So it's Sunday at last, I waited 3 days, so what is that amusing scandal then that was advertised to be unveiled on Sunday ?
It is published, it is very interesting reading, but we aren't allowed to mention it (and no it is not some crazy 89-90 whatever it is Lizard Illuminati conspiracy). I posted an interesting but not scandalous sideline from it and it got pulled.
which newspaper should I look at?
I'm assuming that it's neither superinjunction or ++Justin?
So it's Sunday at last, I waited 3 days, so what is that amusing scandal then that was advertised to be unveiled on Sunday ?
It is published, it is very interesting reading, but we aren't allowed to mention it (and no it is not some crazy 89-90 whatever it is Lizard Illuminati conspiracy). I posted an interesting but not scandalous sideline from it and it got pulled.
which newspaper should I look at?
I'm assuming that it's neither superinjunction or ++Justin?
As I said, its not in a newspaper. It concerns a number of newspapers written by an established journo.
“We understand that all of the affected buildings in Edinburgh were completed over 10 years ago."
Labour's watch to be fair to the SNP.
Or failure of maintenance under the SNP - like the Forth Road Bridge?
This is supposed to be a PFI contract so the cost of and responsibility for maintenance should be on the contractor.
It is slightly alarming that contractor seems incapable of building a wall that is strong enough to avoid being blown over or stick wall panels to the side of a building. I wondered if they had used plasticene instead of cement.
I would be looking at who signed off this work as fit for purpose. And they should be looking out their insurance policies.
Given the one-sided nature of most PFI contracts for buildings I expect Edinburgh council will have to pay penalties to the contractor for Edinburgh being too windy.
So it's Sunday at last, I waited 3 days, so what is that amusing scandal then that was advertised to be unveiled on Sunday ?
It is published, it is very interesting reading, but we aren't allowed to mention it (and no it is not some crazy 89-90 whatever it is Lizard Illuminati conspiracy). I posted an interesting but not scandalous sideline from it and it got pulled.
which newspaper should I look at?
I'm assuming that it's neither superinjunction or ++Justin?
As I said, its not in a newspaper. It concerns a number of newspapers written by an established journo.
Not the phone hacking scandal again ?
No.
So from all the bits and pieces you've revealed on Thursday and today, it's a scandal involving newspapers and the article is written by a journalist from the Independent.
It's a newspaper scandal but not the phone hacking one ? It's like playing charades.
@theSNP: .@NicolaSturgeon confirms she will publish her tax returns today. #ScotlandsTalkIn
Poor Scott , shown up yet again. What can you whine about next, imaginary Chinese deals again , imaginary Souter's at meetings.
I'm disappointed in Nicola. She's so popular and the SNP in such a strong position she could have said stuff it to the demands and maybe we wouldn't go down this route in future.
She pontificated on morality of tax avoidance so she is fair game.
So it's Sunday at last, I waited 3 days, so what is that amusing scandal then that was advertised to be unveiled on Sunday ?
It is published, it is very interesting reading, but we aren't allowed to mention it (and no it is not some crazy 89-90 whatever it is Lizard Illuminati conspiracy). I posted an interesting but not scandalous sideline from it and it got pulled.
which newspaper should I look at?
I'm assuming that it's neither superinjunction or ++Justin?
As I said, its not in a newspaper. It concerns a number of newspapers written by an established journo.
Not the phone hacking scandal again ?
No.
So from all the bits and pieces you've revealed on Thursday and today, it's a scandal involving newspapers and the article is written by a journalist from the Independent.
It's a newspaper scandal but not the phone hacking one ? It's like playing charades.
According to the Eurobarometer survey, the three countries with the highest shares for "my country would be better off outside the EU" are France, Slovenia and the UK. (We top the list with just 43% of people disagreeing. Albeit there's a 16% or so of "don't knows".)
I suspect there are two things that would prevent mass departures: 1. I think there would be a desire to see how the UK fared outside the EU, before committing. If we were a beacon of success, that would clearly make a big difference. 2. It's a lot harder for a Eurozone country to leave the EU than us. Intriguingly, support for the Euro seems to be higher than support for the EU in most countries.)
Fair points, especially that about how much more difficult it would be for a EZ country to disentangle themselves. However, I would not put that as too much a barrier. If sufficient people of a state have got the hump they will, I think, vote to leave. Even governments can change course. There was, what seemed to me to be, a credible article in the Telegraph yesterday explaining how and why Germany might actually pull the plug.
“We understand that all of the affected buildings in Edinburgh were completed over 10 years ago."
Labour's watch to be fair to the SNP.
Or failure of maintenance under the SNP - like the Forth Road Bridge?
This is supposed to be a PFI contract so the cost of and responsibility for maintenance should be on the contractor.
It is slightly alarming that contractor seems incapable of building a wall that is strong enough to avoid being blown over or stick wall panels to the side of a building. I wondered if they had used plasticene instead of cement.
I would be looking at who signed off this work as fit for purpose. And they should be looking out their insurance policies.
The sudden switch from "everything is fine" to "not fit for occupation" is slightly teriffying. I'm hoping it is more a case of a theoretical problem that needs to be checked in a better safe than sorry way rather than an actual real identified systematic problem.
So it's Sunday at last, I waited 3 days, so what is that amusing scandal then that was advertised to be unveiled on Sunday ?
It is published, it is very interesting reading, but we aren't allowed to mention it (and no it is not some crazy 89-90 whatever it is Lizard Illuminati conspiracy). I posted an interesting but not scandalous sideline from it and it got pulled.
which newspaper should I look at?
I'm assuming that it's neither superinjunction or ++Justin?
As I said, its not in a newspaper. It concerns a number of newspapers written by an established journo.
Not the phone hacking scandal again ?
No.
So from all the bits and pieces you've revealed on Thursday and today, it's a scandal involving newspapers and the article is written by a journalist from the Independent.
It's a newspaper scandal but not the phone hacking one ? It's like playing charades.
@theSNP: .@NicolaSturgeon confirms she will publish her tax returns today. #ScotlandsTalkIn
Poor Scott , shown up yet again. What can you whine about next, imaginary Chinese deals again , imaginary Souter's at meetings.
I'm disappointed in Nicola. She's so popular and the SNP in such a strong position she could have said stuff it to the demands and maybe we wouldn't go down this route in future.
She pontificated on morality of tax avoidance so she is fair game.
Of course she is, everyone is fair game. I just don't like this route toward required disclosure of tax returns, and she is strong enough to defy any demands.
Comments
It's a newspaper scandal but not the phone hacking one ?
It's like playing charades.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
But it's their estate which does get taxed, which is the next best thing...