Mr. Root, just watched it on Newsnight. She included a claim from a single source because it was 'repeated'. She won't say she thinks it's true, despite including it in a book she wrote.
Because she isn't reporting that it is true.
She is reporting that a Tory MP is telling dinner companions that Cameron committed porcine irrumatio.
This is actually quite an important point when the discussion is on whether or not the story should have been published.
Of course in the UK, there are no required standards of journalism. But using the higher standards of the United States (yes I know but sadly this is true), for a story to be legitimate it requires two sources.
The source can be the journalist. The source is NOT two piece of evidence - it can be the same evidence from two sources. In a co-authored piece, the co-authors can be both sources if it was seperately discovered.
So, in this example, Ashcroft could conceivably have been a dinner companion of the Tory MP and heard the claim. Then Oakshott heard it from a different companion or the Tory MP himself. That would be robust to publish (but not necessarily in court).
Because Newsnight did not question her on this, we don't actually know if it was legitimate for the story to be published. All we have is Tory backers saying exactly what you would expect Tory backers to say.
I suspect some Tories have never resigned themselves to Cameron and, despite his public persona, is a marmite personality behind the scenes and like any pol has enemies.
Said Tories had hoped that the 2015 would unseat Cameron and the could regain their influence without a shot fired.
With Ed's failure they are having to take the initiative. If so we can expect more of this and the next 5 years could be quite different to the last.
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.
Well, Telegraph reporting on someone going on the record:
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.
You haven't been paying attention.
When it came to excess the Bullingdon specialised in alcohol and damage to property.
It was the Gaveston which went in for 'bizarre rituals and sexual excess' - but as has already been pointed out, its highly unlikely someone already in the Bullingdon would bother with the Gaveston.....
According to the Times today only the prettiest and coolest got invited to the Piers Gaveston e.g. Hugh Grant in leopardskin or Nigella Lawson while the Bullingdon was more macho and 'hooray henry'. Today the Piers normally have an annual rave in a field
And in my day (late 70s) it was (generally, rich) boys who liked boys and the pretty boys they liked - neither of which would include Cameron.....
Hence the name but Cameron was there in the eighties though and there is a photo of him at a Piers party with some glamorous ladies and Hugh Grant is also pictured at a Piers do
A guest? Seem to recall some well informed poster saying that parties with all sorts of guests was the raison d’être of the Piers Gavs. Or something like that.
Just saw this FPT: "Oakeshott added: “What we have said is that this is the account that we were given and we initially dismissed it as a joke. However the source repeated it on a number of occasions so we have left people to decide for themselves whether it’s true.”"
So, if I repeatedly made a comparable claim [I won't, because I want neither myself nor the site to be subject to legal proceedings], then the mere repetition makes it worthy of inclusion in a biography?
I'm not impressed.
Any journalist who admits that they initially thought a story "was a joke", but then in the retelling of that same story by the same source without any other corroboration convince themselves it is not a joke, but is now a story of vital importance to the nation - probably doesn't deserve to call themselves a journalist.
Any posters with such close party allegances as Marquee Mark or indeed BJO are not best placed to give an unbiased comment on Call me Dave. Perhaps we should see what the YG askjng is it OK to put your penis in a dead pigs mouth reveals. Or indeed do you believe it happened!!
I don't lose my power of objectivity because I join a party.
Argue specifically against what I have said - if you think you can demonstrate my bias.
We await your extensive and on-going critique of the Conservative government with baited breath.
Maybe bated breath. I tend not to stick maggots on it...
You Conservatives, your gobs and the animal kingdom ....
I suspect some Tories have never resigned themselves to Cameron and, despite his public persona, is a marmite personality behind the scenes and like any pol has enemies.
Said Tories had hoped that the 2015 would unseat Cameron and the could regain their influence without a shot fired.
With Ed's failure they are having to take the initiative. If so we can expect more of this and the next 5 years could be quite different to the last.
Mr. 86, Cameron's got a bad choice. If he doesn't do anything about it (and apparently he has to take action within a year or let it stand) then he'll never hear the end of it. If he does take action and loses (as Mitchell did) that'd cement the claim, which appears to have no evidence (unless, like Oakeshott, you count 'repetition' as some sort of evidence) *and* make him appear deceitful. It'd end his career.
