What's Robert Kilroy-Silk done for the people of the East Midlands since he was elected to the European Parliament…?Apart from apparently regularly collecting his handsome salary and even bigger expenses cheque, Kilroy-Silk is not known as one of the hardest-working MEPs.
But no doubt conscious of the criticism, fearless Kilroy-Silk has finally raised his game...he's actually asked a written question in the European Parliament.
So what's the big European issue that has sparked him into action...?
Kilroy-Silk thinks he has blown the lid on a huge distortion-scandal-conspiracy-mystery...
Er, here's his question…
Why are there no EU regulations to stop Marks & Spencer’s using mirrors in their changing rooms which make women look slimmer?He asked if it was 'conceivable that within the millions of EU regulations covering virtually every aspect of life in the EU' there was not one that made it illegal for M&S to have mirrors that 'deliberately distort women's shapes'.
In her official reply, Meglena Kuneva, EU Commissioner for consumer protection advises Kilroy-Silk to take up the issue with the 'national authorities' in the UK.
Meanwhile, a mystified M&S spokesman says:
We use perfectly normal, standard mirrors. We are at a loss as to what he might be referring to.
Kilroy-Silk launched his attack after his wife tried on M&S clothes and was convinced the mirror was not reflecting her true image.
Does Kilroy-Silk justify the money we give him to be our MEP, or has he lost his marbles again…?
15 comments:
Yes he should just sit quietly and trouser the money while the other fools piss away what little is left of our sovereignty.
Do the MEPs get their 30 pieces of silver in Euros or Reichsmarks with the Fuhrer's head on them?
Kilroy is a lonely obsessive whose mission in life is to keep us entertained.
A bit like Michael, really.
Michael says our sovereignty is in danger.
A few posts back and he was saying that in foreign policy it was unrealistic for us to have any.
michael:
remind us again, where is it you live and work...?
Kilroy is a nut, I don't doubt that. But one wonders why Phil's only comment on the EU cleptocracy is about someone who opposes it.
We have no real clout in terms of foreign policy. That is a statement of fact. Our size makes us rely on others, and we are fortunate to have the US represtenting the world's interests. If you don't like that Brynley, who don't you get a one way ticket to Tehran and be done with it?
Japan Phil. Less tax. Less crime. Less socialism. Coincidence I'm sure(!). I make no apology for living abroad. I said before the 2001 election, that if Blair won I would work abroad until good government was restored. I just feel sorry for the poor sods who can't get a job here and escape the criminal incompetence of Labour.
Mrs Doyle - I don't usually respond to your posts because my mother always taught me not to mock the afflicted. I love the way you type your address in every time. Bit like a retard that isn't it?
On the odd occasion that Kilroy does deem to turn up in Brussels or Strasbourg it is usually with some pathetic press stunt like this.
I can respect some members of UKIP although I loath their views because they turn up to Committee and Votes and do represent their constituents.
As for Kilroy he is a waste of space and tax payers money.
What particular aspect of Britain being a self governing independent country do you "loath" Suzanne?
Michael says: "... and we are fortunate to have the US represtenting the world's interests."
The world's? I don't think so.
As "represtented" by the terrorist-founded state of Israel?
And the property-owning planet-destroying rich?
I don't think the US represents the interests of many people I know.
I think you are right Michel. The US doesn't represent your interests, and a bloody good thing too. I presume when the big dust down comes along, Iran can rely on your support. We'll be sorry to lose you. But not that sorry.
So presumably you think Israel should be wiped from the map as well? And what about the "property owning" US as well?
I would not want anyone "wiped from the map". That is an american attitude. (I would like to see Palestine put back on it, though).
That is precisely why the US can never represent my interests. Neither does Iran or North Korea. I do not have to choose between these follies.
Fighting these silly wars over oil while the whole planet faces catastrophe as a result of us burning the stuff is stupid beyond belief.
And jaw-jaw always was better than war-war, or is Churchill to soft for you?
Only Iran mentioned wiping anyone from the map.
I won't even get into the whole silly debate about global warming. Just tell me: did you believe in the acid rain story? Bet you get worried about bird flu as well. Your gullibility is your problem, and the US refuses to sacrifice its economy for your whim of the month. I say good on them. Tough luck, get over it.
Churchill was also acutely aware that to avoid war, it was often necessary to threaten it, and always necessary to prepare for it. Presumably you would just lie down and let them kick you to death? My only objection to this course of action would result in the destruction of many more sane folk.
You presume too much.
As others have said, if you read other people's postings instead of writing half of what you presume their arguments to be, this debate would be a whole lot more pleasant - and maybe just move us on a bit.
Acid rain is real: I know buildings that have had to be demolished bcause of it, and others that have lost a lot of detail. But as they are in England that will not bother you.
Global warming is real, and in the Fens - where Phil's electorate lives - it matters a very great deal. But it will not bother you.
I think nuclear weapons might be real, too, though I've never seen one.
I PRESUME you have!
Tremendous, he believes in both of them! Acid rain and global warming don't exist anywhere, so they won't bother me full stop.
You are obviously cracked. That much is obvious. But that's your problem.
Interesting way to argue. It works, of course, because it does not matter whether you convince anyone or not, because you do not care.
You believe one thing; someone else believes another. So the someone else is obviously wrong - no matter how much proof exists and how many people agree with the someone else - and because he or she is wrong you can be as rude as you like about them. Well, you can't be anything else, I suppose: rudeness is all you know.
Well, you can say what you like about me now because (a) I don't exists anyway (but then, if you had any intelligence you would know that already) and (b) even if I did exist I would have better things to do with my time than come here. So I shall not be reading any more of your drivel.
But that's OK by you, isn't it, in any case? Because you don't give a farthing for anyone else anyway.
Exactly. Got luck with the treatment.
Post a Comment