Saturday, December 27, 2008

Middle Classes Tell Cam: Sod Off, We're In It For The Money


There has been a strange upsurgence of dastardly Tory Trolls at Labour Home as, for example, Will Parbury scolds Cam for giving in to greedy Shadow Cabinet moonlighters who refuse point blank to concentrate on either being proper constituency MPs or proper Shadow Mimicsters.

"Sod Off, Rich Boys!" seems to be the refrain for the Cam Boz Goo fraternity, even from their fellow independently rich colleagues.

These sharks are interested only in self-aggrandisement as MPs, swiftly followed by self-enrichment as jobbing journalists, overpaid city boys, secondary smokers and so on.

11 comments:

DARWEN REPORTER said...

But all politicians are totally self-serving not just Tory rich boys.

Everybody Hates Chris said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
benchilltory said...

i read that your lot are going to give baliffs the power to kick down the door and "restrain" people
Surely even a lickspittle such as yourself cannot support this type of law?

Chris Paul said...

"Restrain" people? BHT, are you quite sure? And where might we ask did you read this nugget. It is customary to give references for momentous news.

Everybody Hates Chris said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris Paul said...

Remember:

1. This is capacity building for BHT, please do not answer for him

2. BHT ... please be careful to distinguish between draft proposals and actual laws, unlike for example the Times whose standards are in tatters

3. If you are barred, you're still barred

Everybody Hates Chris said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris Paul said...

To be clear, the Times headline and story in generality were misleading but did mention under breath that the changes were at most proposals and if taken forward would need approval after consultation. Though there were existing underused laws.

It was the banned and stupid troll that pretended brazenly - as did BHT - that this restraining idea was law.

And Labour is definitely going to charge claimants 2000% interest too.

Everybody Hates Chris said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
benchilltory said...

Mr Paul, i did not suggest that these proposal were law,only proposals that may become law.however i was more interested in YOUR opinion..
in my past i stood on the picket line at Hoo in kent, supporting the kent miners who were attempting to stop things going into Kingsnorth power station.
In those days i voted for Frank hooley .Back in the early 1980;S I wouldd have callled myself a socialist.
however i grew uop.
What frightens me is that the labour party seems to have no internal restrainers, so people like you whom, i presume are drawn towards Socialism for some lofty ideals end up supporting Browne come waht may.to take the exanple of this proposal concerning bafliffs,theres no way that any Socialist should support this proposal, and in some way it is sad that someone like you,who, must have some principals, ends up unable to criticise a labour proposal.

Chris Paul said...

I'm going to read all the proposals before commenting further. Obviously I do not support the idea of untrained and unsanctioned bailifs restraining or even distraining. But I'm interested in seeing them properly regulated and trained - which they are not now - and from what I've read of the gloss of these proposed possible draft guidelines these also include regulation and quality control over bailiffs.

Personally of course I'd rather like to be able to continue to laugh in their faces and call their vile bluffs and I will not cease from fighting the power until bailiffs are reduced to "please pretty please" and "oh, I'll come back 'sometime never' when it suits you to not pay".