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: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: skywatcher44

The thing that bothers me is that we will see very little different between May and Cameron because they are both part of the establishment and she is merely a replacement for exactly the same thing.

So what if she's a woman, I doubt she could be more of a 'big girls blouse' than Brown or Cameron.

I am glad Cameron has gone because he, IMHO was one of the worst albeit not so corrupt and Blair/Brown PM's we have ever had and constantly talked the talk but disappointed especially regarding Europe.

The only good thing one can say is that hopefully she won't have Rothschild on her shoulder telling her what to say and think. She has lasted a long time in a very difficult job because her hands were tied. We will see if she starts to operate BREXIT or she prevaricates which will tell us everything as to whom she represents.




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: skywatcher44

The thing that bothers me is that we will see very little different between May and Cameron because they are both part of the establishment and she is merely a replacement for exactly the same thing.

So what if she's a woman, I doubt she could be more of a 'big girls blouse' than Brown or Cameron.

I am glad Cameron has gone because he, IMHO was one of the worst albeit not so corrupt and Blair/Brown PM's we have ever had and constantly talked the talk but disappointed especially regarding Europe.

The only good thing one can say is that hopefully she won't have Rothschild on her shoulder telling her what to say and think. She has lasted a long time in a very difficult job because her hands were tied. We will see if she starts to operate BREXIT or she prevaricates which will tell us everything as to whom she represents.


The leaders of Brexit made promises even they acknowledged they couldn't keep, but it seems 17 million people thought they were some sort of guarantee. I think May will get the best deal but I know it will not be what the idiots who believed in free trade but a closed border, or £350 million in cash every week to the NHS were duped into believing and will judge the best deal as not good enough.

As for worst prime ministers, I would have thought Wilson and Callaghan would be high up that list, but maybe I'm just old enough to remember what a crap life the '70's were when you take the music out of the equation.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Am I right in thinking that you call anyone who voted for BREXIT an idiot?

I think you need to remember that people were given the option to vote to stay in or to leave only. They were not given the option to say whether they wanted 'negotiations' at all. So that idea is irrelevant although perhaps it should have been in the choices given to the public.

With countries such as Germany still willing to trade with the UK its up to us what tariffs we accept and without our money in any case the EU will collapse because they won't be able to pay their huge and fantastic pensions etc etc.

Good for you if you can remember the 1970's with the strikes and shortages of coffee and petrol etc. All manufactured and leaving the prices going up higher for more profit for a few. Actually we found the 1970's were pretty good. We had bought our home on a mortgage, holidayed abroad and had good jobs with plenty of chance of promotion if you worked hard. Callaghan was corrupt and made a lot of money on selling land to the Mint if I remember although its a long time ago. But in those days we had a far better investigative press which hadn't been taken over by the zionist propaganda machine and people got exposed - which I actually liked better. It wasn't until we got the 'upstart politicians' that suddenly honour on being found out and a quick stomp of shame out the doors of parliament stopped and they clung on indecently to their powerful positions whilst lecturing the public about morals and keeping the law.

I doubt people were as naive as you think in believing that any huge sum would be going to the NHS without terms demanded if much of it went at all. I suspect will will see more of our tax funds going on more bogus wars that only make the banks and arms dealers richer and cost us the lives of our loved ones.

There are too many unemployed and people starting to have time to think for themselves, so naturally a good war is what's needed to keep the elite on their golden perches. However unless Cern can magically deport the elite their only hope if they decide to engage Russia and ultimately China also will be life in a cell-like bunker for the forceable future whilst we all float off as dust in the air.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: uncommitted

Am I right in thinking that you call anyone who voted for BREXIT an idiot?



No, just as some on here called anyone who voted to remain an idiot probably didn't mean that literally. I said 17 million people voted for Brexit and some were idiots who believed what even during the campaign looked like a wishlist that would never be achieved. Now, May as the next PM will deliver what can be delivered which will never and could never match up to the promises made by the clowns and incompetents.

The chief economist for Boris Johnson even said Brexit will all but eliminate manufacturing in this country but we shouldn't be worried -

www.chroniclelive.co.uk...

Plenty did believe the £350 million claim - and why wouldn't they? It was written as a slogan on the vote leave bus so they acted as though they took it seriously.

My memories of the '70's were as a young child, I'm not old enough to be in the core group that voted for Brexit so they could pass on that legacy to their grand children, but we obviously remember different things.

