These Olympic stories get better and better.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....chauffeured-cars.html

So they have been told to travel to the Olympics with the great un-washed, have you any sympathy for them?

/// Furious MPs have said they would rather watch the Games on TV than cram onto the underground or buses, which would leave them too grumpy to schmooze their guests. ///

/// They must invite dignitaries and other important guests instead, to ensure the public don't think they are on the take, ///

Now think about it, would we ever?

[ummmm]

Would we ever, what?

[Gromit]

I don't think Labour MPs get chauffered cars to use. That is just for the Government. Strange how the mail seems to refer to MPs as if it is all of them rather than just Conservatives and Lib Dems ones.

[youngmafbog]

It actually says miniser Gromit. Dont think there are any labour ministers are there?

For once Cameron is right, they should not be using the lanes or tax payer funded Taxi's. Howerver I cant agree thedecree to take VIP's instead of familly if the MP has paid for the ticket.

Also dont agree with Cameron taking the tube. The security a PM has to have will be disruptive and potentially puts other usres at risk. He should be chaufeur driven as it is security not luxury.

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// Would we ever, what? ///

Oh dear as I said "think about it".

Your answer lies in the last line of the quoted text.

/// to ensure the public don't think they are on the take /// to which I added "Would we ever"

Simple isn't it?

[anotheoldgit]

youngmafbog

/// Howerver I cant agree thedecree to take VIP's instead of familly if the MP has paid for the ticket. ///

Glad you picked up on that, yes I also spotted that and was going to add, Who could be more 'Very Important Persons' than the MP's own family themselves?

[ludwig]

Daily Mail nonsense.

[anotheoldgit]

ludwig

/// Daily Mail nonsense. ///

Please do a little research before making a fool of yourself with your anti Daily Mail rantings.

http://www.independen...the-tube-7960143.html

[ludwig]

Fair point AOG. You should have done the Independent link first though. Vary your sources a bit.
People tend to dismiss DM stories out of hand as sh1t stirring lies and tittle tattle - as I did - and they''re usually right

[LazyGun]

This has maybe been picked up on already- but now its not only the athletes who have to conform to certain brands.

According to Lord Coe on Today this morning, a spectator with a valid ticket could be turned away from the venue if they are wearing a Pepsi- branded T-shirt, for example. This whole enforcement of sponsorship is just a joke......

http://www.independen...ship-row-7961658.html

[anotheoldgit]

ludwig

/// Vary your sources a bit.
People tend to dismiss DM stories out of hand as sh1t stirring lies and tittle tattle - ///

I didn't know that one had to use only certain news stories from certain approved newspapers, that to me harks back to such regimes as Soviet Russia.

I do not use only Daily Mail reports I use reports that attract the most impact on AnswerBank and one must admit the Daily Mail ones certainly do that.

They provide a much more in depth story line along with appropriate photographs, is it any wonder that it is one of the best selling newspapers in Britain?

So they must be doing something right.

[Kromovaracun]

"I didn't know that one had to use only certain news stories from certain approved newspapers, that to me harks back to such regimes as Soviet Russia"

Well, it shouldn't.

You are free to post links to the DM if you want to - that's your right. Unfortunately, every other user of the site has the right to make an appraisal of the accuracy and trustworthiness of that publication, and it happens that a large number of ABers don't deem it credible.

Stop pretending your rights are being infringed, and stop being overly dramatic about your freedoms - nobody on here is threatening them. They're just exercising their own.

"So they must be doing something right. "

An appeal to popular opinion does not do anything to demonstrate the truth of a position or argument. Or, in this case, to demonstrate how trustworthy a newspaper is. It's normally considered a fallacy, as explained in detail in its wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.o...Argumentum_ad_populum . Just because many people believe it, that does not make it true. It's a very basic principle of logic.