread -


So a woman who privatised the police by stealth and handed it over to G4S, who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S, is going to be PM.


Now, we know that's a lie. So just how good an investigative journalist are you again?



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: revmoofoo
a reply to: SprocketUK

Brexit x May = Destruction of our country.


Tony Blair already started that process for you long ago.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: uncommitted




You didn't vote for her predecessors manifesto did you, so why is it something you feel the need to whinge about?

Because I live in this country.



We have the political system we have. Just because the next leader of the Conservative party, and by the virtue of that the next PM is not someone you are keen on is neither here nor there really

I'm not keen on any politician , May has shown herself to be an authoritarian Home secretary and I have no doubt she will not change as PM.


I believe leaving the EU was a mistake - I can get over that if it keeps you all happy - you didn't get a choice for the leader of a party you didn't vote for................ where do I keep that really little violin? I must have a look.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: JAK

originally posted by: bastion
... who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S...


What evidence is there to support this claim?

If you are as concerned over the relationship between government and G4S then to avoid diluting your position through errors and so granting space to those who, for whatever reason, would rather the relationship doesn't come under scrutiny then it would seem of great importance to offer only arguments which stand on solid ground.


It's been in the public domain for three or four years, landlord is CID in Manchester, ask any high ranking police - here's a few news stories -

www.theguardian.com...

www.theguardian.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk... al-banner.html

www.telegraph.co.uk...



A few news stories none of which seem to say anything about May's husband being a major shareholder in G4S.

I don't like May but I think it is better to criticise based on things she has actually done wrong rather than apparently made up Internet rumours.
.



Erm all those stories were from when police were walking out because she cut 20,000 police and gave the contracts to SERCO and G4S.
It's not a rumour ask any police officer - I've been a journalist for 15 years - in the uk you can only access 6 stories out of 220,000 on him due to data protection. Write to the information comisioner or write to G4S or Serco and ask for a copy of their board member minutes if you don't want to take my word for it. It's a fact on legally binding paper and official government documents, not random online blogs. The whole reddit conspiracy about him and g4s is a complete lie though. I'm basing it on the true story I have the papers for.

Here's a taster, warning requires weeks of researcherch and to ctually follow and vet politics daily, not jut reading the odd blog.

Home Secretary Theresa May has rejected an accusation of a conflict of interest in Lincolnshire Police's decision to award a £200m contract to G4S.

At the Police Federation conference, Mrs May was asked about Tom Winsor, a partner of a law firm which advised the security company on the deal.

In 2010, Mr Winsor was appointed by the government to author an independent report on police reform.

Ms Adams said: "When you appointed Tom Winsor to carry out your independent review of policy, did you know that the law firm Tom Winsor is part of, which is White and Case, was negotiating the multi-million groundbreaking deal for G4S with Lincolnshire Police?

"How can it be fair and independent if there's a vested interest?"


Again nothing to do with May's husband holding shares in GS4. Saying police officers know (how would they) is not evidence.

I am not saying it is not possible May benefited from holding shares in GS4. But there seems to be no evidence that he did and certainly none that he was a major shareholder.

Claiming to be a journalist with super secret knowledge doesn't really cut it if you can't provide evidence.



I've already posted the evidence - go to your local council cite the 1982 Local Government Authroity Act Section 17- link here: www.legislation.gov.uk...

Write to G4S, SERCO or White and Case to obtain minutes from meetings proving he owns shares and was instrumental in the del as the mutes contain his vote and campaign for G4S. - Here's the law and guide how to do it

As explained it's illegal for me to post due to super injunction - this what a super injunction is - www.bbc.co.uk...

I'm not going to jail because you're too lazy to write a letter or use your democratic rights.

---------

Sorry if I see like I'm having a go at you, it's the law that pisses me off as we have all the rights to know this but only people with ability to sift through thousands of books and legal paperwork get to know their rights - section 17 is the most important law in the UK and burried in a 1250 page document.


So you post links from the Guardian that don't in any way support what you are saying, you say if any one needs proof they need to write to G4S or other parties to vindicate you, but the actual proof is a result of a super injunction so you can't say anything to prove your claim. I can see how that works, it's called bollox.


Was about to reply to bastion but I think you may have summed it up far better than I was going to.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted




I believe leaving the EU was a mistake

We haven't left yet, come to think of it we haven't even started to leave yet...., stay tuned.



you didn't get a choice for the leader of a party you didn't vote for................
where do I keep that really little violin? I must have a look.

Your idea of democracy and mine differ somewhat.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: bastion

Actually, I'll go further. You said earlier in this thread -


So a woman who privatised the police by stealth and handed it over to G4S, who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S, is going to be PM.


Now, we know that's a lie. So just how good an investigative journalist are you again?


o
One that works for Private Eye and BBC North, ex level 3 MI6. Read what a superinjunction is, read minutes laws. Its illegal for me to tell you, it's illegal for the company not to tell you. I completely agree the law makes no sense.

There's a good 45 minute documentsry on how to uncover this stuff here - www.youtube.com...
edit on 11-7-2016 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: bastion

Actually, I'll go further. You said earlier in this thread -


So a woman who privatised the police by stealth and handed it over to G4S, who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S, is going to be PM.


Now, we know that's a lie. So just how good an investigative journalist are you again?


o
One that works for Private Eye and BBC North, ex level 3 MI6. Read what a superinjunction is, read minutes laws. Its illegal for me to tell you, it's illegal for the company not to tell you. I completely agree the law makes no sense.

There's a good 45 minute documentsry on how to uncover this stuff here - www.youtube.com...


Why not run something through TOR to WikiLeaks to post up the info then it would be public domain and as long as you covered your rear well enough you would be safe?



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: bastion

Actually, I'll go further. You said earlier in this thread -


So a woman who privatised the police by stealth and handed it over to G4S, who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S, is going to be PM.


Now, we know that's a lie. So just how good an investigative journalist are you again?


o
One that works for Private Eye and BBC North, ex level 3 MI6. Read what a superinjunction is, read minutes laws. Its illegal for me to tell you, it's illegal for the company not to tell you. I completely agree the law makes no sense.

There's a good 45 minute documentsry on how to uncover this stuff here - www.youtube.com...


I believe uncommitted's point was that an investigative journalist would probably not claim that May was head of G4S when he wasn't. Seems a bit of a rookie mistake for someone of your claimed experience.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
Blimey, Paraphi please take your rose coloured glasses off.
Even if a vote of no confidence took place could you honestly say the pigs would take their snouts out of the trough and vote themselves out of a job?


Er, my glasses are tinted with reality.

if there was a no confidence motion and the Government attempted to retain power then it would get rather complicated for them. It would not happen. Parliaments have been dissolved before.

Once Queenie dissolves Parliament MPs have no power. She'll do it because that's her job. The Civil Service would just not work for the MPs anymore. It's why key government "bits" have oaths allegiance to the Monarch. (Ex) MPs can sit in Parliament if they liked, but they would have no power and no one would take any notice of them. They would be eventually removed by the officials for squatting.

So yes, the pigs will take their snouts out of the trough. They have no choice.
edit on 11/7/2016 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: bastion

Actually, I'll go further. You said earlier in this thread -


So a woman who privatised the police by stealth and handed it over to G4S, who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S, is going to be PM.


Now, we know that's a lie. So just how good an investigative journalist are you again?


o
One that works for Private Eye and BBC North, ex level 3 MI6. Read what a superinjunction is, read minutes laws. Its illegal for me to tell you, it's illegal for the company not to tell you. I completely agree the law makes no sense.

There's a good 45 minute documentsry on how to uncover this stuff here - www.youtube.com...


Why not run something through TOR to WikiLeaks to post up the info then it would be public domain and as long as you covered your rear well enough you would be safe?


Tor isn't secure, nothing with phones or computers ever will be. Sunshine Press who run Wikileaks are allegedly infiltrated - Fighting Carter Ruck or Shillings costs a few milliion and sadly I'm not a milloinaire the only way is for people to write for minutes or for an MP to use their parliamentary priveledge to break the injunction and allow press and public to report on it fully rather than having to write stories in very nuanced and delicate ways.

See Tom Waton breaking the super injunction on reporting UK company Trafigura had been dumping toxic waste in the ivory coast that burt peoples eyes, lungs and anything with water in and killed thousands - all press knew about it, we couldn't report: www.theguardian.com...

Ken Clarke did the same admitting my uncle was jailed illegally as the uk government and mi6 had helped him make a supergun for Iraq but framed him: I'll find the Hansard minutes but main story here: www.theguardian.com...




He said five further documents released during the Matrix Churchill trial - all of them already available to the Guardian - proved Mr Major knew about breaches of the Government's exports guidelines before evidence was published about Matrix Churchill in December 1990. "The facts establish John Major, as Prime Minister, has repeatedly misled MPs about Britain's role in arming Saddam's war machine." The evidence most directly linking Mr Major was a copy of a letter sent on June 20, 1990, by then trade secretary Nicholas Ridley to Customs and Excise and circulated to Mr Major's private office as Chancellor. In it Mr Ridley expressed concern about a Customs raid on Matrix Churchill. The following day Mr Ridley circulated a long paper on the issue to Mr Major and others. The papers also show beyond doubt that Mr Major's predecessor as foreign secretary, Lord Howe, and his successor, Douglas Hurd were fully informed of the issue.



Sorry for going off topic but showing why these can't be reported just yet. Expect big changes in the next few weeks of PMQs if Labour stop acting like kids and sort themselves out.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: bastion

Actually, I'll go further. You said earlier in this thread -


So a woman who privatised the police by stealth and handed it over to G4S, who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S, is going to be PM.


Now, we know that's a lie. So just how good an investigative journalist are you again?


o
One that works for Private Eye and BBC North, ex level 3 MI6. Read what a superinjunction is, read minutes laws. Its illegal for me to tell you, it's illegal for the company not to tell you. I completely agree the law makes no sense.

There's a good 45 minute documentsry on how to uncover this stuff here - www.youtube.com...


Why not run something through TOR to WikiLeaks to post up the info then it would be public domain and as long as you covered your rear well enough you would be safe?


Tor isn't secure, nothing with phones or computers ever will be. Sunshine Press who run Wikileaks are allegedly infiltrated - Fighting Carter Ruck or Shillings costs a few milliion and sadly I'm not a milloinaire the only way is for people to write for minutes or for an MP to use their parliamentary priveledge to break the injunction and allow press and public to report on it fully rather than having to write stories in very nuanced and delicate ways.

See Tom Waton breaking the super injunction on reporting UK company Trafigura had been dumping toxic waste in the ivory coast that burt peoples eyes, lungs and anything with water in and killed thousands - all press knew about it, we couldn't report: www.theguardian.com...

Ken Clarke did the same admitting my uncle was jailed illegally as the uk government and mi6 had helped him make a supergun for Iraq but framed him: I'll find the Hansard minutes but main story here: www.theguardian.com...




He said five further documents released during the Matrix Churchill trial - all of them already available to the Guardian - proved Mr Major knew about breaches of the Government's exports guidelines before evidence was published about Matrix Churchill in December 1990. "The facts establish John Major, as Prime Minister, has repeatedly misled MPs about Britain's role in arming Saddam's war machine." The evidence most directly linking Mr Major was a copy of a letter sent on June 20, 1990, by then trade secretary Nicholas Ridley to Customs and Excise and circulated to Mr Major's private office as Chancellor. In it Mr Ridley expressed concern about a Customs raid on Matrix Churchill. The following day Mr Ridley circulated a long paper on the issue to Mr Major and others. The papers also show beyond doubt that Mr Major's predecessor as foreign secretary, Lord Howe, and his successor, Douglas Hurd were fully informed of the issue.



Sorry for going off topic but showing why these can't be reported just yet. Expect big changes in the next few weeks of PMQs if Labour stop acting like kids and sort themselves out.



originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: bastion

Actually, I'll go further. You said earlier in this thread -


So a woman who privatised the police by stealth and handed it over to G4S, who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S, is going to be PM.


Now, we know that's a lie. So just how good an investigative journalist are you again?


o
One that works for Private Eye and BBC North, ex level 3 MI6. Read what a superinjunction is, read minutes laws. Its illegal for me to tell you, it's illegal for the company not to tell you. I completely agree the law makes no sense.

There's a good 45 minute documentsry on how to uncover this stuff here - www.youtube.com...


I believe uncommitted's point was that an investigative journalist would probably not claim that May was head of G4S when he wasn't. Seems a bit of a rookie mistake for someone of your claimed experience.


No I just know companies house registers and how to obtain minutes and interests - admittedly bit of hyperbole involved but when have you ever seen a journalist not use shock, horror, scandal - it's the first rule of journalism - public aren't interested in finer details - they want shock and awe or page three.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join