Is This True?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:11 am

The following was posted on another forum and was wondering if it is at all true.

Need a little help from you UK folks.

Imagine working for a company with approx 635 employees

29 have been accused of spouse abuse

7 have been arrested for fraud

9 have been accused of writing bad cheques

17 have directly or indirectly bankrupt at least 2 businesses

3 have done time for assault

71 can not get a credit card due to bad credit

14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

8 have been arrested for shop lifting

21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

And collectivily, this year alone they have cost the tax payer £92,993,748.00 in expenses (nearly 93 million)

Welcome my friends to the House of Commons!

These are the people responsible for 100's of new laws each year to keep the rest of us in check!

Oh and by the way, the also have probably have the best 'corporate' pension scheme in the country, while trying to ensure that the rest of us has the worst!

Here lies the problem, its at the top, not the bottom as they are brainwashing the nation to believe.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:48 am

Another one for you...

Over 1,000 British police officers still serving have been convicted of crimes ranging from assault to attempting to pervert the course of justice along.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:03 am

All that is true?

Wow.

And there are Brits talking about OUR politicians.

HMMPF! The nerve!

Guess we didn't fall THAT far from the tree, afterall, eh?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:22 am

Lon, you need to provide a link please. You can't nick someone else's words, even if it is from a forum and just paste them up here. The person who wrote that would be pretty annoyed to find it copied and pasted here without some recognition.

I've put a link in for you Lon, you appear to be inactive at the moment.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:24 am

It also doesn't take much to find this either

snopes.com: Congress Wrongdoings :wah:

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:13 am

Betty Boop;1410117 wrote: Lon, you need to provide a link please. You can't nick someone else's words, even if it is from a forum and just paste them up here. The person who wrote that would be pretty annoyed to find it copied and pasted here without some recognition.

I've put a link in for you Lon, you appear to be inactive at the moment.

There is no link and it doesn't matter----I just want to know if the info is true or not and I care not a whit if the original poster is annoyed.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:25 am

Lon;1410120 wrote: There is no link and it doesn't matter----I just want to know if the info is true or not and I care not a whit if the original poster is annoyed.

It scarcely seems credible that the exact same numbers are true both of the US Congress before 1999 and this notional UK House of Commons of today, does it. If you need a single word to describe these "statistics" of the House of Commons, it's "bullshit". Someone deliberately and knowingly lied when posting the changed email down the chain, having hand-edited US Congress to UK Commons. In what way can the material in your OP possibly be correct.

oscar;1410113 wrote: Over 1,000 British police officers still serving have been convicted of crimes ranging from assault to attempting to pervert the course of justice along.What makes you think that's any more true than the OP?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:35 am

Týr;1410121 wrote:

What makes you think that's any more true than the OP? What makes you think you know otherwise ?

My statement Is well documented... different sources report different stats but the figure Is around the same.

Nearly 1,000 serving police officers and PCSOs have a criminal record - Telegraph

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:40 am

Lon;1410111 wrote: The following was posted on another forum and was wondering if it is at all true.

Need a little help from you UK folks.

Imagine working for a company with approx 635 employees

29 have been accused of spouse abuse

7 have been arrested for fraud

9 have been accused of writing bad cheques

17 have directly or indirectly bankrupt at least 2 businesses

3 have done time for assault

71 can not get a credit card due to bad credit

14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

8 have been arrested for shop lifting

21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

And collectivily, this year alone they have cost the tax payer £92,993,748.00 in expenses (nearly 93 million)

Welcome my friends to the House of Commons!

These are the people responsible for 100's of new laws each year to keep the rest of us in check!

Oh and by the way, the also have probably have the best 'corporate' pension scheme in the country, while trying to ensure that the rest of us has the worst!

Here lies the problem, its at the top, not the bottom as they are brainwashing the nation to believe.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore

Actually Lon, I don't think you are far wrong.... It's weather those who doubt you want to take the time to do the research.

MPs with criminal records - a Freedom of Information request to House of Commons - WhatDoTheyKnow

The BNP dis a roll of shame a few years ago... I might have time later to look for It for you.... as no lawsuits followed, It appears It was accurate.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:40 am

So we're diluted to "nearly" in contrast to "over", and we're diluting to "Police Officers and a bunch of other people" instead of "police officers", and we're diluting "from" to "including"?

No surprise there, then.

I note that "Most of the convictions are for traffic offences".

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:41 am

oscar;1410123 wrote: Actually Lon, I don't think you are far wrong....
Perhaps you didn't open the snopes link.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:48 am

Yep.... here we go... here's some of It...

A LIST OF CHILD SEX OFFENDERS INSIDE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT « Cuthulan's Blog

I'll look for the rest If I get time tonight

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:09 pm

That's a reputable source??

I have no problem believing over a thousand serving British police officers have had points on their driving licence at some stage in their lives. The trouble is that you invent beyond the actual stated facts to "convicted of crimes ranging from assault to attempting to pervert the course of justice" despite the article making it quite clear that it's not talking about serious crime in the majority of instances. I'd be surprised if the number of serving British police officers who have at some stage in their lives been convicted of a serious crime is as much as a tenth of what you claim it to be. What I find distressing is that you seem so unfamiliar with the concept of the truth that you appear not to recognize the difference.

