Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to Cameron's house so he could watch TV

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:09 am

PM Tips: David Cameron's in hot water
PA

As thousands of homes were left without power during the recent storms, engineers were diverted to fix a simple problem at David Cameron’s home.

Two workmen were part of a team battling to restore electricity to 11,000 houses in Oxfordshire after storms and floods left families shivering in the dark.

But they were suddenly diverted to the PM’s £2million family home after he lost his power while watching the Sound of Music on TV.

George Faulkner and Alan Paton told BBC Radio 4 they were “diverted to a house in Chipping Norton” – which was later confirmed by their company to be Mr Cameron’s home.

They arrived after a 17-mile diversion to find the blackout was nothing to do with the storms and power could be brought back simply by flicking the trip switch in his fusebox. Shocked

Mr Cameron was among those who had criticised the “unacceptable” time it had taken for power companies to restore supplies over Christmas and New Year as vicious storms and floods battered Britain.

Now it has emerged the PM himself might have contributed to the delays because power workers were sent to fix a basic problem at his home near Chipping Norton.

A senior Labour source said: “This just shows how out of touch Cameron is. The idea that emergency workers were sent to his home to flick a switch so he could get his TV back while thousands were without power is appalling.” Earlier this month Mr Cameron told how his home was hit by a 95-minute blackout on New Year’s Day.

But now the two Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution engineers have disclosed they were carrying out emergency repairs in the Oxfordshire village of Kirtlington when they diverted to Chipping Norton where Mr Cameron lives.

Mr Paton said: “We could have been employed on better things but we got called out to a property where the trip had gone that they obviously hadn’t checked properly.

“They thought it was the storms and they phoned in and said they were off supply. So we went there for nothing really.” He said: “There were people out for days. Lots of people missed their turkeys.”

Mr Faulkner added: “It didn’t need much sorting out. If he had got his minders to check the trip switch it would have saved us the journey. There was nothing wrong with their mains.”

After the havoc caused by the storms, the PM claimed he understood the anger of families whose Christmas celebrations were ruined by power cuts, floods and leaks.

Speaking about his experience, Mr Cameron said: “We had wallpaper coming down and drips going into a bucket. The power went off just before the end of the Sound of Music.”

SSE denied the PM’s status was responsible for the speed of its response.

A spokesman said: “We would like to apologise to the 11,000 customers in the Oxfordshire area who experienced a power cut over the Christmas storm period.

“When a customer calls to report a problem, our staff will ask a series of questions. If there is any doubt as to the nature of the fault, we prefer to send our engineers to the property as it is always better to be safe than sorry.

“ The Prime Minister did not receive preferential treatment when we attended his property and this visit was not to the detriment of other customers who may have been without power.”

A No10 spokesman defended the decision to call out workers to Mr Cameron’s home. He said: “The power went down because there was a leaky roof. There was water around the fusebox. The engineers came to fix it, which they did.”

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thousands-left-no-electricity-workers-3062578#ixzz2rSUGYe33
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Disgusting.

He'll be hearing a different sound of music, come the next GE, when the public kick him and the rest of the Tory fuckers out.

by Clarkson Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:20 am

Won't catch you running anywhere except from your dodgy mate.

You are too bone idle.

Get a job Scatman

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:32 am

Whats up drinky...dont you like it when your masters are caught out abusing their position to the detriment of others.....

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:43 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Whats up drinky...dont you like it when your masters are caught out abusing their position to the detriment of others.....

Did he abuse his position though? Sounds like SSE made the decision to divert the workmen Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to Cameron's house so he could watch TV I_don_20

Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to Cameron's house so he could watch TV I_don_20

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:23 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Whats up drinky...dont you like it when your masters are caught out abusing their position to the detriment of others.....

“ The Prime Minister did not receive preferential treatment when we attended his property and this visit was not to the detriment of other customers who may have been without power.”

A simple call-out to fix an electric fault. Propaganda for Morons 101.

Now this:

Gordon Brown has since leaving Downing Street raised over £3 million to support charitable projects yet has given less than a £1 million to charity. Nearly three-quarters of the money raised has gone on his office and globe-trotting travel expenses that run at over £10,000-a-week

is what you call abusing your position!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:58 pm

Tess. wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:Whats up drinky...dont you like it when your masters are caught out abusing their position to the detriment of others.....