Anyway, all is good, the vote happened, May is about to be PM and Corbyn is the least effective opposition leader since.... well, since we had opposition leaders I suppose.
edit on 12-7-2016 by uncommitted because: changed should to shouldn't - typo



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: bastion

Holy cow....your uncle was in ghe supergun crew? I bet he gets nervous around Israelis.


Yup he was head of the 'space research council', exported and made the barrels - front name for weapons dealing in Irelad and was working as a spy for CIA/MI5 and MI6. Uk government knew it was designed to fire nuke at Israel. - guy may be blood relative but he was an evil bastard.

He was found dead in his car a coupe of years back - engine running apparently - my dad had met him two days before, he was getting engaged and sailing round the world and buying house in Jamaica. Cornoner ruled suicide deespite no depression or history of any mental illness.

His boss and two of my aunties were assasinated by mossad - but he had enemies in Iran, Isreal, UK, US, Sweden Ireland and many over places so will never know who did it.

This is how I know about May's husband, grew up with hundreds of people involved in front companies, dead phone calls, what the official story of Paul Grecian is and how intelligence and scurity use 100s of front companies to cover their corruption.
edit on 12-7-2016 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion
So you knew enough about the husband of Theresa May to state quite unambiguously that he was the head of G4S on this very thread, which is totally incorrect, yet you have said nothing to refute a claim that can be rubbished within a couple of minutes. Dear me.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I can re assert the claim remains true, I cannot name my sources for all reasons stated in recent posts and I don't have £10m. 'A couple of minutes googling' isn't going to stand up to a nine month investigation.

Research further into the cease and desist letters that Shilling's issued which 'rubbished' the claim and backdoor privacy law in the UK - www.independent.co.uk...
www.publications.parliament.uk...





Mr Hislop: Now it is immediate, which is why I am worried about prior notification. We are involved in a case at the moment where we attempted to run a story in January and we still have not been able to run it. The journalist involved put it to the person involved, which was an error; there was an immediate injunction; we won the case; they have appealed; we are still in the Appeal Court. Essentially it is censorship by judicial process because it takes so long and it costs so much. I have to say if you go for an injunction in the middle of the night or on a weekend or a Saturday, you get a judge who does not know a great deal about this sort of thing and they give the injunction. In the old days of libel if you said you were going to justify you were allowed to run the piece. Now, if they say privacy—fine, must not say word. Anything to do with privacy now goes straight through.

So you find yourself unable to run stories because they have invoked confidentiality or bound it up with privacy and that is a real problem. It means four months later I am sitting on a very good story which I have run once within the lower court—not about sex, nothing to do with red tops, a proper public interest story—which I cannot not run, and it would have been in the public domain if I had not tried to act responsibly—it was not me actually; it was the journalist. I should make that clear. Therefore I think you have to be careful with prior notification, and Mr Mosley's idea that you should be in jail if you do not notify the person involved in the story is just silly.



Bolded to put emphasis on why I cannot say anything in detail as I'll go to Jail if I don't write a 'pretty please can I write a scandal on you notification' first.

Facts are still redacted in the UK because of case handling by judges and the creeping laws Labour introduced which make the person who makes the claim guilty until proven innocent - which goes completely against the legal system in the UK and only serves to protect the rich and powerful - I've shown people the tools of how to navigate around this somewhat.

Just because a newspaper has to redact a claim does not mean the story isn't true. Frontline Club hold open meetings explaining this to the public here: www.frontlineclub.com... www.youtube.com...

Several police have confirmed it to be true, keep an eye on www.polfed.org... magazine as they're running the story as police have got so pissed off with the situation they're taking on the privacy act.

All of this is going way off topic for what was meant to be obvious political satire. Lets agree to disagree and get onto debating May.

My anger and frustration is aimed at the law, not yourself. You're doing the right thing questioning my claim, you'll just have to wait a couple more weeks until it is run.
edit on 12-7-2016 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I just heard on the news that May is coming to the Republican National Convention.
That should be interesting.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
I just heard on the news that May is coming to the Republican National Convention.
That should be interesting.


See Atlantic Bridge - interesting company behind on story but link here

www.sourcewatch.org...




TAB's Objectives To establish, and then develop rapidly, a strong, well-positioned, network of like-minded conservatives in politics, business, journalism and academe on both sides of the Atlantic.

To develop new and relevant policy ideas, building on the common thinking which underpins the natural trans-Atlantic alliance between the UK and the USA;

To publicise widely such policy initiatives and stimulate discussion of how best to develop them further.

