The news in tweets: Monday, July 3, 2023
Tory tactics: remove large amounts of funding, then give back a little and tell you how grateful to be
BREAKING OUR YOUTH
Today Tory gov announces £3m for youth activities over summer
10 yrs since they came to power they have, through LAs, cut spending on youth services by 74% from £1,480m to £379m
DESPICABLE
Maybe they don’t care cos their kids are in subsidised private schools? pic.twitter.com/7vpFbV5TwN— Carol Vorderman (@carolvorders) July 3, 2023
Labour promises to have a ‘really good relationship’ with businesses that are ripping us off…
#KayBurley "How angry would you be if it transpires supermarkets have been ripping us off..?"
Labours Stephen Morgan "I think people will be really angry about that. Action needs to be taken.."
"What would a Labour govt do?"
"We'd have a really good relationship with business" pic.twitter.com/wIBxecR5jq
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) July 3, 2023
… and here’s what firms that have been ripping us off have done with the money
Incase you were ever wondering what happened all of that money you paid to water companies now you know.
"Chairman of sinking Thames Water has beach pad with pool and penthouse apartment."https://t.co/21NoyGsDGD
— Feargal Sharkey (@Feargal_Sharkey) July 3, 2023
Civil servant broke rules in discussion about job with Labour Party – but it had no effect on her work
Cabinet Office finds Sue Gray broke rules by discussing a job with Labour and not declaring it. But also concludes that the first conversation about a job happened almost six months after she’d finished her partygate inquiry. https://t.co/QBuySR2cGr
— Paul Brand (@PaulBrandITV) July 3, 2023
It turns out that the fuss over Sue Gray, who led a Cabinet Office inquiry into Partygate, talking with Labour about taking a job there was about nothing, after all. She broke the rules, but none of her work was affected, and certainly not her Partygate inquiry, which was long-finished by the time she began her discussions with Keir Starmer’s crew.
This is a non-story. If the mass media go big on it, you’ll know they’re hiding something else.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
I remember reading in another blog of the ‘Bethlehem Doctrine’ And no, not the place, AFAIK it’s a Dr Bethlehem who authored it. It discusses the issue of ‘self defence’ and what can be considered such for the intervention of the state in military or extra judicial actions including targeted killings.
The doctrine has it that (and I’m very much paraphrasing) that self defence does not need to wait for an action to begin. eg you don’t need to wait til someone pulls a gun on you. You don’t need to wait until he comes to town with a gun either. You can shoot him before he BUYS the gun because you think he MIGHT buy one and, if he does, he MIGHT use it on you.
This is the background to actions of ‘self defence’ by IDF. Of course using this doctrine as justification means almost anyone is a target. Civilians, journalists, scientists, foreign army officers are all fair game and have all been targeted using this doctrine. So, is this self defence or is it state sponsored murder??
It is definately state sponsored murder! No one is safe!