If he takes it on and wins, that's good, but keeps the claim in the media spotlight for months.
Cameron was right on Ashcroft, and Oakeshott's claim to integrity is in tatters.
Quite angry about this now, and you're right about the precedent. Are we to have claims made by a single anonymous source then plastered across the press and included in a biography, because it made the co-author laugh? She included a claim she can't even defend as true.
I saw the piece on Newsnight. Oakeshott wouldn't know what integrity was if it slapped her and that ridiculous quiff full in the face. A right nasty piece of work.
You sound like the LibDems when Oakeshott finished Chris Huhne's career.
One story was about perverting the course of justice, while an MP. On the record confirmed by the co-conspirator.
One story is about alleged extreme hijinx, while a student, by a third party who wasn't there and without any corroboration.
Mr. Dair, pish. It's a cowardly excuse for printing tosh based on what one anonymous source is claiming.
Anyway, turning to F1: Japan's a good circuit. It's also quite like Silverstone in some regards. I expect Mercedes to be back on crushing form. If they're not, then that *may* through the title up in the air (if we had a new order of speed of Ferrari - Red Bull - Mercedes that could be enough for Vettel to take the title. There's 25 points for a win and 10 for 5th. 15 points over 6 races would overturn Hamilton's 49 point lead over Vettel. However, I do not think that will happen).
Edited to correct an error with the points (had it as 12 originally).
Who is it ? The one who has notes of the meeting or the other one who is not known to get into detail.
Is it this guy?
Sensational claims that David Cameron engaged in obscene activities with a pig’s head while a student at Oxford were unravelling last night after the authors of a new biography admitted they had failed to corroborate the story.
Unravelling is perhaps overstating the case. The tin-foil hat brigade will be expecting a mysterious MI5 break-in at the home of whomever is said to possess the photograph.
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
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 !
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.
Quite so. I honestly wonder if we will ever see this book in the shops.
Can one really prevent publication? Look at the Spycatcher saga,, and we now have the internet, supply on Kindle (etc.)
You can make shops think that distributing the book is not a good idea. Of course Ashcroft might self publish on the internet.
The problem with the Spycatcher was that it was true.
The person most damaged by this is actually Corbyn.
The left have confirmed in the last 36 hours a leader's past is fair game.
Nah.
Whatever is thrown up will get the response "well at least he didn't f**K a pig". This will then lead to a discussion why the accusation is more serious than f**king a pig. As soon as that happens the accuser has lost the argument by default.
Hate to say this, I really do, but Dair is correct.
Firstly, the book, from what has been extracted, is mostly mush drawn from uncorrobotated sources. However, I think that it has been written in a code that the insiders know and understand. Ashcroft seems to have the ability to get back up by his sources if it goes to court and seems to be waiting to be sued.
Secondly, Cameron has not as yet, personally, denied the stories. Getting secondary or third away levels to try and rubbish the stories will not work.
I also understand that Cameron is in South Africa, why? Osborne is in China busy getting a new nuclear power station. Very good timing from both when the brown stuff encounters the air circulating system and straight out of the Yes Prime minister script book. It looks like they knew what was coming and that it's happening at the same time as the LibDem conference is just a lucky coincidence.
The one big danger that I can see by reading the comments on this and previous threads, is the assumption that "everyone" knows what goes on at the highest levels of our society and accept it. They don't care if they don't "know" about it, but when it is brought out in the open, they remember their being stopped having similar fun and games, or, the interactions with the authorities if they, the members of their families and friends broke the rules. It enforces the perception of them and us.
The person most damaged by this is actually Corbyn.
The left have confirmed in the last 36 hours a leader's past is fair game.
Nah.
Whatever is thrown up will get the response "well at least he didn't f**K a pig". This will then lead to a discussion why the accusation is more serious than f**king a pig. As soon as that happens the accuser has lost the argument by default.
Mr. Root, just watched it on Newsnight. She included a claim from a single source because it was 'repeated'. She won't say she thinks it's true, despite including it in a book she wrote.
Because she isn't reporting that it is true.
She is reporting that a Tory MP is telling dinner companions that Cameron committed porcine irrumatio.
This is actually quite an important point when the discussion is on whether or not the story should have been published.