To establish a small board of advisers whose role would be to help oversee the expansion of the group. This expansion is a vital step in building the network that is essential to the overall aims of the group. The focus point of the group will be an ongoing series of bi-annual speaker dinners to be held in London and cities across the United States. These dinners will have three aims. Firstly, to allow potential members to get a better understanding about who we are and what the group does. Secondly, to discuss policy issues and disseminate information.

Thirdly, to ensure that the network is in regular active contact and to prevent it from becoming stale. US Advisory Council Accessed September 2010: [2] Jon Kyl John Campbell Jim DeMint Lindsey Graham James Inhofe Joe Lieberman Adam Putnam US Board Accessed September 2010: [3] Clark S. Judge - Chair Frank Swain Scott Syfert Paul Wright Amanda Bowman – CEO of the US branch US Executive Council Accessed September 2010: [4] Scott Syfert - Chair Ross Bevevino Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr. Alan Guarino Nicolas Howard Clark S. Judge William Miller Jenny Singer Frank Swain Paul Wright UK Principals Executive Board Liam Fox Scott D. Syfert John Falk Ross Bevevino Adam Werritty William Hague[5] George Osborne[6] Michael Gove[7] Chris Grayling[8] 2007 Liam Fox Clark S. Judge Eleanor Laing John Whittingdale Grace-Marie Turner Malcolm Rifkind Norman Tebbit Patrick Minford Daniel Rosenberg Lord Astor Nicholas Howard 2005 Liam Fox Clark S. Judge Eleanor Laing John Whittingdale Boris Johnson Michael Teden Grace-Marie Turner Malcolm Rifkind Norman Tebbit Patrick Minford Daniel Rosenberg Lord Astor



ALEC Ties Bring Down British Defense Secretary, Threaten Prime Minister David Cameron
www.prwatch.org...

edit on 12-7-2016 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: SprocketUK

I have no faith in the tory party let alone ghastly establishment-up-her-own-ass May.

I think because of the BREXIT vote which was the people speaking over their politicians, whom no one today trusts, what is now needed is actually a General Election.



The pro-remain government and opposition spending £1m+ of tax paying voter's money on trying to tell us what to think was counter productive because the average Brit is not the half-wit the establishment wants to see. Who would want any of them leading the country?



So what if labour is in disarray so are the tories and we have by voting against our being in the EU also shown a vote of no confidence in all of them, especially men like cameron, borne and Corbyn.



Yes, at a time when the democratically elected 'Her Majesty's government and Opposition' should be focusing their efforts on the democratically petitioned decision to disengage from Europe, they instead opt to squabble amongst themselves and have fake competitions.


So inspiring.


Were cameron actually only a caretaker as he says, he wouldn't be deploying our troops close up to the Russian Border which is potentially an act of war - which he knows would be against what most Brits want.



If the people continue to believe in democracy, then the establishment will give them war?


We need new brooms to sweep away the mess of the old guard and old boy brigade plus the nasty bankers backing this mess and whom will make even more money out of the Brit tax payers if they can keep this mess going long enough to provoke Putin. Most of hem have dual passports and will scarper before the going gets rough.


Going to take more than brooms to clear the amount of slime that permeates the halls of power.

We need something completely new.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 03:11 AM
link   
First big leak of today....plenty more to come.




The relatively unknown investment fund where Theresa May’s husband Philip works as a senior executive is one of the world’s largest and most powerful financial institutions, controlling $1.4 trillion in assets.

Its portfolio also includes $20 billion of shares in Amazon and Starbucks, both of which were cited by the Prime Minister-designate in her pledge to crack down on tax avoidance yesterday. Latest filings to US authorities show that Los Angeles based Capital Group owns huge stakes in a variety of companies, including investment bank JP Morgan Chase, defence giant Lockheed Martin, tobacco company Philip Morris International, the pharmaceutical sector’s Merck & Co, and also Ryanair.


www.independent.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
If i wanted the country to become a totalitarian police state (more so than it already is) I'd have voted remain.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: bastion

You can aim your frustration at who you want. Are you categorically stating that the husband of Theresa May is the CEO of G4S as you claimed earlier in this thread? Don't prevaricate - that's what you stated - do you stand by that because it's not bloody hard to prove one way or another is it?



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
First big leak of today....plenty more to come.




The relatively unknown investment fund where Theresa May’s husband Philip works as a senior executive is one of the world’s largest and most powerful financial institutions, controlling $1.4 trillion in assets.

