A very powerful piece of writing by Bryan Forbes

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
When will they ever learn:

MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim

The Cabinet minister charged with rescuing the Government’s finances has used taxpayers’ money to pay more than £40,000 to his long-term partner, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.



By Holly Watt and Robert Winnett
Published: 10:06PM BST 28 May 2010


laws-and-lundie_1646703c.jpg
David Laws and James Lundie Photo: GETTY/JULIAN SIMMONDS


David Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, claimed up to £950 a month for eight years to rent rooms in two properties owned by his partner. The claims could be against parliamentary rules governing MPs’ second home expenses.

On Friday night, Mr Laws apologised and announced that he would “immediately” pay back tens of thousands of pounds claimed for rent and other housing costs between 2006 and 2009. He also referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.

<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles

Mr Laws said: “I regret this situation deeply, accept that I should not have claimed my expenses in this way and apologise fully.”
His controversial claims were not uncovered by an official inquiry into MPs’ expenses last year because Mr Laws did not admit that his landlord was also his long-standing lover.
The disclosure is the first big setback for the Coalition. Mr Laws, a Liberal Democrat, has the task of implementing public-sector cuts worth more than £6  billion.
He has already drawn up tough new rules limiting the pay and perks of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers. However, his hard-line approach could be undermined by the disclosure of his own controversial use of public money.
The Daily Telegraph’s Expenses Files show that between 2004 and 2007, Mr Laws claimed between £700 and £950 a month to sub-let a room in a flat in Kennington, south London. This flat was owned by the MP’s partner who was also registered as living at the property. The partner sold the flat for a profit of £193,000 in 2007.
In 2007, Mr Laws’s partner then bought another house nearby for £510,000. The MP then began claiming to rent the “second bedroom” in this property. His claims increased to £920 a month. The partner also lived at the property. Mr Laws’s main home is in his Yeovil constituency. The arrangement continued until September 2009, when parliamentary records show that Mr Laws switched his designated second home and began renting another flat at taxpayers’ expense. His partner remained at the Kennington house.
Mr Laws’s partner is James Lundie, who is thought to work for a lobbying firm. The Daily Telegraph was not intending to disclose Mr Laws’s sexuality, but in a statement issued in response to questions from this newspaper, the minister chose to disclose this fact.
“I’ve been involved in a relationship with James Lundie since around 2001 — about two years after first moving in with him. Our relationship has been unknown to both family and friends throughout that time,” it read.
“James and I are intensely private people. We made the decision to keep our relationship private and believed that was our right. Clearly that cannot now remain the case.
“My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality.”
John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner, will now have to scrutinise whether any rules have been broken.
Since 2006, parliamentary rules have banned MPs from “leasing accommodation from… a partner”.
Mr Laws said: “I claimed back the costs of sharing a home in Kennington with James from 2001 to June 2007. In June 2007, James bought a new home in London and I continued to claim back my share of the costs. I extended the mortgage on my Somerset property, for which I do not claim any allowances or expenses, to help James purchase the new property.
“In 2006 the Green Book rules were changed to prohibit payments to partners. At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as ‘one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses’.
“Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses. For example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives. However, I now accept that this was open to interpretation and will immediately pay back the costs of the rent and other housing costs I claimed from the time the rules changed until August 2009.”
Friends of Mr Laws said that the decision to disclose his sexuality was an “immense decision”.
“Anyone who knows David, knows he is someone of great integrity,” one friend said. “He has been very private about his life. But he absolutely wants the public to understand the reasons for this arrangement, it has not been about making a profit. He has decided he wants to be absolutely clear. His integrity is obviously very important.”
Mr Laws’s claims for a series of other expenses are also now expected to come under scrutiny. Between 2004 and 2008, he submitted regular claims, in rounded figures, for service and maintenance, repairs, utilities and other items.
He typically claimed between £50 and £150 a month for utilities and £100 to £200 for maintenance. Receipts were not provided to back up the claims.
However, in April 2008, the rules were changed and MPs had to provide receipts for any claims above £25. Mr Laws’s expense claims dropped sharply. For example, he claimed only £37 a month for utilities.
Mr Laws, a former investment banker who is said to be independently wealthy, has been an MP since 2001 and represents Lord Ashdown’s former constituency.


His sword will have to be drawn tonight and he will be persuaded to fall on it overnight.
He should have never taken the job, especially as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the first place and surely Clegg must have known that this guys danced at the other end of the hall and went home on the other bus. It's the top news item here in the UK tonight. This really is a major blow to this new Government and his scalp will surely be flying on the Labour Party lances tomorrow morning.
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
We are rapidly approaching the 300 mark. As of today, 292 British Soldiers,Airmen, and Marines have made the ultimate sacrifice - and what for ?

From the Telegraph:

Afghanistan: two British soldiers killed in gun battle with Taliban
Two British soldiers have been killed in gun battle with the Taliban in Afghanistan.


Published: 10:01AM BST 05 Jun 2010
<!-- COMMENTS DISABLED IN SECTION PROPERTIES -->

britAfghanistan3_1456273c.jpg
British fatalities in Afghanistan since 2001 have now risen to 292 Photo: PA


The Ministry of Defence said the men, from 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, which is attached to The Royal Gurkha Rifles Battle Group, died in small arms fire in a battle with the Taliban.

The firefight with insurgent forces happened in the Nahr-e Saraj district of Helmand.

<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles

Their deaths takes the number of British troops who have died since 2001 when the mission in Afghanistan began to 292.
Lieutenant Colonel James Carr-Smith, from Task Force Helmand, said: "It is with deep sorrow I must inform you that two soldiers from 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, part of 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles Battle Group, were killed by small arms fire yesterday afternoon in Nahr-e Saraj, Helmand.
"They will be sorely missed and we will remember them."
Their families have been told.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
TWO Brisbane-based Australian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in what is being called the deadliest day for coalition forces so far this year. <!-- google_ad_section_end(name=story_introduction) --><!-- // .story-intro --><!-- google_ad_section_start(name=story_body, weight=high) -->
Ten NATO soldiers, including seven US troops, died in roadside bomb attacks in eastern <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 /><ST1:pLACE w:st="on">Afghanistan</ST1:pLACE> and small arms fire in the country's volatile south overnight Monday.
Acting Defence Force chief David Hurley confirmed two Australian soldiers with the 1st Mentoring Taskforce were killed by an improvised explosive device while on patrol in the Mirabad Valley.

He said the Diggers, both from the 2nd Combat Engineer Regiment based at the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera in Brisbane’s north-west, were part of a larger Australian-only dismounted patrol.

The dead soldiers were on their first tour to Afghanistan.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Another powerful piece of writing.


Politically Correct Warfare
By Arnold Ahlert
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=150 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD width=10 noWrap></TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD height=15 colSpan=2 noWrap></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD align=middle><TR><TD></TD><TD align=middle><!-- printer --><TABLE class=myControlPanel border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0610/ahlert060710.php3?printer_friendly
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/06...com/0610/ahlert060710.php3&sent=false&ccMe=no<!-- begin sharing_device --><STYLE type=text/css>#at15s_head * { font-size:11px !important; font-family:Arial; } </STYLE><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var addthis_options = "blogger, buzz, delicious, digg, facebook, fark, favorites, live, reddit, stumbleupon, technorati, twitter, tumblr, typepad, wordpress, more";var addthis_exclude = "print, email";var addthis_localize = {share_caption: "Share/Bookmark"};var addthis_brand = "JewishWorldReview.com";</SCRIPT><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=bljolkov<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js?pub=bljolkov"></SCRIPT> <!-- AddThis Button END --><!--end sharing_device -->
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- printer --><!-- ctrl-panel --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));</SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> try { var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-12606550-1"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {} </SCRIPT><!-- ctrl-panel --><!-- jwr_control_panel -->