I note also that the Torygraph is the rag which headlined a few months ago that there were sixteen cod left in the North Sea. As a news source it lacks the rigour it used to command. It is still, even so, a step up from Cuthulan's Blog.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:25 pm

Lon;1410120 wrote: There is no link and it doesn't matter----I just want to know if the info is true or not and I care not a whit if the original poster is annoyed.

Charming, I will state again, it is not acceptable to copy and paste stuff from the net without saying who wrote it, it is theft and can lead to this forum being in serious trouble for allowing it. It is not Betty being a bitch it is Betty trying to prevent any action being taken against the site owner.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:32 pm

Týr;1410127 wrote: That's a reputable source??

I have no problem believing over a thousand serving British police officers have had points on their driving licence at some stage in their lives. The trouble is that you invent beyond the actual stated facts to "convicted of crimes ranging from assault to attempting to pervert the course of justice" despite the article making it quite clear that it's not talking about serious crime in the majority of instances. I'd be surprised if the number of serving British police officers who have at some stage in their lives been convicted of a serious crime is as much as a tenth of what you claim it to be. . Let's start with this....

I do not Invent....

Criminal record: 1k officers with convictions are still in the police | Mail Online

Taken from article:

More than 900 police officers continue to serve despite being convicted of crimes including violence, robbery and fraud.

Forces employ policemen and women with criminal records for assault, burglary, supplying drugs and perverting the course of justice.

Among them are several senior officers, including two detective chief inspectors and a chief inspector working for the Metropolitan Police.

Read more: Criminal record: 1k officers with convictions are still in the police | Mail Online

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

If you have time. anyone can go to the home office and acquire a breakdown of stats per county as they are updated as I have In the past.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:42 pm

Now.... MP's and fraud....

Let's start here shall we ?

MP expenses: Shaming of the 389 greedy politicians who went too far | Mail Online

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:54 pm

Now for the critism of Cuthulan's blog I posted.

Let's start with the first name of that list... Micheal Powell.

Here's the evidence:

BBC News | Special Report | Paedophile case judge slams Internet

Do I really need to post every report on that list as proof?

You can all do your own research to see how accurate It Is.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:06 pm

oscar;1410129 wrote: I do not Invent....
You quite simply can't distinguish between "including" and "from", can you.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:07 pm

oscar;1410126 wrote: Yep.... here we go... here's some of It...

A LIST OF CHILD SEX OFFENDERS INSIDE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT Cuthulan's Blog

I'll look for the rest If I get time tonight

Since when did local counsellors count as being within the British Government? Even if the details contained in this person's blog are accurate, there are no MP's of members of the House of Lords there.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:08 pm

oscar;1410131 wrote: You can all do your own research to see how accurate It Is.
Someone tell her it was originally written about the US Congress during the previous century, I can't be bothered.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:08 pm

Well, page one of a google search is showing blogs someone back in february that got it in an email and thought it would give folks a chuckle, even if it wasn't true.

He says that the fact he was willing to believe it says enough about the conditon of the world.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:17 pm

flopstock;1410135 wrote: Well, page one of a google search is showing blogs someone back in february that got it in an email and thought it would give folks a chuckle, even if it wasn't true.

He says that the fact he was willing to believe it says enough about the conditon of the world.

I beg to differ, I believe it is more a case of people being happy to just believe what they read rather than actually check it out, it's the condition of the people rather than the world. There's still a lot of people, thank god, that question everything.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:42 pm

flopstock;1410135 wrote: got it in an email and thought it would give folks a chuckle, even if it wasn't true.Would you believe I find that disgusting?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:26 pm

Betty Boop;1410128 wrote: Charming, I will state again, it is not acceptable to copy and paste stuff from the net without saying who wrote it, it is theft and can lead to this forum being in serious trouble for allowing it. It is not Betty being a bitch it is Betty trying to prevent any action being taken against the site owner.

So sue me. What I posted was a copy of a copy of a copy. Who know who the original author was. Who cares?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:36 am

Lon;1410139 wrote: So sue me. What I posted was a copy of a copy of a copy. Who know who the original author was. Who cares?

You're right, there are many many copies on the net but I have managed to track down one source:

MPs in corruption shocker | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Regardless, I don't agree with the content.... the list of sexual offences I listed can very easily be born out by some simple googling on the net.

Also our Labour Government probably lost the election due to the expenses and fraud scandals.... It's not all complete bollocks.... there is some truth to your OP.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:32 am

oscar;1410150 wrote: You're right, there are many many copies on the net but I have managed to track down one source:

MPs in corruption shocker | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Regardless, I don't agree with the content.... the list of sexual offences I listed can very easily be born out by some simple googling on the net.

Also our Labour Government probably lost the election due to the expenses and fraud scandals.... It's not all complete bollocks.... there is some truth to your OP.