“ The Prime Minister did not receive preferential treatment when we attended his property and this visit was not to the detriment of other customers who may have been without power.”

A simple call-out to fix an electric fault. Propaganda for Morons 101.

Now this:

Gordon Brown has since leaving Downing Street raised over £3 million to support charitable projects yet has given less than a £1 million to charity. Nearly three-quarters of the money raised has gone on his office and globe-trotting travel expenses that run at over £10,000-a-week

is what you call abusing your position!

of course they would say that wouldnt they....

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Tess. wrote:

“ The Prime Minister did not receive preferential treatment when we attended his property and this visit was not to the detriment of other customers who may have been without power.”

A simple call-out to fix an electric fault. Propaganda for Morons 101.

Now this:

Gordon Brown has since leaving Downing Street raised over £3 million to support charitable projects yet has given less than a £1 million to charity. Nearly three-quarters of the money raised has gone on his office and globe-trotting travel expenses that run at over £10,000-a-week

is what you call abusing your position!

of course they would say that wouldnt they....

Typical left-wing reply. Dismiss one part out of hand and airbrush over the bit they can't argue about!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:10 pm

Cameron really is a moron if he didnt even think to check the fusebox.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:22 pm

Tess. wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

of course they would say that wouldnt they....
Typical left-wing reply. Dismiss one part out of hand and airbrush over the bit they can't argue about!

Gordon Brown is highest earning MP with £1.37m - but he gives it all to charity
Tuesday 28 May 2013

Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not personally receive a penny from the £1.37m he generated from speeches and writing over the past year, his office said today.

Mr Brown was the MP with the highest earnings from outside Parliament in 2012-13, but a spokesman said that all of the money went directly to charity or to fund charitable work by the ex-PM and his wife Sarah.

He has also chosen not to accept the traditionally generous pension given to former prime ministers, said the spokesman.

According to analysis by The Guardian, MPs declared earnings of more than £7m in the Commons Register of Interests from outside jobs and directorships in the last session of parliament.

Some 295 of the 650 MPs declared some form of income, and 20 made more money outside parliament than their MP's salary of £65,738. The total declared by Conservative MPs came to £4.3m and by Labour MPs £2.4m - more than half of it accounted for by Mr Brown, who listed a string of speaking engagements around the world.

A spokesman for Mr Brown said: "Mr Brown personally does not receive a penny from speeches or writings. He has thus no 'second income' and does not benefit from 'outside earnings'. All the fees from speeches and writings are not paid to him and all the money goes directly to charity or to fund charitable work by himself and his wife.

"Mr Brown's only income is his salary as an MP, because he has also renounced the pension conventionally paid to all former prime ministers."

Under parliamentary rules, MPs are allowed to take on outside work, including company directorships and consultancies, so long as all income is declared in the Commons register and their work does not involve lobbying parliament.

Other top earners included Conservative MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham Stephen Phillips, who declared £740,000 from work as a barrister. Mr Phillips said his outside work helped him keep in touch with "the real world", adding: "What matters is whether or not I do my job as an MP and how well I do it."

Tory MP for Torridge and West Devon Geoffrey Cox declared £417,000 from work as a barrister, Conservative MP for Mid-Sussex Nicholas Soames earned £305,000 from directorships and consultancies, former defence secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind earned £276,000, Labour's former chancellor Alistair Darling £263,000, Tory MP for Wokingham John Redwood £238,000 and Labour's ex-home secretary Jack Straw £183,000.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/gordon-browns-earnings-go-to-charity.1369735549

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Tess. wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:Whats up drinky...dont you like it when your masters are caught out abusing their position to the detriment of others.....

“ The Prime Minister did not receive preferential treatment when we attended his property and this visit was not to the detriment of other customers who may have been without power.”

A simple call-out to fix an electric fault. Propaganda for Morons 101.

Now this:

Gordon Brown has since leaving Downing Street raised over £3 million to support charitable projects yet has given less than a £1 million to charity. Nearly three-quarters of the money raised has gone on his office and globe-trotting travel expenses that run at over £10,000-a-week

is what you call abusing your position!

The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown was established to support Gordon and Sarah in their work and to facilitate their ongoing involvement in public life. This is separate from Gordon’s work as an MP and includes his charitable and pro bono work. The costs of the Office, including salaries and rent, are paid from income received by the Office for paid speaking engagements undertaken by Gordon. Alongside paid speaking engagements (all of which cover Office costs) Gordon gives regular pro bono speeches to universities, charities and other organisations and of course in his role as a constituency MP.

We are budgeting to meet salaries, accommodation costs and staff expenses to support this work of around £550,000 a year. In addition to the costs of the Office, the costs associated with Mr Brown’s role as Distinguished Global Leader at New York University are met by New York University; as Chair of the WEF Policy Coordination Board are met by the World Economic Forum; and costs associated with a recent project at Harvard University were met by Harvard University. The author proceeds from Gordon’s recent book Beyond the Crash are donated to Theirworld.

All the money received by the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown goes either directly to charities like Theirworld for children’s causes, and the Jennifer Brown Research Laboratory which supports medical research into pregnancy and neonatal research to save newborn lives, or to support other charitable and public service projects. The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown also supports a number of Education For All and A World At School projects around the world as we join efforts to get every child a place at school.
Mr Brown’s sole personal earnings are his salary as an MP. In 2009 he renounced the Prime Ministerial pension he was entitled to receive. He pays full tax on his income.

In addition to the £912,702 that has been gifted in charitable donations as part of a continuing and rising programme of disbursements to good causes, the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown pays corporation tax on all profits, as recorded in the official records at Companies House.

Neither Mr nor Mrs Brown receive salary, dividends, or profits from The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown, which was constituted solely for and remains only for the purpose of employing staff to further their charitable and public service work and donating to good causes both locally and internationally.

http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/office-of-gordon-sarah-brown/

by Andy Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:45 pm

It is natural for tories to attempt to smear as a diversion for their own shortcomings and misdemeanours.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:56 pm

Tess. wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

of course they would say that wouldnt they....
Typical left-wing reply. Dismiss one part out of hand and airbrush over the bit they can't argue about!

how typical to of the right to deny the selfishness of their masters and use a smear to justify it :/pwn://: (thanks IRN and Korben for the FACTS)

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:12 pm

feelthelove wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:Whats up drinky...dont you like it when your masters are caught out abusing their position to the detriment of others.....

Did he abuse his position though? Sounds like SSE made the decision to divert the workmen

OH dear the electricitys gone out cam
can you fix it david

hold on dear

furiously dials Robert (Lord Smith of Kelvin - Chairman SSE)
Robert dear chap seems my electricity is broke
No problem David

Robert phones up head office, hello Lord Smith of Kelvin - Chairman SSE hear
My friend Davids electricity thingy isn`t working get someone round there PDQ

(bod on phone ) but were in the middle of a major emergency sir we don`t have the ////(Lord Smith of Kelvin cuts him off)

thank you

Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr click

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:28 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Tess. wrote:
Typical left-wing reply. Dismiss one part out of hand and airbrush over the bit they can't argue about!

how typical to of the right to deny the selfishness of their masters and use a smear to justify it :/pwn://: (thanks IRN and Korben for the FACTS)

What facts, a poor lame claim to how Cameron called out for assistance and was given that assistance by a company, who made the decision to divert men to assist him, as if some how this is wrong?
My goodness I never knew it was such a crime for people to assist a call for help to fix something

Tess is right you ignore abuse by the left and in the same breath make absurd claims on the PM

Hilarious by some of the left in their desperation to be right

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:30 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
feelthelove wrote:

Did he abuse his position though? Sounds like SSE made the decision to divert the workmen
OH dear the electricitys gone out cam
can you fix it david

hold on dear

furiously dials Robert (Lord Smith of Kelvin - Chairman SSE)
Robert dear chap seems my electricity is broke
No problem David

Robert phones up head office, hello Lord Smith of Kelvin - Chairman SSE hear
My friend Davids electricity thingy isn`t working get someone round there PDQ

