We all know once it’s released to “all victims of the war” a token amount might go to a charity for Ukraine but the vast majority will go to some dodgy charity for the Russian war dead that will magically disappear into the exact pockets this whole process was meant to starve.
Lord Cameron sounds so wrong considering he is useless
But Lord and useless go so well together
2.34b sounds like nothing these days, billions are banded about so much that it just becomes a word and means very little.
Same guy who gave his hairdresser a MBE?don’t hold your breath
Yeah but that trim though…
Release it to who? A sanctioned individual? And you sure as hell can’t just take the money without turning the heads of all the other billionaires who use London as a laundrette.
Oh look we’re in the news again
‘Lord’ Cameron. Jesus fuckin Christ.
Its a fucking joke theyve made him a lord to just get him into office and try and steady the ship before election.
guy fucked generations of students with his tuition rises then fucked the brexit vote
Something needs to be done. I can’t understand why people keep voting for these cunts
Fuck democracy it’s time for some unelected ‘lords’ running the country - the Tories
Ngl the Lords have been the only sane part of goverment for the last 10 years. Lowkey fuck democracy when the electorate are this stupid.
They aren’t stupid they are just being lied to. There is a revolving door between politics and newspapers. That shit needs to go.
Yes but if people could think critically, they’d know they were being lied to
Critical thinking can be taught!
A large percentage of the population can see those lies and it makes no difference. Bring laws in to jail politicians who lie and watch politics change. Ensure politicians must pass an exam like a judge or lawyer has to and watch politics change. Close all loopholes around businesses paying for votes and watch politics change. The things that need to be done are obvious, but it’s buried in the noise over issues like immigration, inflation and NHS pay.
Completely agree
There’s nothing wrong with the government appointing people with experience into government, appointment to the Lords is just how we do it in this country.
The Americans do the same thing but without the ridiculous ceremony, nobody elected their Secretary of State (Foreign Secretary equivalent), the last Labour government did it. I hope the next one does well.
The alternative is that you appoint MPs who often don’t have any real clue about the department they’re running, but get departments based on the MP’s status within the party and the level of prestige of the office. You get the rare exception like Ben Wallace at defence, but you’re still limiting yourself to three or four hundred people when you should have the absolute best.
They’re still accountable to the people, if we don’t like what the government’s doing we can get rid of it.
Just remember that when it’s time to go to the polls. At this point I’d take the Flying Spaghetti Monster over these cunts!
Or even Mike fucking Ashley. Yes, I’m going that far!
Mike Austerity
im more worried that the longer it takes the more the swing voters will go back to tories
Fucked a dead pig as well
To be honest out of all the things the Tories did tuition rises were the least of the issue.
That said they should have done the rises and increased bursaries/removed the cost for skilled degrees with shortage of workers in the public sector.
I’m not sure how fucking up our higher education system is a small issue though. SFE is already on breaking point and most universities would now probably struggle to survive if the fees ever came back down.
It didn’t really get fucked up though, university admissions are still far greater than they were 10-20 years ago. The rises were simply a case of who should pay for the degree, the taxpayer or the person furthering their career?
Many people don’t go to university and I don’t see why those people who are also more likely to be on lower incomes should have to pay towards degree education.
Like I say;
Shortage of workers and public sector should be free education.
Tax payer shouldn’t cover the costs of someone that goes on to earn £100k a year.
Tax payer shouldn’t cover the costs of someone that has no real plan and studies a nothing degree to delay going into work.
I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily a good thing. University’s, in general, have lowered their standards because now there’s an incentive of claiming extra tuition funds from students that would have never previously made the cut or, as you say, are now using it as a backup option instead of finding employment.
I agree on your public sector and high earning graduates points, but your last point is too much of a broad statement to effectively to put anything in place. A lot of non-Uni educated people misunderstand that earning a degree in x must lead to a job in x. Most employers only look at the transferable skills learnt from their degrees, and for the most part the actual subject is irrelevant. So how do you define a “nothing degree”?
The current system of increasing tuition and removing grants entirely did nothing to shift the debt from public funds to individuals, it’s just created a longer term bigger deficit that will be written off against public funds anyway. Despite the sweeping changes in the last year that meant 61% of graduates will start paying off their debt, rather than just 22% previously. It still remains that only 20% will ever pay off their debt fully. We haven’t really changed anything for the positive in the last decade.
Personally with your first paragraph I would say it does the opposite. Degrees are greatly devalued from previous generations, you’d like to think that the increased cost would be a deterrent for those half assing it to a 2:2.
Define a nothing degree - okay I’m not going to answer your question directly here as all degrees have their benefits. However, it’s not a case of a nothing degree, more a case of a useless degree for the person career path. If you’re a nurse, doctor, accountant, lawyer, teacher etc. Degrees are very relevant. However, far too many people study degrees and then go into careers that don’t necessarily need a degree. I chose not to go to uni because I didnt want a job that required some form of chartership or professional accreditation. At the time I didn’t know what I wanted to do but I knew I wanted it to be sales based. I didn’t waste £30k+ on a degree I knew I wouldn’t use or need, though I would have enjoyed studying certain fields but cost wise it was stupid to do so.
In regards to the last paragraph isn’t it more to do with the people that are paying off their student debt are paying off a larger amount now which helps mitigate the people that don’t pay off the debt?
Sadly it’s not, mainly because of the way it’s marketed to us as 14-17 year olds. You’re obviously told about the debt, but at that age you don’t really understand the long-term repercussions, and even UCAS advisors just focus on the fact “you probably won’t pay it all back anyway”. My own student debt has now surpassed £85k with my masters, and £7k of that is interest alone, it’s pretty ridiculous tbh. I kinda started in the worst year because tuition fees were increased, I missed the final maintenance grants by a year, and the threshold for paying back the loan also got lowered whilst I was still at Uni.
The whole point of the changes initially were to make Uni “more accessible” to students like myself, from poor backgrounds, shit schools but still academically achieving the required grades. Whilst I benefitted because Exeter marginally lowered its grade boundary for me due to the school underperforming, I don’t really feel I benefitted from the financial side of system because as a “poor student” I essentially get lumped with the highest student debt out of everybody anyway. (Because they took away my grants)
Yes it is to mitigate the problem, and from their perspective I understand why they’ve lowered the threshold for that purpose. But I feel like they should either lowered the threshold and kept the same 30 year repayment period, or marginally increased the threshold when they made it a 40 year debt window. There’s a massive hit in earnings after 28k (pre-tax) is eclipsed, which in this day and age isn’t all that much in the first place. At £28k you’ll have 20% tax, 12% NI + 6% Postgraduate loan and 9% Undergraduate Loan all in effect. Thats going to have a quite an effect on those earning the very minimum for graduate jobs. We should be trying to encourage people to be educated, but the way we approach it atm is all wrong imo.
What’s the bettings it’s been spent
That money is still just sitting there??? Wtf is he doing?
He’s sanctioned so can’t touch it.
This is the correct answer.
For example, until recently* the UK held onto a substantial debt owed to Iran for undelivered tanks. We readily admit this money is/was thers, but could not pay it due to sanctions.
*-I’m not very up to date whether this was resolved as a trade for Nazanin Ratcliffe or not
Can you imagine the interest on £2.34 billion held for 18 months? Chching…
Gaining interest.
British Government Thieving again
The bloke is always welcome to come back and ask for it.
I wonder what’s holding him 🙂
Thieving filthy Russian oil money. The horror.
Well it’s actually aluminium money
Oh no, the poor Russian
Maybe he should follow through and set up a charitable foundation with no ties to him to receive the money like he said he would
Think what you want of him that’s absolutely fair.
My point is purely that it’s wild that a government can do something like that.
Imagine now tomorrow morning they show up at your door kick you out and say you have to sell up but they are keeping the money?
Right! But… if you illegally invaded another country, committed war crimes and thrown elections across the free world. Maybe, just maybe, the democratically elected government in which you reside might want to use that for good. Rather, than say, more cluster bombs on children?
But they aren’t using it for good.
They are collecting interest on the money.
The British government doesn’t hold any high ground now let’s be honest.
Compared to Putin? Go read a book pal.
Not pointing fingers but most books about British history are far far worse than what Russia is doing, remember the whole empire thing ? How do you think they got it ?
America does that all the time
Whataboutism is not a valid defense. It’s bad no matter who does it.
You missed the point
Roman did none of these things what the hell are you on about
He’s sanctioned, he’s never seeing that money no matter how many sham “charities” he promises they’ll go to lol
The money is just resting in the account.
Send him to Craggy Island
Down with this sort of thing!
I mean 5% interest is like 115 million… seems like British taxpayers should ask them to open a savings account
You don’t get 5% on that figure.
I was being tongue in cheek
As I understand it, the only reason the money is still sitting there is because the British government wants to renege on an undertaking that the money is to be used exclusively for the benefit of Ukraine.
And is hoping Lord Cameron’s ‘stature’ will help.
He seized that 2.34 billion.
He should definitely do his job and release that 1.34 billion he’s holding soon.
In fact he should go the the bank right now and release that 340 million.
Go right to the office, get the account and wire that 34 million out to where it should properly be.
once the 3.4 million reaches its final destination, we can all be happy the right thing was done.
WAIT! Dave is a Lord now?
Bit late, but he got made a Lord to become Foreign Secretary, as cabinet ministers have to be sitting in Parliament.
If I remember correctly sometime in the past, the UK government began offering ex-PMs non-hereditary peerages.
He only got it a couple of weeks ago because Sunak appointed him Foreign Secreatry, which is why in this case the pressure’s on him specifically.
Cabinet members have to be in parliament.
Since he isn’t an MP, he had to be put into the House of Lords.
Can someone explain this in simpler terms
The owner of Chelsea was Russian. Russia was sanctioned. The owner was forced to sell. The government withheld the money owed to the Russian owner as part of the sanctions. The money was promised to Ukrainian war victims. They appear to still be withholding it either out of bureaucratic incompetence or a greed for the interest generated from it.
So the English government is in the wrong and Abramovich hasn’t received money for selling the club
The British government isn’t in the “wrong.” It purposefully chose to sanction Abramovich due to his connections to Putin.
The money was promised to victims of the war in Ukraine. A small difference in phrasing is a massive difference in what can be done with the funds. Abramovich wanted them to be for both Russian and Ukraine civilians.
Maybe the uk government had a lightbulb moment and decided the interest generated from it would go towards the costs associated with housing Ukrainian refugees in the UK .
Torys dont do this sort of thing off their own back. Remember how they’d only feed kids because of Marcus Rashford? Its not likely they’re putting the interest to any worthy cause.
Lmao and you believe that? It would have been laundered and spent on yet another superyacht of his.
This is the same dude who’s aluminum (one part of his portfolio mind you) that is building Russia’s airforce, naval weapons, tanks, etc.
Absolutely delusional how many football fans dick ride Abramovich still
Yank alert
Are you okay mate? I was just making a correction on what he promised.
With this govt it’s so hard to know where greed starts and incompetence begins.
No, HE was sanctioned. I would imagine that Abramovich has some legal avenues still open and that is what is causing the delay.
they took it out of greed and are keeping it out of greed. there was never any other element to the situation.
The government isn’t getting anything out of it. The money technically isn’t theirs. It’s frozen assets, not seized. They are just refusing to unfreeze it until there’s some proof that Abramovich is actually going to do with it what he promised, and that it isn’t secretly helping the Russian war effort.
Or the fact that one of Abramovichs steel companies was providing steel for Russian tanks.
Why does the British government get to keep all the money? Did he use British loans to buy the team and they’re collecting on it?
Press will blame abramovich for this somehow
Where is he nowadays?
10 league point deduction for UK FC