Quantcast

Remove Paul Ruddock From Honours List

GAZBEROTTEN

Active Member
This man not only made Millions of the collapse of the Northern Rock which saw many people lose there jobs and there financial security but is now being put on the honors list.

This man should be removed of the honors list and the fact the coalition placed this man on the honors list shows you exactly where there priority's lie.:mad:

This is downright shameful and disgraceful behavior for any party to engage in.:(

Whats next will the Pm call him self Iron Man Cameron?

"The fact Cameron would knight someone like this shows you that This tells you everything you need to know about the Tories' priorities"

"When millions of families are struggling to get by, it's the Tories' friends in the City who get the rewards"

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/886114-david-cameron-accused-over-friend-in-the-city-paul-ruddock-knighthood#ixzz1i79HhOk8

Now i know that's enough to get new elections called early since they messed up long before this incident. Look at the Milibank Riots for example all happened when the tories got in.
 
Last edited:

sidicks

Banned
This man not only made Millions of the collapse of the Northern Rock which saw many people lose there jobs and there financial security but is now being put on the honors list.
This man made money by shorting the shares of a company he thought would fall.

He did nothing illegal.

This happens all the time.

How many people lost their jobs because of the short selling?
How many people lost their jobs because of an unsustaainable business model operated by Norther Rock? Blame the CEO and FD, not a third party investor.


This man should be removed of the honors list and the fact the coalition placed this man on the honors list shows you exactly where there priority's lie.:mad:

This is downright shameful and disgraceful behavior for any party to engage in.:(

Whats next will the Pm call him self Iron Man Cameron?
He received his honour for his work raising hundreds of millions for charity.
:smashin:
Sidicks

PS - You might like to learn the difference between:
a) there, they're and their
b) of and off
c) to and too (and two)
d) your and you're
:hiya:
 

GAZBEROTTEN

Active Member
This man made money by shorting the shares of a company he thought would fall.

He did nothing illegal.

This happens all the time.

How many people lost their jobs because of the short selling?
How many people lost their jobs because of an unsustaainable business model operated by Norther Rock? Blame the CEO and FD, not a third party investor.




He received his honour for his work raising hundreds of millions for charity.
:smashin:
Sidicks

PS - You might like to learn the difference between:
a) there, they're and their
b) of and off
c) to and too (and two)
d) your and you're
:hiya:
Right so by your logic you are saying reward people who made millions of a companys collapse and from making hundreds of thousands of people being unemployed in difficult times.

And stop criticizing my grammar that wont help you counter the fact the Tories have shown themselves to of not changed.:cool::smashin:
 

sidicks

Banned
Now i know that's enough to get new elections called early since they messed up long before this incident. Look at the Milibank Riots for example all happened when the tories got in.
Oh ***, you get more and more ridiculous with every post...

You actually 'know' about 17% of what you think you know!

:suicide:
 

Ed Selley

AVF Reviewer
Now i know that's enough to get new elections called early since they messed up long before this incident. Look at the Milibank Riots for example all happened when the tories got in.
:rotfl:

 

sidicks

Banned
Right so by your logic you are saying reward people who made millions of a companys collapse and from making hundreds of thousands of people being unemployed in difficult times.

And stop criticizing my grammar that wont help you counter the fact the Tories have shown themselves to of not changed.:cool::smashin:
By your logic, you think that a (subjective) belief that someone has received a knighthood incorrectly is sufficient to replace the current Coalition government with a party who:

1) Removed bank regulation from the Bank of England, when poor regulation led to the credit crisis

2) Encouraged the 'light touch' regulatory approach which led to the credit crisis

3) Spent more than they received in 7 out of 10 years in power despite a booming (credit-fuelled) economy?

4) Doubled the published balance sheet debt despite strong economic growth?

5) Hid hundreds of billions of pounds of debt 'off balance sheet' which will have be paid with massive interest over the next 30-50 years!

6) Managed to double the liability in respect of public sector pensions during their time in power?

Are you sure?
:confused:
Sidicks
 

Jamezinho

Distinguished Member
And stop criticizing my grammar that wont help you counter the fact the Tories have shown themselves to of not changed.:cool::smashin:
It's have, not of. :smashin:
 

Phil57

Well-known Member
"The fact Cameron would knight someone like this shows you that This tells you everything you need to know about the Tories' priorities"

Psst......................................Cameron does not, will not can not Knight anyone, the nearest he gets is at his children's bed time!!
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
"The fact Cameron would knight someone like this shows you that This tells you everything you need to know about the Tories' priorities"

Psst......................................Cameron does not, will not can not Knight anyone, the nearest he gets is at his children's bed time!!
its quite possible he actually means that Cameron vets or at least has a major say in who receives these honours.Lets not be too pedantic or patronising , ok?
 

Phil57

Well-known Member
its quite possible he actually means that Cameron vets or at least has a major say in who receives these honours.Lets not be too pedantic or patronising , ok?
We are talking about GAZBEROTTEN are we not, the same guy who posts such silly things and trying to convince us that he is a knowledgeable person?
 