(bod on phone ) but were in the middle of a major emergency sir we don`t have the ////(Lord Smith of Kelvin cuts him off)

thank you

Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr click

Great hypothesis and your evidence please?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:35 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Tess. wrote:
Typical left-wing reply. Dismiss one part out of hand and airbrush over the bit they can't argue about!

how typical to of the right to deny the selfishness of their masters and use a smear to justify it :/pwn://: (thanks IRN and Korben for the FACTS)

The FACTS according to Gordon and Sarah Brown! lol!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:35 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:
OH dear the electricitys gone out cam
can you fix it david

hold on dear

furiously dials Robert (Lord Smith of Kelvin - Chairman SSE)
Robert dear chap seems my electricity is broke
No problem David

Robert phones up head office, hello Lord Smith of Kelvin - Chairman SSE hear
My friend Davids electricity thingy isn`t working get someone round there PDQ

(bod on phone ) but were in the middle of a major emergency sir we don`t have the ////(Lord Smith of Kelvin cuts him off)

thank you

Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr click

Great hypothesis and your evidence please?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:36 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Great hypothesis and your evidence please?

Evidence?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:38 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:

Evidence?

for what you idiot ?? See, that's you peoples defining problem.
No fucking sense of humor

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:42 pm

Tess. wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

how typical to of the right to deny the selfishness of their masters and use a smear to justify it :/pwn://: (thanks IRN and Korben for the FACTS)
The FACTS according to Gordon and Sarah Brown!

yet you cant prove them wrong ...oh wait you haven`t tried

if the facts dont fit then question the facts.
Your "facts are bull" I proved you wrong, you prove the guardian wrong
And don`t you think if what they have on their site was a lie the newspapers would be all over it

Hate for hate's sake is just ugly

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:44 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Evidence?
for what you idiot ?? See, that's you peoples defining problem.
No fucking sense of humor

Oh charming, I asked for evidence to an absurd claim, you then respond as a potty mouth, hilarious

My sense of humour is great at seeing some of the left get so easily wound up over nothing

This story was a non starter and the usual suspects jump on it

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:45 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
Tess. wrote:
The FACTS according to Gordon and Sarah Brown!
yet you cant prove them wrong ...oh wait you haven`t tried

if the facts dont fit then question the facts.
Your "facts are bull" I proved you wrong, you prove the guardian wrong
And don`t you think if what they have on their site was a lie the newspapers would be all over it

Hate for hate's sake is just ugly

So your evidence is from the Guardian, and that supersedes other claims now based on what exactly?

Love to understand the science behind that absurd claim

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:46 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:
for what you idiot ?? See, that's you peoples defining problem.
No fucking sense of humor

Oh charming, I asked for evidence to an absurd claim, you then respond as a potty mouth, hilarious

My sense of humour is great at seeing some of the left get so easily wound up over nothing

This story was a non starter and the usual suspects jump on it

oH potty mouth ...i am wounded dude wounded i tells ya

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:48 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Oh charming, I asked for evidence to an absurd claim, you then respond as a potty mouth, hilarious

My sense of humour is great at seeing some of the left get so easily wound up over nothing

This story was a non starter and the usual suspects jump on it

oH potty mouth ...i am wounded dude wounded i tells ya

Great just proves your previous post as rather absurd as your claim to humour on the previous one that backfired on you

Great eh?

:D

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:51 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:
oH potty mouth ...i am wounded dude wounded i tells ya

Great just proves your previous post as rather absurd as your claim to humour on the previous one that backfired on you

Great eh?

:D

no what you continue to prove is your not as smart as you think you are humor and now sarcasm concepts you obviously can't understand.
A growing list

i wait eagerly for your next post (thats me mocking you )

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:54 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Great just proves your previous post as rather absurd as your claim to humour on the previous one that backfired on you

Great eh?

:D
no what you continue to prove is your not as smart as you think you are humor and now sarcasm concepts you obviously can't understand.
A growing list

i wait eagerly for your next post (thats me mocking you )

Excellent more poor views about me, and nothing to back the absurd claims made here by some,so I really enjoy when people are left with nothing but to have people mock me, it shows I am not only getting to them, but they have nothing left to debate.

Hence the jokes is one that falls upon you does it not?

Again I see no evidence from your other absurd claim that the Guardian is always factual and that your evidence is correct against Tess.

Still waiting for the little gem to be explained

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:55 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:
yet you cant prove them wrong ...oh wait you haven`t tried

if the facts dont fit then question the facts.
Your "facts are bull" I proved you wrong, you prove the guardian wrong
And don`t you think if what they have on their site was a lie the newspapers would be all over it

Hate for hate's sake is just ugly

So your evidence is from the Guardian, and that supersedes other claims now based on what exactly?

Love to understand the science behind that absurd claim

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

Journalism is a method of inquiry and literary style used in social and cultural representation. It serves the purpose of playing the role of a public service machinery in the dissemination and analysis of news and information.

I will now add science and Journalism to the things you don`t understand

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:56 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

So your evidence is from the Guardian, and that supersedes other claims now based on what exactly?

Love to understand the science behind that absurd claim
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

Journalism is a method of inquiry and literary style used in social and cultural representation. It serves the purpose of playing the role of a public service machinery in the dissemination and analysis of news and information.

I will now add science and Journalism to the things you don`t understand

Hilarious never heard anything so absurd, so journalists never lie or get things wrongs?

Yes please explain the science why the Guardian is more accurate as this is priceless entertainments?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:58 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:
no what you continue to prove is your not as smart as you think you are humor and now sarcasm concepts you obviously can't understand.
A growing list

i wait eagerly for your next post (thats me mocking you )

Excellent more poor views about me, and nothing to back the absurd claims made here by some,so I really enjoy when people are left with nothing but to have people mock me, it shows I am not only getting to them, but they have nothing left to debate.

Hence the jokes is one that falls upon you does it not?

Again I see no evidence from your other absurd claim that the Guardian is always factual and that your evidence is correct against Tess.

Still waiting for the little gem to be explained

not just the Guardian :/pwn://: :/pwn://:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/gordon-browns-earnings-go-to-charity.1369735549

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/10083547/Gordon-Brown-tops-list-of-MPs-with-extra-earnings.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/28/gordon-brown-earnings-_n_3345646.html

http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/28/gordon-brown-is-parliaments-highest-earning-mp-but-he-donates-it-all-to-charity-3810963/

http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/28/gordon-brown-is-parliaments-highest-earning-mp-but-he-donates-it-all-to-charity-3810963/

the internet has hundreds of examples

go on argue with them all

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:02 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Excellent more poor views about me, and nothing to back the absurd claims made here by some,so I really enjoy when people are left with nothing but to have people mock me, it shows I am not only getting to them, but they have nothing left to debate.

Hence the jokes is one that falls upon you does it not?

Again I see no evidence from your other absurd claim that the Guardian is always factual and that your evidence is correct against Tess.

Still waiting for the little gem to be explained
not just the Guardian :/pwn://: :/pwn://:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/gordon-browns-earnings-go-to-charity.1369735549

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/10083547/Gordon-Brown-tops-list-of-MPs-with-extra-earnings.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/28/gordon-brown-earnings-_n_3345646.html

http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/28/gordon-brown-is-parliaments-highest-earning-mp-but-he-donates-it-all-to-charity-3810963/

http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/28/gordon-brown-is-parliaments-highest-earning-mp-but-he-donates-it-all-to-charity-3810963/

Some more corroborating evidence, good boy, that is better.

That though does not prove as you stated because it was the guardian is reason or scientific that it is always right is it?

So again, please explain the science why the Guardian is more accurate than others as this is priceless entertainments?

Seriously I love playing with some of the left they are so easy

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:02 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

Journalism is a method of inquiry and literary style used in social and cultural representation. It serves the purpose of playing the role of a public service machinery in the dissemination and analysis of news and information.

I will now add science and Journalism to the things you don`t understand

Hilarious never heard anything so absurd, so journalists never lie or get things wrongs?

Yes please explain the science ??? why the Guardian is more accurate as this is priceless entertainments?

see not a clue Laughing

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:04 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Hilarious never heard anything so absurd, so journalists never lie or get things wrongs?

Yes please explain the science ??? why the Guardian is more accurate as this is priceless entertainments?

see not a clue

Yes a big clue at watching someone not be able to explain why one newspaper is going to be more accurate than others, using science.

Happy days, take your time

:D

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:07 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:
not just the Guardian :/pwn://: :/pwn://:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/gordon-browns-earnings-go-to-charity.1369735549

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/10083547/Gordon-Brown-tops-list-of-MPs-with-extra-earnings.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/28/gordon-brown-earnings-_n_3345646.html

http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/28/gordon-brown-is-parliaments-highest-earning-mp-but-he-donates-it-all-to-charity-3810963/

http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/28/gordon-brown-is-parliaments-highest-earning-mp-but-he-donates-it-all-to-charity-3810963/

Some more corroborating evidence, good boy, that is better.

That though does not prove as you stated because it was the guardian is reason or scientific that it is always right is it?

So again, please explain the science why the Guardian is more accurate than others as this is priceless entertainments?

Seriously I love playing with some of the left they are so easy

i made no claim just sited my source or one of them

Using the word scientific "you" introduced in to the conversation constantly won`t make it the correct usage

just makes you look desperate Sonny

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:09 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Some more corroborating evidence, good boy, that is better.

That though does not prove as you stated because it was the guardian is reason or scientific that it is always right is it?

So again, please explain the science why the Guardian is more accurate than others as this is priceless entertainments?

Seriously I love playing with some of the left they are so easy
i made no claim just sited my source or one of them

Using the word scientific "you" introduced in to the conversation constantly won`t make it the correct usage

just makes you look desperate Sonny

You made the claim on the Guardian not being wrong to then claim by throwing up corroborating evidence form other news stories as if any of them are telling the truth either, which makes your understanding of science very comical, being the fact the same source might be wrong, did that ever escape you that!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:22 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:
i made no claim just sited my source or one of them

Using the word scientific "you" introduced in to the conversation constantly won`t make it the correct usage

just makes you look desperate Sonny

You made the claim on the Guardian not being wrong to then claim by throwing up corroborating evidence form other news stories as if any of them are telling the truth either, which makes your understanding of science very comical, being the fact the same source might be wrong, did that ever escape you that!

see the link i gave in the first reply wasn`t the Guardian
i asked you to go and argue with the Guardian later Who where another source for the story
And still using the scientific reference how very stubborn of you... Is English your first language?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:27 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

You made the claim on the Guardian not being wrong to then claim by throwing up corroborating evidence form other news stories as if any of them are telling the truth either, which makes your understanding of science very comical, being the fact the same source might be wrong, did that ever escape you that!
see the link i gave in the first reply wasn`t the Guardian
i asked you to go and argue with the Guardian later Who where another source for the story
And still using the scientific reference how very stubborn of you... Is English your first language?

You really are not grasping this are you Korben or should I say TTS, the reality is you have not been able to have first hand knowledge of the events claimed by each of the claims made about Brown, you are solely reliant on believing what some of the newspapers say, correct?
As seen you then make woeful points about me when as seen what I stated was factual, your science to backing something is based upon faith it is correct, not on knowing whether it is or not!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:39 pm

Well, first of all EVERYBODDY knows I was/am TTS Ooooooooooooo fail there
Newspapers /tv yes, exactly the same way you get your news and if enough newspapers say the same thing, then a rational person can judge that to be true
till facts come along to discount that evidence or report

so if you have any evidence that what I have posted is factually incorrect I would suggest posting it
Instead of trying to divert the topic to some kind of scientific anayalis of the print media reporting methods and veracity

Attack the messenger when its against you as you do ALL the time .And hold them up as pillars of the truth when they support you

Do hypocrisy, much......... NEWS JUST!!!!!! IN YES HE DOES

Woeful points? Not at all More constructive criticism

Why do you keep trying to connect science and journalism
Won't change the fact :/pwn://:

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:43 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:Well, first of all EVERYBODDY knows I was/am thus Ooooooooooooo fail there
Newspapers /tv yes, exactly the same way you get your news and if enough newspapers say the same thing, then a rational person can judge that to be true till facts come along to discount that evidence
yes but do they get things wrong Korben?
Do you really need me to show you countless examples when they do?
Thus rendering your belief in the article based upon faith

so if you have any evidence that what I have posted is factually incorrect I would suggest posting it
Instead of trying to divert the topic to some kind of scientific anayalis of the print media reporting methods and veracity
Still not grasping the point, do you have evidence that it is right, without any media source?
No you don;t do you, poor Korben, not happy with the fact he walked into a trap

attack the messenger when its against you as you do ALL the time and hold them up as pillars of the truth when they support you
Attack, oh no just easily manipulate what he claims, as seen easily done
Do hypocrisy, much......... NEWS JUST!!!!!! IN YES HE DOES
Hypocrisy? Really, I am having fun watching with each post not understand your whole perception on this claim on Blair is based upon faith.

Woeful points? Not at all More constructive criticism

Why do you keep trying to connect science and journalism
Won't change the fact :/pwn://:

So the science you believe in is that all journalism is factual, correct?

Take your time on that one buddy

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:54 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:Well, first of all EVERYBODDY knows I was/am thus Ooooooooooooo fail there
Newspapers /tv yes, exactly the same way you get your news and if enough newspapers say the same thing, then a rational person can judge that to be true till facts come along to discount that evidence
yes but do they get things wrong Korben?
Do you really need me to show you countless examples when they do?
Thus rendering your belief in the article based upon faith

so if you have any evidence that what I have posted is factually incorrect I would suggest posting it
Instead of trying to divert the topic to some kind of scientific anayalis of the print media reporting methods and veracity
Still not grasping the point, do you have evidence that it is right, without any media source?
No you don;t do you, poor Korben, not happy with the fact he walked into a trap

attack the messenger when its against you as you do ALL the time and hold them up as pillars of the truth when they support you
Attack, oh no just easily manipulate what he claims, as seen easily done
Do hypocrisy, much......... NEWS JUST!!!!!! IN YES HE DOES
Hypocrisy? Really, I am having fun watching with each post not understand your whole perception on this claim on Blair is based upon faith.

Woeful points? Not at all More constructive criticism

Why do you keep trying to connect science and journalism
Won't change the fact :/pwn://:

So the science you believe in is that all journalism is factual, correct?

Take your time on that one buddy

you do know this rubbish is just indicative of somebody proved wrong trying to justify and wheedle his way out of further humiliation

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:58 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

So the science you believe in is that all journalism is factual, correct?

Take your time on that one buddy
you do know this rubbish is just indicative of somebody proved wrong trying to justify and wheedle his way out of further humiliation

Really, because you say so?

Hilarious, a counter without evidence again and now being a copout to the fact he is basing his claim on faith.

Thanks Korben, most entertaining, laters

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:26 pm

Well well, how very interesting, even in the face of the odds didge plays the same old game...You know didge...it ISNT just because HE says so...I can see it. and so can everyone else....I think its about time you realised your game is up (again). You have humiliated yourself enough on the guns thread changing the basis of your argument 3 times and finally crawling into the bunker of "lack of need" which is the last refuge of the dictatorial humbug with nothing left in their locker.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:30 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Well well, how very interesting, even in the face of the odds didge plays the same old game...You know didge...it ISNT just because HE says so...I can see it. and so can everyone else....I think its about time you realised your game is up (again). You have humiliated yourself enough on the guns thread changing the basis of your argument 3 times and finally crawling into the bunker of "lack of need" which is the last refuge of the dictatorial humbug with nothing left in their locker.

No dear Victor what is amusing here is that a poor claim was made on Cameron and when Tess pointed out another claim you all went hypocritical, which was extremely funny. And we are back to claims on my views on a debate as if now you have proved your view right and with the most poorest attempts at views on me.

Another easy case of showing how badly some of the left debate

by Irn Bru Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:35 pm

The information about Gordon and Sarah Brown is wrong. This has come from a spreadsheet on Guido Fawkes website where he has used figures taken from the MPs register of interests. The figures he has used are not payments made into his accounts. They are costs accepted and paid for by the hosts that invited him to speak at an event or costs that are incurred by the hosts for the work that he has done.
This is easily checked by looking at the register of interests or via the 'They work for you website.
Take an example of an entry in the register of interests like £2,653.19 and then go and look at Guido Fawkes spreadsheet and you will find it on there.

Flight costs paid for me and my staff: value £2,653.19 by Econet Wireless International (Pty) Ltd, 3 Eaton Avenue, Johannesburg, 2191, South Africa, for meetings with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan in Nigeria. (Registered 25 October 2013)

Also, costs associated with Mr Brown’s role as Distinguished Global Leader at New York University (which are included in Guido Fawkes figures) are met by New York University; as Chair of the WEF Policy Coordination Board are met by the World Economic Forum; and costs associated with a recent project at Harvard University were met by Harvard University. The author proceeds from Gordon’s recent book Beyond the Crash are donated to Theirworld.

That's it guys.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:36 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:
you do know this rubbish is just indicative of somebody proved wrong trying to justify and wheedle his way out of further humiliation

Really, because you say so?

Hilarious, a counter without evidence again and now being a copout to the fact he is basing his claim on faith.

Thanks Korben, most entertaining, letters

not really I found you boring and predictable

I guy who`s only argument is to say all the newspapers everywhere are lying

And still all you can do is try petty and childish tactics to redirect the facts as presented
Into some global news conspiracy against the truth
You have offered no "evidence "other than you bigotry towards Gordon brown to support ether or your`s or tess`s claim

So either put up or shut up
Because your boring me now

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:37 pm

Of course i have a poor view of you....because you cannot argue from a consistant basis...you keep changing the rules as you go along. as I said you changed your argumental basis 3 times, you humiliated yourself by showing the true extent of your viscious mean mindedness stating quite clearly that you would be GLAD that 70000 people lost their jobs, and derided the very real and often valuable work these folks do, again stating that they could get "real jobs" showing an attitude that clearly ties you to the same ilk as the ALF. having lost that you retreat into the "lack of need argument"....which is pointless and illusiory...as sphinx says there are no end to the things for which there is no real need...would you ban them too?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:45 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Of course i have a poor view of you....because you cannot argue from a consistant basis...you keep changing the rules as you go along. as I said you changed your argumental basis 3 times, you humiliated yourself by showing the true extent of your viscious mean mindedness stating quite clearly that you would be GLAD that 70000 people lost their jobs, and derided the very real and often valuable work these folks do, again stating that they could get "real jobs" showing an attitude that clearly ties you to the same ilk as the ALF. having lost that you retreat into the "lack of need argument"....which is pointless and illusiory...as sphinx says there are no end to the things for which there is no real need...would you ban them too?

Great so you have a poor view of me because you become stuck in debates where you are left found weighed measured and left found wanting, no suprise there really
Again you back the view you are right about me because you have not won a debate by proving guns are a necessity in society, you then play badly on as you always do the guilt bit where people lose jobs, a failed counter if there ever was one and also rather redundant, but choose again to just debate about me, very happy with that chap

So again you have no case for guns being a necessity and even worse you now drag that debate here where you have no case on Cameron as if your view on another debate renders the fact I have shown you have no case here as wrong, based upon an absurd notion you are right on another thread.

The science gets funnier by the minute

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:46 pm

Geoffrey Newman

1:36 PM on 26/1/2014

How many Tory Prime Ministers does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer three, one to change the bulb, one to hold the ladder and one to tax the poor and disabled for the costs?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:49 pm

A No10 spokesman defended the decision to call out workers to Mr Cameron’s home. He said: “The power went down because there was a leaky roof. There was water around the fusebox. The engineers came to fix it, which they did.”??

Anybody else spot the bullshit in this statement from No 10

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:51 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:A No10 spokesman defended the decision to call out workers to Mr Cameron’s home. He said: “The power went down because there was a leaky roof. There was water around the fusebox. The engineers came to fix it, which they did.”??

Anybody else spot the bullshit in this statement from No 10

yes please do tell, I am always interesting in your assumptions based on no evidence

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:04 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:A No10 spokesman defended the decision to call out workers to Mr Cameron’s home. He said: “The power went down because there was a leaky roof. There was water around the fusebox. The engineers came to fix it, which they did.”??

Anybody else spot the bullshit in this statement from No 10

Was his fusebox in the attic?

by Sponsored content