Of course in the UK, there are no required standards of journalism. But using the higher standards of the United States (yes I know but sadly this is true), for a story to be legitimate it requires two sources.
The source can be the journalist. The source is NOT two piece of evidence - it can be the same evidence from two sources. In a co-authored piece, the co-authors can be both sources if it was seperately discovered.
So, in this example, Ashcroft could conceivably have been a dinner companion of the Tory MP and heard the claim. Then Oakshott heard it from a different companion or the Tory MP himself. That would be robust to publish (but not necessarily in court).
Because Newsnight did not question her on this, we don't actually know if it was legitimate for the story to be published. All we have is Tory backers saying exactly what you would expect Tory backers to say.
Different US newspapers have different standards and there are different ones again for online publications. The National Enquirer's approach is not the same as the New York Times's, which differs from the New York Post, which differs from the Drudge Report. It's basically the same as here. And, as here, each paper will regularly break its own rules.
Just saw this FPT: "Oakeshott added: “What we have said is that this is the account that we were given and we initially dismissed it as a joke. However the source repeated it on a number of occasions so we have left people to decide for themselves whether it’s true.”"
So, if I repeatedly made a comparable claim [I won't, because I want neither myself nor the site to be subject to legal proceedings], then the mere repetition makes it worthy of inclusion in a biography?
I'm not impressed.
Any journalist who admits that they initially thought a story "was a joke", but then in the retelling of that same story by the same source without any other corroboration convince themselves it is not a joke, but is now a story of vital importance to the nation - probably doesn't deserve to call themselves a journalist.
Any posters with such close party allegances as Marquee Mark or indeed BJO are not best placed to give an unbiased comment on Call me Dave. Perhaps we should see what the YG askjng is it OK to put your penis in a dead pigs mouth reveals. Or indeed do you believe it happened!!
I've always had a high opinion of Isabel's stuff - but she's given journalistic cover to Ashcroft and sullied her own good reputation with his revenge fest.
I'll be more circumspect about believing her stuff in future. A great pity. And I can imagine that a lot of politicos won't give her intv/snippets for quite a while.
Just saw this FPT: "Oakeshott added: “What we have said is that this is the account that we were given and we initially dismissed it as a joke. However the source repeated it on a number of occasions so we have left people to decide for themselves whether it’s true.”"
So, if I repeatedly made a comparable claim [I won't, because I want neither myself nor the site to be subject to legal proceedings], then the mere repetition makes it worthy of inclusion in a biography?
It is amusing to see this pig stuff reported around the web, as you'll see mention of things like 'photographic evidence reportedly exists' which makes it sound pretty strong, when as Scott has pointed out the only reason it appears to have been included is someone mentioned it multiple times. The only reason I could believe it is people defending I as no big deal if it was true.
On the non Dom status, evidence of a clear lie could be damaging, but donations from billionaires are already dodgy in the public eye and Ashcroft is clearly out to get Cameron, so unless he's got better proof than his own notes it will verve liked by more lurid claims,
Just saw this FPT: "Oakeshott added: “What we have said is that this is the account that we were given and we initially dismissed it as a joke. However the source repeated it on a number of occasions so we have left people to decide for themselves whether it’s true.”"
So, if I repeatedly made a comparable claim [I won't, because I want neither myself nor the site to be subject to legal proceedings], then the mere repetition makes it worthy of inclusion in a biography?
I'm not impressed.
I think Cameron has an obligation to take them to court to protect the integrity of the position of PM. If Cameron allows them to publish this stuff without consequence then who's to say what could be done to a future PM of any party. I wouldn't want us to go down the route of France but we need to have some standards.
(snip) I also understand that Cameron is in South Africa, why? Osborne is in China busy getting a new nuclear power station. Very good timing from both when the brown stuff encounters the air circulating system and straight out of the Yes Prime minister script book. It looks like they knew what was coming and that it's happening at the same time as the LibDem conference is just a lucky coincidence. (snip)
That conspiracy theory suggests that they had long-standing prior knowledge that the story was coming out. Much more likely that Ashcroft and the Mail timed it like this: after the Labour leadership election and before the important party conferences (sorry, Lib Dems!) that might drown out the story.