That has also been spread about the American Congress ie the location of where all these employees are working gets substituted to suit the agenda of the idiot spreading it around. Do you read any links any one else puts up? Ever wonder why no one really bothers to debate, the arguments are a farce.

I also asked for a link way before I realised the extent to which this article has been bandied around the internet, even so, best thing to do is ALWAYS provide a link then there can be no question, I'm sure everyone would hate to be accused of stealing others work.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:49 am

Betty Boop;1410158 wrote: That has also been spread about the American Congress ie the location of where all these employees are working gets substituted to suit the agenda of the idiot spreading it around. Do you read any links any one else puts up? Ever wonder why no one really bothers to debate, the arguments are a farce.

I also asked for a link way before I realised the extent to which this article has been bandied around the internet, even so, best thing to do is ALWAYS provide a link then there can be no question, I'm sure everyone would hate to be accused of stealing others work. You have completely missed the point.

Lon asked In his OP If the list was true. That Is the point of the thread, not the source or weather It's been adapted to suit others.

I was responding specifically to Lon's question and the fact that some of It Is true.

The sex offenders list is accurate and there Is no denying the MP's convicted and more accused of fraud during the Labour Parties expenses scandal. Or do you have any evidence to show they are not true?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:58 am

oscar;1410161 wrote: You have completely missed the point.

Lon asked In his OP If the list was true. That Is the point of the thread, not the source or weather It's been adapted to suit others.

I was responding specifically to Lon's question and the fact that some of It Is true.

The sex offenders list is accurate and there Is no denying the MP's convicted and more accused of fraud during the Labour Parties expenses scandal. Or do you have any evidence to show they are not true?

Some, not all, is true of England.

Some, not all, is true of the American Congress.

Some, not all, is true of any other country you'd like to choose.

Some, not all, is true of most religious institutes.

Some, not all, is true of the police force.

See my point yet? Over and out, not going to argue the toss on the point of 'some' of the facts are true, the majority are not true. I bet it was originally compiled by some Daily Mail journalist, attempting to incite hatred and a 'let's tar everybody with the same brush' attitude.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:03 am

Betty Boop;1410162 wrote: Some, not all, is true of England.

Some, not all, is true of the American Congress.

Some, not all, is true of any other country you'd like to choose.

Some, not all, is true of most religious institutes.

Some, not all, is true of the police force.

See my point yet? Over and out, not going to argue the toss on the point of 'some' of the facts are true, the majority are not true. I bet it was originally compiled by some Daily Mail journalist, attempting to incite hatred and a 'let's tar everybody with the same brush' attitude. There you go... you got It finally.

My responses In this thread was In direct relation to Lon's list and the question ' Is this true'? Of which I stated, Yes, some of Is true.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:06 am

Lon;1410139 wrote: So sue me. What I posted was a copy of a copy of a copy. Who know who the original author was. Who cares?

Lon,

There's no question of the site suing you but to protect the site from being sued we must insist that you attribute at least the site you lifted it from.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:13 am

oscar;1410161 wrote: You have completely missed the point.

Lon asked In his OP If the list was true. That Is the point of the thread, not the source or weather It's been adapted to suit others.

No, you have completely missed the point.

Regardless of why the thread was raised or whether it is in its original form, the fact that it has been copied with no attribution to the site it has been copied from opens the Garden up to a potential lawsuit. In order to protect the site we have Terms of Service that specifically state that all copied text must be attributed back to its source.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:42 am

Bryn Mawr;1410167 wrote: No, you have completely missed the point.

Regardless of why the thread was raised or whether it is in its original form, the fact that it has been copied with no attribution to the site it has been copied from opens the Garden up to a potential lawsuit. In order to protect the site we have Terms of Service that specifically state that all copied text must be attributed back to its source. I understand It perfectly Bryn.

It's why I took time and trouble to find the source for Lon and for FG.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:02 pm

Bryn Mawr;1410166 wrote: Lon,

There's no question of the site suing you but to protect the site from being sued we must insist that you attribute at least the site you lifted it from.

I agree and ordinarily I always include the source/author in anything that I post----in this particular case I found it near impossible to get a accurate source or author------that's why I asked if it were true or not.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:33 pm

Lon;1410180 wrote: I agree and ordinarily I always include the source/author in anything that I post----in this particular case I found it near impossible to get a accurate source or author------that's why I asked if it were true or not.

It's probably not all true. Are our MP's a bunch of devious lying self seeking out for all they can get arrogant bastards? that is probably mainly true apart from the last one there are probably only one or two genuine bastards in the bunch.

When they get caught fiddling their expenses they say sorry and think that is all it takes, in a normal company fiddling your expenses like they did would result in fraud charges and a jail sentence with no chance of getting a decent job when they came out.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:36 pm

Lon;1410180 wrote: I agree and ordinarily I always include the source/author in anything that I post----in this particular case I found it near impossible to get a accurate source or author------that's why I asked if it were true or not.

If the piece that you are copying doesn't give the original source then attributed it to the site you've pulled it from - it's an easy way out and it (I think) covers us.