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


<!-- attribution --><!-- attribution -->What's worse than war? Politically correct war. PC warfare is the moronic attempt to make mankind's last resort a socially acceptable enterprise — while tying it to an effective public relations campaign. Such pernicious notions manifest themselves in bizarre ways, such as "community outreach" in Afghanistan, the reading of Miranda rights by the FBI to suspects captured on a battlefield, and the Rules Of Engagement, which require soldiers to ponder legal guidelines even as they engage in life-threatening encounters with the enemy. If the latest dust-up between Israeli commandos and "peace" activists is any indication, PC warfare is a disaster.
Only those Israelis infested with the virus of PC warfare could have come up with a "plan" by which commandos, armed primarily with paint ball guns would rappel down a rope — one by one — onto a deck full of hostiles. The Israelis claim they were "surprised" by the level of violence those commandos encountered. How is this possible?
When one's military strategy is tainted by political correctness, all things are possible.
It is actually possible to believe that a group of "humanitarians" with known affiliations to al Qaeda, who have stated publicly that they are going to break down Israel's naval blockade of Gaza, and are determined to provoke an international incident — would meekly surrender. It's actually possible to believe that Israel's determination to board their ship in an "unthreatening manner" would be viewed by the world as a "reasonable" or "humane" method of conducting a military maneuver. It is actually possible to believe that conducting such a maneuver in international waters wouldn't be exploited by Israel's enemies for the purpose of making moral equivalence between a nation fighting for its survival, and those yearning for its destruction.
PC warfare is the result of two major factors: technological advances and ideological bankruptcy. Because we can now produce firepower with pinpoint accuracy, Western elitists have apparently decided that the minimization — or outright elimination — of "collateral" damage is the first priority when considering a military operation. While such a sentiment seems noble at first glance, it reveals a simple truth: such reticence makes war last longer. We've been in Afghanistan for nine years with no end in sight. Why? Because we no longer have a clear military objective there — unless one considers "bringing civilization" to one of the most uncivilized societies on the planet to be a job for our fighting forces.
In addition to that, if one considers that the most demoralizing aspect of any war is inflicting enough casualties on enemy forces to break their will, the idea that we will refuse to fire on terrorists who use innocent victims as shields will produce many possible outcomes. But only one of those outcomes is absolutely certain:
Terrorists will continue to engage in this repulsive — but highly successful — practice.
Again, no one wants to see innocent civilians killed, but how long would al Qaeda or the Taliban continue using innocents as shields if it became clear that such a tactic were no longer effective? How long would mosques double as armories or fortresses if we were less "sensitive" to the religious feelings — of our enemies? At some point, a "noble" intention which both exacerbates and prolongs despicable behavior must be recognized for what it is: a "feel-good" stop-gap measure. One with no long-term benefits.
It used to be said "war is hell." A more accurate description today might be "war is purgatory." Political correctness demands that reason must prevail, even though war is conducted precisely because reasoning, aka diplomacy, has failed. We used to understand this. When America was threatened during WWll, we didn't wring our collective hands wondering "why Japan and Germany hated us." Such politically correct self-flagellation would have been dismissed as the absurd nonsense it truly is. We didn't drop atomic bombs on Japan to prolong WWll, but to shorten it. We didn't do it to increase casualties but reduce them, in the long run.
This is where the West has lost its way. An interconnected globe with a 24 hour news cycle may demand short-term thinking, but basing military strategy on day-to-day world opinion is a fool's errand. It is exactly why we will let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon: another centrifuge here, another economic sanction there, and on one gets really excited. But an all-out military effort to prevent a bunch of megalomaniacal fanatics from going nuclear is a bridge too far. One of the first considerations South Korea made with regard to North Korea torpedoing a ship killing 46 of its sailors was what effect retaliation would have on its stock market.
Better not to cause a market "correction" based on self-defense, I guess.
Of all the countries in the world, Israel is the most vulnerable to PC warfare. it is a country completely surrounded by its mortal enemies in a world that invariably gives those enemies the benefit of the doubt whenever there is conflict. Only a country besotted by PC warfare strategies could have been blind to what would happen when they attempted to enforce the blockade of Gaza in the most "enlightened" way possible. Even in 2006, when Hezbollah in Lebanon provided Israelis with a golden opportunity to inflict long-term or possibly permanent damage to one of its mortal enemies, they were brow-beaten into leaving the job unfinished.
Short-term result? An end to hostilities. Long-term result? Hezbollah has re-armed and another war is highly likely this summer.
We're no better. Despite our current involvement in two wars, the most "pressing" issues for our military are whether or not to eliminate the "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding gay soldiers — and the proposed creation of a new medal for "courageous restraint," a citation which would be given to soldiers for holding fire in a war zone. Neither of these agendas has the remotest relationship to anything that would advance the military's primary mission: winning a war.
Or is it? Ever since Vietnam, "victory" has become a dirty word. In fact for much of the American left, any American defeat on the battlefield is to be celebrated as a comeuppance for our imperialism. That the left's "victory" in Vietnam resulted in three million dead Asians is still swept under the rug. Our technological advantages, such as the use of predator drones, is "unfair." The refusal to conduct war ruthlessly and efficiently is "high-minded." Decisive victory is "so last century" — despite the fact that decisive victory has proven to be the most enduring success for maintaining peace. German and Japan are solid world citizens. North Korea? An historic stalemate, and a festering wound to this day.
PC warfare's biggest liability concerns the treatment of our own soldiers. In any sane prosecution of warfare, our men and women in harm's way would be priority number one in terms of their safety, their protection — and their success. It's easy to be noble about warfare — until you're the first Israeli rappelling down a rope with a paint ball gun in your hand to prevent a bunch of elitist tut-tutters from getting their panties in twist. It's easy to speak in abstract generalities until you're an American soldier forced to withhold fire against a terrorist firing at you because a bunch of Pentagon lawyers — far away from the fighting — have decided that's the "best course of action."
What in the world can any decent soldier be thinking when he is told to fight with one hand tied behind his back? How do you go house-to-house in a combat zone knowing you can be prosecuted if a split second decision to save your own life is deemed to be "incorrect?" How do you go back out in the field when three of your SEAL brethren are forced to stand trial for punching a terrorist thug in the gut?
The West is holding itself hostage to the utter bankruptcy of political correctness. Even worse, we're doing so against an enemy whose ruthlessness goes right to the top of the historical charts. If terrorists can get a nuke into New York City, they'll detonate it without a second thought. If Iran gets a nuke, or enough arms flow into Gaza and Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah will give it their best shot to annihilate Israel. Everything we define as "enlightened" our enemies define as "weakness."
It it the stated ambition of Islamic fanatics to take over the world by any means necessary, even if millions of people die in the process. Try stopping that with paint ball guns, openly-gay soldiers, "courageous restraint," world opinion — or "politically correct" warfare
 
Pete, That's an interesting article. However, I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the writing. I am not an apologist, a bleeding heart liberal, nor am I a great lover of the world of Islam. What I do believe is that many amongst us need to revisit our history books. I have first hand accounts from a close friend of the way the Israeli "defence" force treats arabs during his time in Israel. Also let's not forget the number of UN security resolutions that Israel is sstill in breach of, and the number of people killed out of hand by their defence force (including a British aid worker shot in the head by an Israeli soldier - of which nothing has been done).

I am not against Israel, but I am also not against the concept of their being a "Palestine". A third of all US overseas aid goes straight to Israel. You only have to see Apache helicopters fighting against men with shovels to see the poverty juxtaposed against the wealth of the Israeli state.

Just trying to be balanced where possible... Below is a brief non biased history of the creation of the Israeli state:-


The former BBC Middle East correspondent, Tim Llewellyn, looks back at the history of Israel.

The contrast between the growing Jewish society in Palestine - the Yishuv - and the indigenous, mainly Muslim Arab population could not have been greater.
In 1917, two-thirds of the roughly 600,000 Arab population, were rural and village-based, with local, clannish loyalties and little connection with the towns. What passed for "national" Arab leadership was based in the towns, though there was little national identity. Two or three established, rival families dominated Palestinian politics.
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=3 width=150 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The majority of the Jews arriving in Palestine were well organised, motivated and skilled. In the early 1920s, they set up an underground army, the Haganah, or Defence. A Jewish shadow government was set up, with departments which looked after every aspect of society: education, trades unions, farmers, the "kibbutzim" settlements that spread across Palestine, the law, and political parties.

During World War II, Haganah fighters joined the British Army, acquiring military skills and experience. Not so the Arabs.
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=3 width=150 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>At the same time, extremist groups such as the Irgun Zwei Leumi and the Lehi, or Stern Group, began a brutal campaign of assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, intimidations, disruptions and sabotage. Their actions were directed against Briton, Arab and even Jews.

During the World War, the Zionist movement clearly defined its objective as a dominant Jewish state in Palestine. Deep plans were laid.
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=3 width=150 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>After 1945, as the facts and consequences of Hitler's death camps became evident, the Jewish underground intensified the terror campaign to oust the British, whom they accused of Arab sympathies. Jewish organisations tried to restart unlimited immigration.

Enormous emotional and political support for the Zionists came from the United States. The enfeebled postwar British Government no longer had the strength or the stomach to control Palestine or try to find a middle way that would suit both Jews and Arabs.
The first Israeli-Arab war
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=3 width=150 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Britain handed the problem to the United Nations. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab sectors.

There was violent and total Arab opposition, but wild Jewish acclaim. Fighting started almost immediately.
Even before the mandate ended, in April and May, Jewish fighters moved to protect, consolidate and widen the territory for the new Jewish state. Often they attacked areas designated for Arabs, and tried to depopulate Arab areas in the planned Jewish sector.
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=3 width=150 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>On April 9, Jewish fighters massacred scores of Palestinian villagers, including old people, women and children, in the West Jerusalem village of Deir Yassin, causing widespread panic and greatly augmenting the flight of Palestinians from their homes across the country.

As the Jewish authorities had predicted, Arab armies from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon tried to invade Palestine as soon as the British forces actually left. But the Arab campaign was a generally badly organised, uncoordinated affair with untrained units who were no match for the Haganah and, later, the Israeli Defence Force.
The Palestinian militias and other Arab irregulars were also easily crushed.
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=3 width=150 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>There was one exception: the British-trained and British-officered Arab Legion, under the command of King Abdullah of Jordan. But it was constrained financially and politically by the British-dominated King, who had already colluded with the Jewish leaders on territorial matters and who had ambitions in Palestine.

The Arab Legion, therefore, was restricted to defending territory in and around East Jerusalem and the Old City and on the West Bank of the Jordan, which it did successfully.
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=3 width=150 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The refugees

By the middle of 1949 up to 700,000 of about 900,000 Palestinian Arabs had left the affected region, forced out by a combination of Jewish/Israeli terror tactics, the frightening thrust of war, the contagious panic of local residents, fractious and incompetent Arab leadership, the flight of some richer and therefore influential families and the actual sale of Arab land to the Jews without coercion, often by absentee Arab landlords.
These Palestinians had fled from their homes for ever, though they did not know it at the time. They ended up in the refugee camps of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egyptian-run Gaza and in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, which was ruled by the Jordanian King Abdullah, as was Arab East Jerusalem.
Those Palestinian refugees and their descendants in the region now number more than three million. Israel has since refused to allow the refugees to return as long as Arab states remain pledged to its destruction, often claiming that there was no room for them anyway.
Peace treaties and agreements with Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian movement have not altered this.
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=3 width=150 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>In 1917, there had been 50,000 or so Jews in Palestine. By 1948, they had become 650,000 Israelis. At the same time, the majority of Palestinian Arabs had left Israel; only 200,000 or so withstood the war and other depradations and remained in Israel.
Israel became a state on May 15, 1948, and was recognised by the United States and the Soviet Union that same day.
 

Keith

Moderator
Pete - 1st class, thanks.

When I served in Aden, there were no such rules of engagement and we had a clear mission objective. Secure the town and port by "whatever means" until the politicians decided what to do with it. Colin Campbell Mitchell of the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders undertook the "last raid of the British Empire" into insurgent held Crater which was a no go zone for quite some time until "Mad Mitch" took his forces in there and kicked them all to hell and back - no holds barred.

He did receive some kind of notoriety but I also believe this was the point the politicians got cold feet and started introducing much more limited rules of engagement "in case we actually offended someone".

As an ex squaddie I would say this - it's not our job to question our orders or to question where we are sent, but please give us the best tools you can and let us do the job we are trained for, after all, the only reason we are sent there in the first place is because of failed diplomacy.

I also believe that terrorisms most effective allies in all of this mess are our respective Governments.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Graham, no doubt the article was written with an Israeli bias, the author is Jewish. However the reason I posted it is because I believe that it very effectively points out that you cannot win a Politically correct war. Particularly against terrorist's who have no such rules of engagement.
Our respective Governments are putting our young men and women in harms way and then not allowing them to do the job.
Nine years in Afghanistan, what is the plan?

Keith, thanks and thanks for your service.
 
Graham, no doubt the article was written with an Israeli bias, the author is Jewish. However the reason I posted it is because I believe that it very effectively points out that you cannot win a Politically correct war. Particularly against terrorist's who have no such rules of engagement.
Our respective Governments are putting our young men and women in harms way and then not allowing them to do the job.
Nine years in Afghanistan, what is the plan?

Keith, thanks and thanks for your service.

Could not agree with you more on that one Pete. a big thumbs up to you.

Cheers,

Graham.
 

Keith

Moderator
Nine years in Afghanistan, what is the plan?

As far as WE (UK) are concerned, the Plan is that there is NO Plan as I believe that this is an American driven operation in the main and the small international contingents are mere window dressing to give the Op some kind of legality (see also Iraq II). But with the increasing hostility and unhelpful comments from across the Pond re: Gulf oil spill and the effect that this is already having on BP share price and thus our economy (falling share price = less money to spend on solving this mess fellers), I am thinking of writing strongly to my MP and demanding an end to this "special relationship" that is getting us nowhere and causing real problems in our own communities and endangering any delicate recovery we might have been experiencing...

Special my ass. :furious:
 
As far as WE (UK) are concerned, the Plan is that there is NO Plan as I believe that this is an American driven operation in the main and the small international contingents are mere window dressing to give the Op some kind of legality (see also Iraq II). But with the increasing hostility and unhelpful comments from across the Pond re: Gulf oil spill and the effect that this is already having on BP share price and thus our economy (falling share price = less money to spend on solving this mess fellers), I am thinking of writing strongly to my MP and demanding an end to this "special relationship" that is getting us nowhere and causing real problems in our own communities and endangering any delicate recovery we might have been experiencing...

Special my ass. :furious:

+1 Keith.

Remember that BP (erstwhile British Petroleum) mergerd with Amoco (American Oil Company) a while back....no mention of this being a US issue at all...

I am starting to mistrust BO a tad... There is a growing sense that our "Special Relationship" flows very much one way these days. There can be no doubt that the U.S has helped us out a great deal in the past, but the relationship is now very much one of economics now and less of a shared history and ancestry.
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
298.
Thats two hundred and ninety eight families who have had the knock on the door and now are weeping.
Three more than yesterday.
Thats two hundred and ninety eight young men gone for ever.
Keep the pressure on the politicians by bombarding them with letters that explain how you feel. I think the lie we are being fed about next year and a withdrawal is just rubbish. Our troops will still be there 5 years from now.
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Unconfirmed reports was that these protesters were the same people as before and though their previous movement was banned, they just changed their group name. Also, some reports of the locals throwing pork sausages at them.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Unconfirmed reports was that these protesters were the same people as before and though their previous movement was banned, they just changed their group name. Also, some reports of the locals throwing pork sausages at them.

Pork sausages, only the Brits would think of that:laugh::laugh::thumbsup:
 
Back
Top