If you want to make such claims really difficult for the target, it'd be good to time it for when they're out of the country. They have less access to advisers and the media, and it evidently looks to some as if they are running.
If you have evidence that these trips are hastily-planned affairs you might start to have a point. But this is a good time for such foreign trips as parliament is not ssitting.
Just saw this FPT: "Oakeshott added: “What we have said is that this is the account that we were given and we initially dismissed it as a joke. However the source repeated it on a number of occasions so we have left people to decide for themselves whether it’s true.”"
So, if I repeatedly made a comparable claim [I won't, because I want neither myself nor the site to be subject to legal proceedings], then the mere repetition makes it worthy of inclusion in a biography?
I'm not impressed.
I think Cameron has an obligation to take them to court to protect the integrity of the position of PM. If Cameron allows them to publish this stuff without consequence then who's to say what could be done to a future PM of any party. I wouldn't want us to go down the route of France but we need to have some standards.
I'm certain John Major launched proceedings against The New Statesman and others over allegations he was having an affair.
A few months back we had a series of posts based on a leaked CQC report on the failure of the privatised Hinchinbrooke Hospital.
It's a shame that the same poster does not have the moral fibre to comment on the massive failures at the neighbouring Addenbrookes NHS-run trust, which is headline news today after the full CQC report was released.
But I guess nationalised failures are fine, whilst privatised ones are evil? I guess that explains Stafford ...
You might as easily say it proves Labour Health Secretaries who weren't actually Health Secretary at the time are unfit to lead their party, whereas Conservative Health Secretaries are teflon-coated.
The person most damaged by this is actually Corbyn.
The left have confirmed in the last 36 hours a leader's past is fair game.
Because 36 hours ago the right believed it was off limits. ;-D
I'm still of the view that in general the pre politically active period of a politicians life period it's irrelevant, though it could be amusing juxtaposed against how different they are now. If it was 30 years ago and they are the same now rpthen politics from the past is relevant. Personal stuff needs to be really significant to justify it - I'd say for instance Corbyn had sex with someone 30 years ago with whom he has remained a close friend and colleague is either irrelevant or a positive.
I'm criticising Oakeshott for committing shoddy journalism as part of another's vendetta project. Disliking something doesn't mean I necessarily want it banned, or for the state to have greater powers.
Indeed, this idea that some espouse that everything must be banned or mandatory is something I despise. It's entirely possible to disapprove wholeheartedly of something without wanting it to be verboten.
Thinking in the round of the whole book etc the inclusion of this pig story has probably immunised Cameron from the rest of the allegations the book includes (unless something even more extreme goes viral) in a reverse example of the so-called 'dead cat strategy' of Fallon during the election.
This pig story is the 'dead cat'. It is all that is being talked about. It is also both completely silly, completely irrelevant and likely completely untrue. Had this not been there and the Mail had led on the armed forces issue or something else related to the office of being PM that could have been much more damaging.
Just saw this FPT: "Oakeshott added: “What we have said is that this is the account that we were given and we initially dismissed it as a joke. However the source repeated it on a number of occasions so we have left people to decide for themselves whether it’s true.”"
So, if I repeatedly made a comparable claim [I won't, because I want neither myself nor the site to be subject to legal proceedings], then the mere repetition makes it worthy of inclusion in a biography?
I'm not impressed.
I think Cameron has an obligation to take them to court to protect the integrity of the position of PM. If Cameron allows them to publish this stuff without consequence then who's to say what could be done to a future PM of any party. I wouldn't want us to go down the route of France but we need to have some standards.
I'm certain John Major launched proceedings against The New Statesman and others over allegations he was having an affair.
So not much of a reflection on Cameron's innocence if he sues then...
So just to clear this up, Labour people smear Corbyn and it proves he's useless and dividing the party. The same happens to Cameron and the dissenters should be ashamed of themselves.
So far I think Cameron is embarrassed rather than seriously damaged by all this, even if we assume it's all true. The allegations fall into two quite separate categories. The pig and the pot-smoking will make more old-fashioned Tory voters (who are rarer than they used to be) wrinkle their noses, while sophisticates and most politicians (who largely overlap) will think them more amusing than horrifying. The non-dom issue and the Libyan advice are far more serious but will get no traction outside Westminster.
