Did somebody just try to buy the British government?
antipope.org
antipope.org
Significant excerpt:
"The OITC proposed to invest US$150 million in a hydro-electric project in the region, subject to Ullauri placing $20,000 in a bank account in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia as a deposit. She paid in the money as requested in December 2005 but several months later there was no sign of the promised millions from the OITC.[11] In mid-April 2006 Ullauri publicly denounced the OITC as a fraud and lodged a complaint against its principal, Ray Cchat Dam, and two Ecuadorians said to be its local agents.[12]"
Although why a more mainstream news organisation hasn't picked it up, I do not know (too wacky?)
Wait, what's that, you don't think casting aspersions on someone's mental capacity is a valid counterargument? Well then.
It's not like the parent comment is trying to make a counterargument against anything, he's just wondering what's happening here.
(There is further reason for suspecting LJoB's mental state; his most recent other speech in the Lords is pretty weird too.)
If you think that my suggestion that LJoB might be off his head is so ridiculous that no sensible person would make it, or that the way I expressed it is so incoherent that no normal person would write what I did, and if you happen to want explanations, then you absolutely should be considering the possibility that I'm stupid or crazy. [EDITED to add: Especially if you know that in fact I was treated roughly as an infant in a way that would tend to damage my brain. Which, as it happens, doesn't appear to be the case.]
Well, I guess I disagree with how implausible it sounds. I suppose not too many foundations are offering billions for anyone who asks, obligation free. Then again, I do wonder what a lot of the money is doing around the world. There are hundreds of individuals and organisations capable of making the offers referenced in the speech. It just doesn't immediately ring of "CRAZY" to me.
I think all nationalities can go a little crazy over sportball.
"I see myself as a big fat spider in the corner of the room. Sometimes I speak when I’m asleep. You should both listen. Occasionally when we meet, I might tell you to go to the Charing Cross Road and kick a blind man standing on the corner. That blind man may tell you something, lead you somewhere."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/t...
"They decided to devote the words to the most obscene account of Hermann Göring having sexual congress with a lady kangaroo, which ultimately proved fatal to him because it would not stop jumping. After that, the Reverend Wynn decided that there should be no more of that."
As far as I can tell from his Wikipedia page he is a member of one of the houses of parliament, but has never been a member of government.
(Disclaimer: I'm Canadian. This is how it works in Canada. There are differences between the Canadian and British systems, but they are much smaller than the differences between the American and British systems).
That's very interesting, I don't think Scottish, English or Welsh people use "government" it that way though FWIW. What word does one use for the government if the word government is co-opted for the Cabinet & PM?
Well, you'd be wrong. That's exactly how we use it when we're talking about people. I won't pretend you don't hear the same word used to refer to 'the State' (which is the term we use for the overall apparatus of the State) colloquially, but you can always distinguish from context.
I'm not arguing that the more intellectual echelons such as political scientists don't use it in the described manner however; don't move in those circles.
I never hear people refer to our country [the UK] as "the state" either. I perceive state as including the people (but ours is a [pseudo] democratic state so I'm coloured by that.
It's strange that I've not heard this usage, isn't it?
I just jumped to the first newspaper I thought of (well the 2nd, but paywall ...) and the first story in the UK Politics section that mentioned government (Ctrl+f search on the UK Pol' page).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-...
"The Government's immigration cap should not affect inter-company transfers for global firms, David Cameron said today. "
Well it's not the "cabinet and prime ministers immigration cap". The immigration cap is that [on some level] agreed in parliament, passed by the Lords and implemented by the relevant civil servants. I'm still not seeing it.
Whereabouts in the UK are you all (upvoters) from, what occupations are you in?
That's a really good example. He's defending a policy of the current PM and Cabinet. Of course this has been passed by the parliament - that's how the Westminster system works. If parliament stops passing the policies of the cabinet then the government falls.
"The Government" refers to the Prime Minster and his/her Cabinet. It is supported by other parliamentary members of the ruling parties.
Colloquial usage of the phrase "the government" to refer to the civil service, and to ministries etc (eg, "I work in government" or "you'll need government approval to build that there") is common. As soon as politics is involved, though "The Government" refers to those who actually hold power.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949
But you are right; from a practical "man on the street" perspective he is not a member of "the government".
In such an environment where people have little power but have the air and outward appearance of having a lot, I would suspect bizarre speeches aren't uncommon.
You are 100% right in that it is not taken exceptionally seriously, as they are lifetime appointments and most often bestowed as an honour. There is an element of power, as at least from a technical standpoint, the Senate in Canada could block the passage of legislation. It is a "rubber stamp" element of government, yes, but only out of tradition. If for some spectacularly weird reason the Senate decided to wield their power, it would have just as much weight - from a technical standpoint - as the US Senate.
But you are correct in the broad sense typically, once a bill passes the house of commons, it will become a law.
A big portion of it is the demographic of the Senate. As senate seats are typically honourary appointments, rather than partisan decisions (though there are exceptions), there is typically little reason or desire to rise up and exert their power. Senators include former career politicians, but also public personas of various origin - athletes, entertainers, and others of non-political origin.
I would speculate that is almost out of a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts that senators respect and recognize their role and place in Canadian politics. Another is attendance - only 15 senators out of 105 are required to make quorum, and many senators are almost never found in their seats.
I shouldn't make it seem as though the Canadian senate is merely an automatic stamp of approval; there have been past examples of dissent, discussion, debate, reform, and rejection of bills arriving in the Senate. However, it is generally understood among the public that the Senate acts primarily in a nearly ceremonial capacity, rather than one of actual weight and importance.
If they do something to piss off the Canadian public, the Prime Minister could use that as an opportunity to push through legislation to change or even abolish the Senate. Harper, our current Prime Minister, talked about Senate reform in his election campaign, and he's not the first to do so, but it's never been urgent enough to actually do anything about.
especially by themselves
Video from 22:42:30
This draws the line and he will be fired for this airing of my account's balances in plebeian circles. My apologies to the fine people of England and the circle of Lords unfortunate enough to have been bothered with the matter.
The amount of gold is irrelevant. The scammers have none.
"The Guardian has called Serco "probably the biggest company you've never heard of." "
Talk about bizarre.