Posts by Raymond A Francis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I always find it amusing that when justifying their pay MPs say but of course we would earn more if we were out in the workplace
OK you don't often hear this from the left but it does get said
What I would like to see as well as Tom's list of the top top 2% incomes, is a list of ex MPs incomes, excluding of course the super super they (we) pay themselve
-
TomS
You are doing a great job of diversion Tom, keep it up
Quick look over here........Meanwhile any person who thought Labour was for the small man can...
-
On the hand if Tapu Misu thinks class can make a difference to a 17 year old unmarried mother, then I am inclined to drop her into the Paul Holmes class of fools
There might have ben a time when wealth could sweep thses things away, it probably still can but I doubt if it is ever easy on the girl involved -
Paul Holmes, since when have we taken anything he says seriously
-
Regarding Jonathan Hunt while having a quite awful record of entitlementitis his work on opening the closed book on adoption gives him the really big tick and a tap on the shoulder in my book and quite a few oother people too...especially the ones who were involved
-
Have to say I have always thought the split age for buying/drinking a good idea
But Craig has it right when he calls for the present laws to be upheld anything else is a waste of timeI too wondered about "fresh" whitebait, Islander and I take these lttle fish seriously
Must go and check how much I have left, frozen smartly after catching and it last for quite sometime
-
I can't not reply to Danielle
1. National have said endlessly that they will not sell assets this election cycle
2. Who siad we will be a carbon nuetral, hint she runs the UN now
3 & 7. Been done before....NOT THAT MAKES IT RIGHT
4.Times are tough where is money best spent, I know it is hard and I know it is tough but that what happens when the money tree ceases to work
And so it goes, SORRY but that is how it is -
I think the Minister should apologise
Just because Labour used to do this sort of thing using either the udisclosed leak or in Trevor Mallard case Parlimentary privlage to expose peoples lives doesn.t make it right
I am sure Russell was horrified by that and said so at the time
I see a report today that Labour had already exposed one of these women's income while they were in power, that still does not make it rightUnfortuntly this will all be forgotten in the uproar about MPs travell which is going to be disclosed today
But lets not allow Ministers of the crown the power to silence people by disclosing things that are not in the public domain
-
Just in case my position was not obvious
I don't think it is right that a minister should release personal details or leak them even
To stifle debate -
A couple of questions
Did the Labour MPs use these two womens cases as a way to score political points rather than just two women criticising the system then being outed by a Minister
Could have anyone with an undertstanding of the present system and a calculator work out the afore mentioned womens incomeJust asking?