Libya matters since it's clearly turned out badly, and that's relevant when we discuss Syria. (What is the military advice now?) The non-dom question is the potential nasty one, though, as it was discussed in such detail that the possibility that Cameron slipped up by accident is slim. I don't think he can afford to be thought to have deliberately lied, even outside Westminster, and he'd probably prefer that we were discussing pigs.
A few months back we had a series of posts based on a leaked CQC report on the failure of the privatised Hinchinbrooke Hospital.
It's a shame that the same poster does not have the moral fibre to comment on the massive failures at the neighbouring Addenbrookes NHS-run trust, which is headline news today after the full CQC report was released.
But I guess nationalised failures are fine, whilst privatised ones are evil? I guess that explains Stafford ...
You might as easily say it proves Labour Health Secretaries who weren't actually Health Secretary at the time are unfit to lead their party, whereas Conservative Health Secretaries are teflon-coated.
I've never (and would not) say that. And you miss the point that Burnham was in the health department at the time:
But my biggest criticisms of him are: *) He set up a closed inquiry that even the chair said was inadequate, and did not get to the truth; *) The way he says he regrets the public inquiry that did get to the truth as it hurt the trust's reputation. Because a trust's reputation is more important that patients' health.
Mr. Dair, pish. It's a cowardly excuse for printing tosh based on what one anonymous source is claiming.
I think we call it freedom of the press.
Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, people published far more salacious material about politicians, but it did them no harm - may even have enhanced their reputation.
Isabel Oakshott. 1. Loses links with the Lib Dems after the Huhne episode. 2. Regarded as persona non grata by the Cameron and Osborne folk in the Conservative party.
Which leaves her one choice. Only write about Labour in the future. Unemployable as a political editor except for Mirror, People, Guardian/Observer and Independent.
Mr. Root, just watched it on Newsnight. She included a claim from a single source because it was 'repeated'. She won't say she thinks it's true, despite including it in a book she wrote.
Because she isn't reporting that it is true.
She is reporting that a Tory MP is telling dinner companions that Cameron committed porcine irrumatio.
This is actually quite an important point when the discussion is on whether or not the story should have been published.
Of course in the UK, there are no required standards of journalism. But using the higher standards of the United States (yes I know but sadly this is true), for a story to be legitimate it requires two sources.
The source can be the journalist. The source is NOT two piece of evidence - it can be the same evidence from two sources. In a co-authored piece, the co-authors can be both sources if it was seperately discovered.
So, in this example, Ashcroft could conceivably have been a dinner companion of the Tory MP and heard the claim. Then Oakshott heard it from a different companion or the Tory MP himself. That would be robust to publish (but not necessarily in court).
Because Newsnight did not question her on this, we don't actually know if it was legitimate for the story to be published. All we have is Tory backers saying exactly what you would expect Tory backers to say.
Different US newspapers have different standards and there are different ones again for online publications. The National Enquirer's approach is not the same as the New York Times's, which differs from the New York Post, which differs from the Drudge Report. It's basically the same as here. And, as here, each paper will regularly break its own rules.
I would say the National Enquirer has much higher standards than the New York Times mainly because of the threat of being sued. My wife's friend was interviewed once for a NE story and they apparently wanted all manner of proof.
So just to clear this up, Labour people smear Corbyn and it proves he's useless and dividing the party. The same happens to Cameron and the dissenters should be ashamed of themselves.
The allegations regarding Corbyn were based on the record quotes on video of Corbyn and his political beliefs. This allegation regarding Cameron is an uncorroborated story the publisher didn't believe or see evidence for regarding alleged university hijinx.
So just to clear this up, Labour people smear Corbyn and it proves he's useless and dividing the party. The same happens to Cameron and the dissenters should be ashamed of themselves.
What smears has Corbyn faced? Plenty of negative spin on things he's said and done, but most of the stuff there's proof he said the things accused of, even if it is spun. And are they about how he's a pervert, as it's the Cameron stuff?
Plenty of Tories joined in the bacon gags in the past few days, it's all good fun.
..... I'm criticising Oakeshott for committing shoddy journalism as part of another's vendetta project. Disliking something doesn't mean I necessarily want it banned, or for the state to have greater powers.... .