Its portfolio also includes $20 billion of shares in Amazon and Starbucks, both of which were cited by the Prime Minister-designate in her pledge to crack down on tax avoidance yesterday. Latest filings to US authorities show that Los Angeles based Capital Group owns huge stakes in a variety of companies, including investment bank JP Morgan Chase, defence giant Lockheed Martin, tobacco company Philip Morris International, the pharmaceutical sector’s Merck & Co, and also Ryanair.


www.independent.co.uk...



Why is that a big leak? Read the first three words of that excerpt again........... 'the relatively unknown' - ie, not unknown, but you probably wouldn't know if you didn't care. He works for that hedge fund as a senior exec, what are you trying to suggest?

I really do think you need to rethink this whole journalism business Bastion.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
That there's an obvious conflict of interest - $1.4 Trillion isn't pennies. It's frontpage news. The Mayfair Set story is unravelling. It's gone from not in public domain to front page news and most popular story in the UK at the moment. If front page news and $1.4 trillion isn't your idea of newsworthy I don't know what is.

If you can't see why the new Prime Ministers husband makes his money dodging tax, runs arms companies, banks, just after corportation tax has been cut and the UK adopts more TTIP.

When the leader of a countries partner is responsible for raiding pension funds, played a role in the 2008 collapse and holds vast power and influence that they use to hold the public to ransom, it goes to show they're in it for the sole benefit of themselves not the general public or the country.

What part of this do you not uunderstand?
edit on 13-7-2016 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
That there's an obvious conflict of interest - $1.4 Trillion isn't pennies. It's frontpage news. The Mayfair Set story is unravelling. It's gone from not in public domain to front page news and most popular story in the UK at the moment. If front page news and $1.4 trillion isn't your idea of newsworthy I don't know what is.

If you can't see why the new Prime Ministers husband makes his money dodging tax, runs arms companies, banks, just after corportation tax has been cut and the UK adopts more TTIP.

When the leader of a countries partner is responsible for raiding pension funds, played a role in the 2008 collapse and holds vast power and influence that they use to hold the public to ransom, it goes to show they're in it for the sole benefit of themselves not the general public or the country.

What part of this do you not uunderstand?


Which part of that don't I understand? The fact that you have no proof that he did any of it and you hide your lack of evidence by telling us you aren't allowed to tell us. Which part of that is giving you such a problem?

Working for an investment company is a job. I'm really struggling to know if you are just on a wind up mission or if your tinfoil hat is just sending you the wrong messages. Never mind, I'm sure for every claim you make you will say you have proof that you just can't share. Something that is actually in the public domain though...........

www.bbc.co.uk...

Of course, you will say it's all nonsense and you could prove it, except you aren't allowed to - I know you'll say that and I'll just yawn, it's a ten a penny claim on ATS.

Edit to add, brush up on your writing skills, not very good for a journalist - the phrase "When the leader of a countries partner" is nonsense. You actually meant (I assume) "When the partner of a countries leader" - little things actually say a lot.
edit on 13-7-2016 by uncommitted because: as per ETA



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Not read thread yet, but wanted to say that with candidates quitting etc. it stinks of being arranged or pre-planned doesn't it?



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
I think a lot of people are going to wish they hadn't voted to leave the eu.

At least with the eu there was some chance of the conservatives anti human policies being reigned in a little.

And let's face it, at the moment and for the foreseeable future, no other party has a chance in hell of taking the power from the torys.


Well - they did say we would be punished if we did vote to leave! That means the govt have kept another promise, which makes a total of - two! - the referendum and kicking us all in the balls because we didn't do as we were told. That has to be a record-breaker! An election promise and a referendum promise.

To be fair I think that there would have been regrets with either result.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: uncommitted

Am I right in thinking that you call anyone who voted for BREXIT an idiot?

I think you need to remember that people were given the option to vote to stay in or to leave only. They were not given the option to say whether they wanted 'negotiations' at all. So that idea is irrelevant although perhaps it should have been in the choices given to the public.


Cameron was already supposed to have done the negotiations on our behalf and he came back having negotiated nothing. As for the promises, they all fail to keep them so its a game of trying to work out which of the promises are lies.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I find it kinda funny, when idiots keep throwing out the "promise" of the Brexit campaigners to give the NHS £350 Million a week, that they'd save from leaving the EU.
Of course that won't happen, and it was never stated that the full £350 Million would go exclusively to the NHS. It was stated that the NHS WOULD benefit from the £350 Million a week we'd save.

It all seems clear cut and easy to understand, so why keep pushing that line as a "broken Promise" or a lie?

Sure are some sore losers out there!


As for May, be nice if that falling Chinese space station landed on her!




top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join