If there's suspicion or evidence of corruption, I'd expect the police to get involved.V8Granite wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 11:20 amAgree again with all of that.DeskJockey wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:54 amThe line is that although I do have a nice house and two cars, I do not have the means to buy influence across global, or (ignoring the News Shopper that I doubt anyone reads) local platforms in a way that broadcasts and amplifies my views out of all proportion.V8Granite wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:19 am Where do you draw the line ?
Your spending power is far greater than many others, can they have some more as you have multiple cars and a very nice house ?
I don't care how you earnt it, I want it as I think it's too much.
This is down to a personal belief but I want everyone to do well. If you have a million pounds a year as Daddy did well and gave you a trust fund, you're paying £20 for a coffee with gold sprinkles, you pay your 50k tax bill on your Bentayga and your loafers cost more than my car. Aslong as you are spending in the UK then I'm benefitting.
If he was running Victorian sweatshops illegally then that's not ok, but that's not the case.
I don't understand how the Starbucks case happened where they paid virtually no corporate tax but they also employ 5300 people, a net positive, if they aren't doing anything illegal then what can you do?
Dave!
I cannot buy/launch a media outlet and hire loudmouth agitators to push my agenda, or fund/create groups to further my own views.
It still doesn't explain where we could stop government influence though. For example a new leisure centre is being built not far from me, the old one needed a million put into the roof, 3.5 million to fix it all. Turns out the roof is a 150k job and the land for the new leisure centre is owned by a councillors sister. Can we start with them first ?
Dave!
Doesn't matter if the undue influence is internal or external, it is still wrong.