This is her second vendetta project. Remember Huhne?
Mr. Root, just watched it on Newsnight. She included a claim from a single source because it was 'repeated'. She won't say she thinks it's true, despite including it in a book she wrote.
Because she isn't reporting that it is true.
She is reporting that a Tory MP is telling dinner companions that Cameron committed porcine irrumatio.
This is actually quite an important point when the discussion is on whether or not the story should have been published.
Of course in the UK, there are no required standards of journalism. But using the higher standards of the United States (yes I know but sadly this is true), for a story to be legitimate it requires two sources.
The source can be the journalist. The source is NOT two piece of evidence - it can be the same evidence from two sources. In a co-authored piece, the co-authors can be both sources if it was seperately discovered.
So, in this example, Ashcroft could conceivably have been a dinner companion of the Tory MP and heard the claim. Then Oakshott heard it from a different companion or the Tory MP himself. That would be robust to publish (but not necessarily in court).
Because Newsnight did not question her on this, we don't actually know if it was legitimate for the story to be published. All we have is Tory backers saying exactly what you would expect Tory backers to say.
Different US newspapers have different standards and there are different ones again for online publications. The National Enquirer's approach is not the same as the New York Times's, which differs from the New York Post, which differs from the Drudge Report. It's basically the same as here. And, as here, each paper will regularly break its own rules.
I would say the National Enquirer has much higher standards than the New York Times mainly because of the threat of being sued. My wife's friend was interviewed once for a NE story and they apparently wanted all manner of proof.
Isabel Oakshott. 1. Loses links with the Lib Dems after the Huhne episode. 2. Regarded as persona non grata by the Cameron and Osborne folk in the Conservative party.
Which leaves her one choice. Only write about Labour in the future. Unemployable as a political editor except for Mirror, People, Guardian/Observer and Independent.
The difference is that the Huhne episode was a case of criminality by an MP while an MP. It was a genuine political investigation and major scalp.
Mr. Root, just watched it on Newsnight. She included a claim from a single source because it was 'repeated'. She won't say she thinks it's true, despite including it in a book she wrote.
Because she isn't reporting that it is true.
She is reporting that a Tory MP is telling dinner companions that Cameron committed porcine irrumatio.
This is actually quite an important point when the discussion is on whether or not the story should have been published.
Of course in the UK, there are no required standards of journalism. But using the higher standards of the United States (yes I know but sadly this is true), for a story to be legitimate it requires two sources.
The source can be the journalist. The source is NOT two piece of evidence - it can be the same evidence from two sources. In a co-authored piece, the co-authors can be both sources if it was seperately discovered.
So, in this example, Ashcroft could conceivably have been a dinner companion of the Tory MP and heard the claim. Then Oakshott heard it from a different companion or the Tory MP himself. That would be robust to publish (but not necessarily in court).
Because Newsnight did not question her on this, we don't actually know if it was legitimate for the story to be published. All we have is Tory backers saying exactly what you would expect Tory backers to say.
Different US newspapers have different standards and there are different ones again for online publications. The National Enquirer's approach is not the same as the New York Times's, which differs from the New York Post, which differs from the Drudge Report. It's basically the same as here. And, as here, each paper will regularly break its own rules.
I would say the National Enquirer has much higher standards than the New York Times mainly because of the threat of being sued. My wife's friend was interviewed once for a NE story and they apparently wanted all manner of proof.
Just saw this FPT: "Oakeshott added: “What we have said is that this is the account that we were given and we initially dismissed it as a joke. However the source repeated it on a number of occasions so we have left people to decide for themselves whether it’s true.”"
So, if I repeatedly made a comparable claim [I won't, because I want neither myself nor the site to be subject to legal proceedings], then the mere repetition makes it worthy of inclusion in a biography?
I'm not impressed.
I think Cameron has an obligation to take them to court to protect the integrity of the position of PM. If Cameron allows them to publish this stuff without consequence then who's to say what could be done to a future PM of any party. I wouldn't want us to go down the route of France but we need to have some standards.
I'm certain John Major launched proceedings against The New Statesman and others over allegations he was having an affair.
So not much of a reflection on Cameron's innocence if he sues then...
