mickbrown Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, miamiwhite said: Pretty sure they said on average Mick, here's one with many more similar years like it. All facts on the link you provided......button 9n the right hand side https://www.mpsexpenses.info/?#!/mp/164/2010 Pretty sure they said £480 every day for 9 years. That works out at £1576800. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamiwhite Posted May 3, 2021 Author Share Posted May 3, 2021 1 minute ago, mickbrown said: Pretty sure they said £480 every day for 9 years. That works out at £1576800. Click on the Financial Year part, the button on the right brings the individual years up. It is a hefty amount over the years but I've not worked it out to the penny. Substantial though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickbrown Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 How does it compare to other London based MPs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leigh white Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said: What does Lucy Most Juicy think about it? These are the thoughts we need to hear. Lucy Most Juicy sat out in the horrible wind and cold for a meal today, braver than me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickbrown Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 1 minute ago, miamiwhite said: Click on the Financial Year part, the button on the right brings the individual years up. It is a hefty amount over the years but I've not worked it out to the penny. Substantial though. Fucking loads. Be interesting to see other London based MPs. Imagine a chunk of that will be staff salaries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamiwhite Posted May 3, 2021 Author Share Posted May 3, 2021 1 minute ago, mickbrown said: How does it compare to other London based MPs? I've no idea to be honest, can imagine most being similar to be fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamiwhite Posted May 3, 2021 Author Share Posted May 3, 2021 Just now, mickbrown said: Fucking loads. Be interesting to see other London based MPs. Imagine a chunk of that will be staff salaries? I know he did claim for some daft things, pretty sure his phone calls and leafleting one year got him into trouble as did renting a house out 3 miles from his own and claiming for it, something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted May 3, 2021 Site Supporter Share Posted May 3, 2021 @wanderer1984 Can you see if Juicy Moist Lucy is available for comment please? Only, she’s made you look a right wallop, so you could do with getting her on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youri McAnespie Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 11 minutes ago, Spider said: @wanderer1984 Can you see if Juicy Moist Lucy is available for comment please? Only, she’s made you look a right wallop, so you could do with getting her on. If this ^ is 'Lucy' - it's actually a geezer... For some reason 'right-wing' middle-aged angry gammon flag-shagging veterans of both World Wars (in spirit) make Twitter accounts fronted by random pictures of attractive women to post and retweet claptrap. It's a bit like cults send out their most attractive members 'flirty-fishing' - except they actually exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not in Crawley Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 5 minutes ago, Youri McAnespie said: If this ^ is 'Lucy' - it's actually a geezer... For some reason 'right-wing' middle-aged angry gammon flag-shagging veterans of both World Wars (in spirit) make Twitter accounts fronted by random pictures of attractive women to post and retweet claptrap. It's a bit like cults send out their most attractive members 'flirty-fishing' - except they actually exist. Well that's most disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youri McAnespie Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 She's 'Nice Girl image 486' etc. according to Tineye... With that finger coquettishly in her mouth she's filth according to me... And most certainly wouldn't be concerning herself posting shite about David Lammy's expenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer1984 Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 29 minutes ago, Spider said: @wanderer1984 Can you see if Juicy Moist Lucy is available for comment please? Only, she’s made you look a right wallop, so you could do with getting her on. Not really. Typically overlooking the the main point of the tweet. You're happy to back those with such views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not in Crawley Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, wanderer1984 said: Not really. Typically overlooking the the main point of the tweet. You're happy to back those with such views. FFS, it takes one simple search. Shah was re-elected as the MP for Bradford West at the 2019 general election with a majority of 27,019. On 1 October 2020, pro-Brexit group Leave.EU apologised and paid damages for libel to Shah after they made a social media post which accused her of being a "grooming gangs apologist". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 6 minutes ago, wanderer1984 said: Not really. Typically overlooking the the main point of the tweet. You're happy to back those with such views. Do you honestly reckon Naz Shah liked that tweet intentionally? I mean you'd have to admit that she must have realised it would be potential career suicide. I can't imagine for one minute that she sat there and thought - "hmmm yes on balance I think it would be a great idea to like this tweet". Even if that is what she thinks. Which I can't imagine that it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, kent_white said: Do you honestly reckon Naz Shah liked that tweet intentionally? I mean you'd have to admit that she must have realised it would be potential career suicide. I can't imagine for one minute that she sat there and thought - "hmmm yes on balance I think it would be a great idea to like this tweet". Even if that is what she thinks. Which I can't imagine that it is. In fact you don't have to answer that - it's all here! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Shah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer1984 Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 38 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said: FFS, it takes one simple search. Shah was re-elected as the MP for Bradford West at the 2019 general election with a majority of 27,019. On 1 October 2020, pro-Brexit group Leave.EU apologised and paid damages for libel to Shah after they made a social media post which accused her of being a "grooming gangs apologist". Ffs. Thats.a.lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not in Crawley Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 1 minute ago, wanderer1984 said: Ffs. Thats.a.lie. Listen, if you want to vote on faith go ahead, thats down to you and your call. At times, it's the best we can do to be fair. But, if not, do some simple fact checking first. Each one of the twitter facts you posted were based on disinformation to feed you nonsense. Whatever side of your politics, the thing about the truth is that it doesn't care who you have faith in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamiwhite Posted May 3, 2021 Author Share Posted May 3, 2021 44 minutes ago, kent_white said: In fact you don't have to answer that - it's all here! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Shah She has form for making rather hasty comments then backtacking on them though. No denying she has deleted tweets. Needs to engage her mind before her fingers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Winchester White Posted May 4, 2021 Site Supporter Share Posted May 4, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamiwhite Posted May 4, 2021 Author Share Posted May 4, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamiwhite Posted May 4, 2021 Author Share Posted May 4, 2021 Are you joining back up @royal whiteto have a go on these ? Needs a bit more defence mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted May 4, 2021 Share Posted May 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, miamiwhite said: Great news. You're not putting that down to Brexit though are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamiwhite Posted May 4, 2021 Author Share Posted May 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, kent_white said: Great news. You're not putting that down to Brexit though are you? I bet if it was bad news, you would put it down to Brexit though 😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2021 Share Posted May 4, 2021 38 minutes ago, miamiwhite said: Fake news, Shirley? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youri McAnespie Posted May 4, 2021 Share Posted May 4, 2021 (edited) Perhaps (fake news)? Surely manufacturing more or less everywhere, including the UK, slumped to record lows during the early days of Covid-19 and lockdowns, shielding etc. This would pave the way for the unprecedented rates of growth over the past 11 months - as places re-open, furlough/wfh implemented etc. The same data should be analysed over say 24 months, to see whether the 'growth' is actually a recovery? I'm past giving a fuck about Brexit, I just think the 11 month period cited is a bit dubious. Edited May 4, 2021 by Youri McAnespie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.