Dave

Distinguished Member
I've already issued one infraction today for grammar policing, please stop it as I find it incredibly rude.
 

gibbsy

Moderator
"The fact Cameron would knight someone like this shows you that This tells you everything you need to know about the Tories' priorities"

Psst......................................Cameron does not, will not can not Knight anyone, the nearest he gets is at his children's bed time!!
Once a king always a king. Once a knights enough.
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
We are talking about GAZBEROTTEN are we not, the same guy who posts such silly things and trying to convince us that he is a knowledgeable person?
well thats his prerogative isnt it .I dont think it quite entitles us to be abusive or being patronising to him, particularly as I have never detected any abuse from him.Whilst criticising someones post is ok, a spirit of tolerance towards the poster is always good:thumbsup:.Heck, none of us has the copyrights on "the Truth" after all.
 

sidicks

Banned
Whilst criticising someones post is ok, a spirit of tolerance towards the poster is always good:thumbsup:.Heck, none of us has the copyrights on "the Truth" after all.
This is what I was trying to get across in my earlier post - regardless of whether I believe his views or not, I'd really like a sensible discussion where he says 'because of X, I think that Y will happen and instead I think Z should be down', which would give opponents a chance to challenge his comments and post some alternative views.

Currently he seemingly just posts random comments about the Coalition which don't appear to have been thought through.
:smashin:
Sidicks

PS - Happy New Year!
:hiya:
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
This is what I was trying to get across in my earlier post - regardless of whether I believe his views or not, I'd really like a sensible discussion where he says 'because of X, I think that Y will happen and instead I think Z should be down', which would give opponents a chance to challenge his comments and post some alternative views.

Currently he seemingly just posts random comments about the Coalition which don't appear to have been thought through.
:smashin:
Sidicks

PS - Happy New Year!
:hiya:
i think one has to accept we are all different and, therefore, post things accordingly.I am not here to judge him or anyone else for that matter.

PS same to you:)
 

Phil57

Well-known Member
well thats his prerogative isnt it .I dont think it quite entitles us to be abusive or being patronising to him, particularly as I have never detected any abuse from him.Whilst criticising someones post is ok, a spirit of tolerance towards the poster is always good:thumbsup:.Heck, none of us has the copyrights on "the Truth" after all.
I am not being abusive or patronising, you though by your above post, do appear to be patronising to him.:facepalm:
 

dalethecaptain

Novice Member
A little bit about Paul Ruddock's philanthropic ventures can be read here.

If you read the honours role he is being cited for his service to the V&A museum.

Judging by the tone of the posts, obviously nobody has a problem with the Gobblin King handing out a knighthood to fellow fiscally incontinent Scotsman, Fred The Shred...
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
I am not being abusive or patronising, you though by your above post, do appear to be patronising to him.:facepalm:
If thats the case then i apologise. There are a few posters out there that seem to ridicule him. Regardless of what we feel about each other's posts, I dont see that it is our right to attack or ridicule each other personally
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
good that he shuns the spotlight but wouldnt it have been so much better if he had, altruistically, given those same millions to people who now need it the most, but in the shape of jobs.After all trinkets, baubles and bits of china from the past dont really count for much,whereas the present and the future do
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
la gran siete said:
good that he shuns the spotlight but wouldnt it have been so much better if he had, altruistically, given those same millions to people who now need it the most, but in the shape of jobs.
So do you believe all charitable donations are to be stopped in favour of job creation. No arts, no museums?

Or is it only donations from those you don't like that should be criticised on spurious class warfare grounds?

Incidentally I note how well he has done having come from a poor background. I thought you would have applauded that.
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
So do you believe all charitable donations are to be stopped in favour of job creation. No arts, no museums?

Or is it only donations from those you don't like that should be criticised on spurious class warfare grounds?

Incidentally I note how well he has done having come from a poor background. I thought you would have applauded that.
i firmly believe that in times like this , yes most certainly.As a nation we need to get our priorities right and throwing money at artistic pursuits that are the interest of a very small minority, should be well down the list.The thought of thousands being forced into penury whilst a few gorged themselves on the arts, fills me with revulsion.
 

Ed Selley

AVF Reviewer
i firmly believe that in times like this , yes most certainly.As a nation we need to get our priorities right and throwing money at artistic pursuits that are the interest of a very small minority, should be well down the list.The thought of thousands being forced into penury whilst a few gorged themselves on the arts, fills me with revulsion.
As stated in the other thread, the V&A has over two million visitors a year and is free for all to enjoy. It isn't remotely elitist. This seems to be more of a case that you don't like it so why should anyone else get to enjoy it.
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
la gran siete said:
i firmly believe that in times like this , yes most certainly.As a nation we need to get our priorities right and throwing money at artistic pursuits that are the interest of a very small minority, should be well down the list.The thought of thousands being forced into penury whilst a few gorged themselves on the arts, fills me with revulsion.
Which other charities should be shut down then?

Is there an approved list of causes you agree with?
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
Which other charities should be shut down then?

Is there an approved list of causes you agree with?
its a question of priorities .In times of crisis should we throwing money at things which create little wealth and few jobs?
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

MQA expands global partnerships for high end experience
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung 2020 TV app lineup upgraded
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Film festivals move online: We Are One starts 29th May
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bafta 2020 TV Awards to proceed behind closed doors
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Tidal brings Dolby Atmos Music to home cinema setups
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom