Not sure if ........

[Jenx]

This is true or not .... but wouldn't fall over backwards with surprise if it was


This is unbelievable, but true!

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than
600 employees and has the following employee statistics .

29 have been accused of spouse abuse

7 have been arrested for fraud

9 have been accused of writing bad cheque's

17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

3 have done time for assault

71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

8 have been arrested for shoplifting

21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

Which organisation is this ?

It's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that
cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of
us inline.


:shock: :shock:

 

[andrewm]

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... hp?t=25987

Well, you did ask

 

[Jenx]

Ha ha ha .. Sorry !
I just got e-mailed it ! didn't even think to check !
Cheers Andrew ! 8) 8) 8) 8)

 

[Peter T]

Still worth repeating.

How did we get lumbered with this bunch of losers?

 

[katellwood]

Still worth repeating.

How did we get lumbered with this bunch of losers?

didn't we vote them in

 

[MikeG.]

Don't get sucked into this!!! This is not true, and has been attributed to virtually every parliament in the Western World. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet!!!

Mike

 

[Peter T]

Still worth repeating.

How did we get lumbered with this bunch of losers?

didn't we vote them in

Unfortunately the ballot papers don't have a box labelled "None of the above".

 

[Ironballs]

You're probably right Mike, the thing is though is that it seems plausible. That's how far they've collectively sunk in our estimations.

Isn't there a line in Brewster's Millions when Richard Pryor decides to enter the mayoral race, though with a null vote, where he asks why are these people spending millions of dollars on a campaign for a post that pays 100,000 dollars a year?

 

[Jenx]

As I say... no idea as to whether there was any truth in it ...it got e-mailed to me.....

I guess that point is true... we can 'conceive' of such a scenario being true, which is a poor reflection on things and our 'faith' in whats there.

8)

 

[Jake]

I guess that point is true... we can 'conceive' of such a scenario being true, which is a poor reflection on things and our 'faith' in whats there.

Try Snopes - helps to substitute Congress for Parliament.

I'd say the sad reflection is on us, not them.

 

[Jenx]

What's "Snopes " Jake ?

Forgive my ignorance ... ?

 

[Jake]

A pretty reliable internet-bollocks-exposer.

Always worth checking.

http://www.snopes.com/

 

[Jenx]

Ha ha Ok ! ... will have a lookie-see !
Cheers !
Not heard of that before !
8)

 

[Jake]

In this case (as mentioned in the thread someone cross-referenced): http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp

 

[Jenx]

Must admit - it was the 8x Shoplifting that made me wonder about the authenticity ... that'd be wider publicised, one would have thought, if it were true. 8)

 

[big soft moose]

I guess that point is true... we can 'conceive' of such a scenario being true, which is a poor reflection on things and our 'faith' in whats there.

reminds me of a bit in blackadder where he's getting baldrick to stand for parliment and they are filling out the application

Blackadder: Criminal record ?
Baldrick : Absolutely not !
Blackadder: for gods sake baldrick, you're going to be an MP... I'll just put fraud and sexual deviancy

 

[Jenx]

and a Dachshund, calld Colin ?

Rotten Borough ?


Word for Word BSM ... bet thing ever to be on telly :wink:

 

[MikeG.]

A pretty reliable internet-bollocks-exposer.
http://www.snopes.com/

I like it!!! That is in "bookmarks" straight away!

Mike

 

[Jake]

You can't actually be an MP if you have been convicted of an offence which carries a prison sentence*, so it's obvious rubbish in the UK. Don't know about the States.

(*I think that's the criterion, rather than actually having been imprisoned, but it is not statute law and I don't have access to a copy of Erskine so its all a little opaque - which isn't good IMO but there you go.)

 

[Jenx]

As a legal expert, and just out of interest .... would that mean " an offence which carries a (potential) prison sentence", or could it be 'got around' by "it may well carry a sentence, but in this case, you will be fined and / or prosecuted with a non-custodial sentence," thus getting around the 'procedure' ?

be interested to know how that would work ? :?: