Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Ashcroft revelations day 2
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Ashcroft revelations day 2
Is recent months, particularly since the July budget, the sentiment has moved very strongly to the Chancellor, George Osborne. I wonder whether some of the backlash provoked by the tabloid frenzy could impact on him because, after all, Osborne was also a member of the Bullingdon club at Oxford and has had his own share of bad publicity.
0
Comments
Who is it ? The one who has notes of the meeting or the other one who is not known to get into detail.
What has Hammond, for example, done wrong ? Or, May ?
And would it be truly damaging for Cameron if it turns out he knew about the non-dom status earlier? Do the public really care? Maybe they do, but I'd be surprised if it were truly on the public's radar screen beyond the politically obsessed like us.
To me, all it seems the Tories need to do for the next 4+ years is govern competently and all this will not impact them one jot. Barring events, the Europe referendum is the only real threat to them at the moment.
Ashcroft is just demonstrating what a prat he is with this book. Dave is vindicated in his opinion of Ashcroft's lack of suitability for high office.
I still think Philip Hammond has a chance - especially if OUT wins the referendum. For a complete outsider what about Theresa Villiers? She doesn't have much of a profile but always comes across as fairly affable. And perhaps the lack of baggage might benefit a candidate like her.
Did Cameron tell Parliament anything which turned out not to be true ?
Corroborating a story typically involves more than one witness. The police seem to be encountering this with their VIP paedophile investigation.
"We heard a funny story. We couldn't stand it up. We printed it anyway..."
If I were Cam, and I had done it, I'd be offering the person with the photo half the proceeds from the libel case against Ashcroft
What is Ashcroft's position on Europe ? Could he be a donor to UKIP ?
Froff or froth the falling apart of the most extreme allegation yesterday within 12 hours suggests that actually publishing this book looks very ill advised. As for the suggestion that it was Cameron who was lying about Lord A's tax status, well the record has moved in a way not necessarily to the Lord's advantage. He is a very silly man.
One thing puzzles me. Since Downing Street belatedly denied this story, why didn't they come out right at the beginning denying the story and also demanding a retraction or else ?
Interesting, for all the words uttered or written, no retraction has been demanded yet with or without any legal threat !
You might not be far off. Didn't a well-heeled Conservative buy the copyright of the Bullingdon photo, which then disappeared from the media?
Most importantly it takes Corbyn off the front page and gives them a chance to regroup, the Tories have had a charmed time since May, time to show a little humility and accept this term won't be the breeze some were anticipating.
Interesting, for all the words uttered or written, no retraction has been demanded yet with or without legal threat !
Belated? If I recall correctly it was done on the day of publication. It's not as if it's been several weeks and only now Downing St have commented on it.
On your second point, this was addressed in a previous thread. Either Cam sues for libel based on the whole thing, which runs the risk of one small aspect derailing the entire thing, or he sues just on the most damaging aspect, and people wonder why he isn't suing for all of it. I'm sure he's been having and will have conversations in the coming days.As was pointed out, there is a one year time limit for libel.
Saying that, nothing can undo the damage that is done, as I am sure people like you (or at least those on the left who particularly loathe him) will go to the grave believing he did it.
I have promised them that they would be kept well informed about any senior Conservatives visiting Auchentennach Castle. They were tight lipped about the prospect ....
The UK press do not regularly fact check or corroborate. If they say they require it (as reported in a thread yesterday) it is a lie.
For example, the Corbyn £45 to an IRA fugitive was printed without corroboration or fact checking (the second time, assuming the first time in the 80s was merely an error).
Even worse, the paper which was boasting yesterday that they would never have printed such a "flimsy" story was the Telegraph. The same Telegraph that printed the Sturgeon smear during the election campaign with no fact checking and no corroboration.
In any case, to a greater extent, it doesn't matter. Cameron is now tagged and will forever be noted on social media and in conversations around the country as "the pig f*cker".
So that makes it true, right?
On your second point, this was addressed in a previous thread. Either Cam sues for libel based on the whole thing, which runs the risk of one small aspect derailing the entire thing, or he sues just on the most damaging aspect, and people wonder why he isn't suing for all of it. I'm sure he's been having and will have conversations in the coming days.As was pointed out, there is a one year time limit for libel.
Saying that, nothing can undo the damage that is done, as I am sure people like you (or at least those on the left who particularly loathe him) will go to the grave believing he did it.
Actually, I do not believe it 100% myself. As it so happens, Cam is one of very few Tories I do not loathe. And, on the loath-o-meter, I probably loathe Ashcroft more anyway for keeping the Tory party afloat during 1997-2001.
The "source" is a Tory MP who may have an axe to grind.
Many people will believe it and not necessarily on the left. People expect public school types to engage in such pranks. It may not do him or the Tories any great damage apart from a few.
( well it worked for Tony )
For example, the Corbyn £45 to an IRA fugitive was printed without corroboration or fact checking (the second time, assuming the first time in the 80s was merely an error).
Even worse, the paper which was boasting yesterday that they would never have printed such a "flimsy" story was the Telegraph. The same Telegraph that printed the Sturgeon smear during the election campaign with no fact checking and no corroboration.
In any case, to a greater extent, it doesn't matter. Cameron is now tagged and will forever be noted on social media and in conversations around the country as "the pig f*cker".
I'm not the one saying the press do or do not corroborate. I was merely describing what the word corroborate actually means.
You are certainly correct about your last point, which I find quite depressing, (and I would like to think I also would if this had happened to someone of any other political persuasion).
Many people will believe it and not necessarily on the left. People expect public school types to engage in such pranks. It may not do him or the Tories any great damage apart from a few.
So what, 98% believe it?
The only "dishonest" allegation was yesterday's about Ashcroft's tax. This is all long ago but my vague recollection is that there was an issue about whether Ashcroft was allowed to make the donations that he did to the Tory party when he was not tax resident. This was before the 2010 election as I do not think he has given any money since. The money had been paid through a UK domiciled company so I think it was an issue of appearances rather than law but the Tories did duck and dive about it for a while.
Actually it's worse than that. In 24 hours not one single individual appears to have gone on record to deny it. The best that Cameron has is unnamed peers reported as denying it. He can't get anyone on record.
A good parallel is the Sturgeon smear where, within 4 hours, two individuals had gone on record denying it (third parties to the reported events). Cameron still hasn't got this.
We do not live in the United States, where there are expected standards in journalism. This is the UK, where one national daily newspaper actually exists on the premise that all its stories are lies. There is nothing exceptional about the #piggate reports by the standards of British journalism.
He may have done it or may not have. How can I be sure one way or the other. I do not believe that Cameron, a politician, always speaks the truth !
Still why no retraction demanded ?
I( assume that's your main source of information, you must pour over their economics pages.
Still why no retraction demanded ?
I gave an example as to why they may be taking their time to consider it. Also legal action is expensive, time consuming, and would generate headlines on the matter for months on end. Lack of action is not an admission of guilt.
To many, it is. Again, they do not have to be from the left.
Well those people are quite frankly idiots.
Fair enough, just like I think you are one.
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Note that this story is in the Daily Mail, so IT MUST BE TRUE, right?
That looks pretty fallen apart to me. So did the person responsible for this travesty last night when interviewed.
anything's possible from aliens stole my haggis to the SNP have a currency strategy.
For what reason, if I may ask?
No wonder the Scots want independence.
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Note that this story is in the Daily Mail, so IT MUST BE TRUE, right?
Probably is true. Who cares ? I am not being morally judgemental on Cameron either for pig-gate or for smoking weed.
It is just good fun for us.
No third party has gone on record denying it. Even Cameron hasn't denied it. So it doesn't even have the much weaker defense of a denial by the subject.
Problems mounting for Cameron.
It's worked.
Cameron was definitely a mamber (not corroborated) of a club that definitely has an initiation ceremony (not corroborated), and someone defineitely took a picture (not corroborated, and possibly illegal) and then definitely showed it to somoen else (not corroborated) who told the story THREE TIMES, so it MUST be true.
Take the 50/1, Cameron will be gone by years end...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11880663/David-Cameron-was-the-straightest-man-at-Oxford-says-his-university-ex.html
im going to enjoy the next few days, not so much for the irrelevant stories but for the way people will defend their man regardless.
A story like this doesn't require corroboration to be legitimately published. In the UK it doesn't even require fact checking but let's assume we were in the US and it did. If Ashcroft and Oakshott came across the allegation separately - that actually fills the fact checking requirement for US journalism. Unfortunately we don't know this yet because Newsnight asked the wrong question - because UK journalism has no standards to meet.
Meanwhile we have absolutely no denial.
No third party is on record.
The subject has not gone on record.
That Cameron refuses to put his own name on the press release is quite telling to my mind. "Downing street sources deny" is much, much weaker than "The Prime Minister denies".
I'm not sure precisely what Mike means by not really in the frame at the moment - if Dave really is intent on leaving the top job during this Parliament, his successor is surely someone currently in the Cabinet ..... although I agree possibly a 20/1 or even 40/1 shot, rather than one of the current 2 or 3 favourites.
Who do PBers see as being a possible longshot and in whom it might therefore be worth investing a few quid?
For those, like me, who believe Boris has virtually no chance, his likely elimination makes the rest of the betting market look quite attractive.
What's the SNP's currency strategy?
"What ever we say it is"
What if the other party says 'no'?
"They're lying...."
It then would have neatly stuck the boot in to him and his legacy. Any additional damage to the Conservative Party would have been minimal as the electorate would have already given its verdict on Cameron, who'd have been toast, and it'd also have been well-timed to influence the leadership contest. It'd help ensure that any future Conservative leader was not a "toff" of the Eton/Bullingdon set. The book would have served its purpose with Ashcroft appearing too churlish. He might even have appeared a sage. Just as he did following his "Wake Up and Smell the Coffee" book after GE2005.
But none of that happened. I doubt it's been substantially revised in the last four months. So now Ashcroft just looks vindictive and churlish, and has done real damage to the incumbent PM, the reputation of the UK abroad and his whole Party too.
Well done Michael.
Ms Snow, 49, said she refused to read the claims made by Lord Ashcroft, a Conservative peer, in a new book entitled “Call Me Dave”.
Not a great start. Hope it doesn't get worse and she says something we know to be untrue.
But she insisted Mr Cameron was never a member of a “debauched” Oxford University society that engaged in “bizarre rituals and sexual excess”.
Oops, we already know that he was, factually a member of the Bullingdon, which I'm pretty well satisfied fits that description.
But surely she goes and names the society he wasn't a member of later in the article and goes into details of events she was at so she can be fairly certain what happened at these clubs.
No, she doesn't. Not once.
Interesting, for all the words uttered or written, no retraction has been demanded yet with or without any legal threat !
In the common law of libel, the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory. I can't see that is in doubt. The burden then passes to the defendant to dig themselves out of a hole...
Since the Oakeshott piece on Newsnight, I am imagining that there has been through the night correspondence between the lawyers for Cameron and Ashcroft, Oakeshott and the Mail Group, with expressions like "malicious falsehood", "full apology", "undertaking never to repeat", "pulp all copies" and "substantial donation to a children's charity"bandied around.....
I wouldn't want to try and defend a claim brought by Cameron for malicious falsehood after what has been admitted about the lack of corroboration.
Ed Balls was a Tory at Oxford, to example, so they don't have a problem being members of seemingly un-LAbour setups.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/revealed-how-ed-balls-was-a-tory-under-thatcher-406675.html
1) It is expensive, time consuming and would bring the story into the wider publics gaze rather than it falling away in weeks
2) His time is PM is counting down, no third term means every day counts so legal action makes him a lame duck that may as well not be in office.
A press release - which is the best you can come up with - referencing "sources" is not a denial.
Why would anyone want to get involved in a denial? They would be on the Mails cover the next day.
If an untrue story was printed about me in the papers, I'd have to weigh up the hurt caused (and potential hurt in the future) against cost, the chance the case might fail, and the extra publicity the case might cause.
But at the heart of it, without legal aid I probably could not afford to do it. I could only ask for a retraction, without much hope. Even if I could afford it, I might worry that the paper/media organisation would arrange their defence in such a way as to cause me maximum hurt.
And yet, according to you, some would see my lack of action as an admission of guilt? If so, then they're little more than pathetic fools who lack any critical faculties.
If Christopher Jefferies had not sued the newspapers, would these dullards have still thought him guilty, despite the fact someone else was found guilty of the murder?
I hope you aren't quite as dull as the people you claim exist.
Of course it is not on the front page of the Nat onal, so I understand why you missed it
dəˈnīəl/
noun
the action of declaring something to be untrue.
Isn't that what No. 10 did? Ball's in your court now, Dair.
Since the Oakeshott piece on Newsnight, I am imagining that there has been through the night correspondence between the lawyers for Cameron and Ashcroft, Oakeshott and the Mail Group, with expressions like "malicious falsehood", "full apology", "undertaking never to repeat", "pulp all copies" and "substantial donation to a children's charity"bandied around.....
I wouldn't want to try and defend a claim brought by Cameron for malicious falsehood after what has been admitted about the lack of corroboration.
Quite so. I honestly wonder if we will ever see this book in the shops.
Don't get me wrong, I like his new stuff, but every now and then you want a classic...
One of the main points I am making is that the UK has no required standards of jounalism. So, in effect, anything goes subject to the potential of a defamation/libel suit which, of course, may not happen due to many reasons other than the claim being true.
In the US they do have a higher standard - fact checking. Two independent sources (not two independence piece of evidence they can be the same evidence from different source). It is still below the standard required by the court but is considered acceptable for the public interest.
As I understand it, there are very severe consequences within the industry for journalists who break these standards.
The UK has no such consequence.