So just to clear this up, Labour people smear Corbyn and it proves he's useless and dividing the party. The same happens to Cameron and the dissenters should be ashamed of themselves.
What smears has Corbyn faced? Plenty of negative spin on things he's said and done, but most of the stuff there's proof he said the things accused of, even if it is spun. And are they about how he's a pervert, as it's the Cameron stuff?
Plenty of Tories joined in the bacon gags in the past few days, it's all good fun.
Smears, negative spin, all the same.
I can't stick Corbyn but he's been fair game for weeks, now the tories that were dishing it out are whining like little girls.
I'm criticising Oakeshott for committing shoddy journalism as part of another's vendetta project. Disliking something doesn't mean I necessarily want it banned, or for the state to have greater powers.
Indeed, this idea that some espouse that everything must be banned or mandatory is something I despise. It's entirely possible to disapprove wholeheartedly of something without wanting it to be verboten.
Yes - just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Isabel Oakshott. 1. Loses links with the Lib Dems after the Huhne episode. 2. Regarded as persona non grata by the Cameron and Osborne folk in the Conservative party.
Which leaves her one choice. Only write about Labour in the future. Unemployable as a political editor except for Mirror, People, Guardian/Observer and Independent.
The difference is that the Huhne episode was a case of criminality by an MP while an MP. It was a genuine political investigation and major scalp.
I'm criticising Oakeshott for committing shoddy journalism as part of another's vendetta project. Disliking something doesn't mean I necessarily want it banned, or for the state to have greater powers.
Indeed, this idea that some espouse that everything must be banned or mandatory is something I despise. It's entirely possible to disapprove wholeheartedly of something without wanting it to be verboten.
You seem to be confusing yourself.
Do you agree or not that this material should published?
Mr. Dair, pish. It's a cowardly excuse for printing tosh based on what one anonymous source is claiming.
I think we call it freedom of the press.
Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, people published far more salacious material about politicians, but it did them no harm - may even have enhanced their reputation.
Quite so Sean.
I doubt these revelations will have any long term effect on the fortunes of the government. Broadly speaking the wider public understand that the young do young and foolish things. Twas ever thus.
Just saw this FPT: "Oakeshott added: “What we have said is that this is the account that we were given and we initially dismissed it as a joke. However the source repeated it on a number of occasions so we have left people to decide for themselves whether it’s true.”"
So, if I repeatedly made a comparable claim [I won't, because I want neither myself nor the site to be subject to legal proceedings], then the mere repetition makes it worthy of inclusion in a biography?
I'm not impressed.
Any journalist who admits that they initially thought a story "was a joke", but then in the retelling of that same story by the same source without any other corroboration convince themselves it is not a joke, but is now a story of vital importance to the nation - probably doesn't deserve to call themselves a journalist.
It is probably two or three lines in a 500-page book. A throwaway anecdote no reader would have noticed had the Daily Mail not splashed it.
What kind of books do you read that the subject of the book being said to put his penis into a dead pig's mouth is no big deal that you wouldn't even notice when you read it?
The sort where the PM was in the Bullingdon and has been cannabis-adjacent, and the Chancellor has been photographed sitting next to a lady typist in front of a week's worth of Colombian marching powder. By and large, people don't care. Piggate is news because it is funny, not because it is outrageous.
So just to clear this up, Labour people smear Corbyn and it proves he's useless and dividing the party. The same happens to Cameron and the dissenters should be ashamed of themselves.
What smears has Corbyn faced? Plenty of negative spin on things he's said and done, but most of the stuff there's proof he said the things accused of, even if it is spun. And are they about how he's a pervert, as it's the Cameron stuff?
Plenty of Tories joined in the bacon gags in the past few days, it's all good fun.
Smears, negative spin, all the same.
I can't stick Corbyn but he's been fair game for weeks, now the tories that were dishing it out are whining like little girls.
Who are these PB tories that are whining about this? I am a classic Liberal Conservative who is not moaning about it. Please name them.
So just to clear this up, Labour people smear Corbyn and it proves he's useless and dividing the party. The same happens to Cameron and the dissenters should be ashamed of themselves.
What smears has Corbyn faced? Plenty of negative spin on things he's said and done, but most of the stuff there's proof he said the things accused of, even if it is spun. And are they about how he's a pervert, as it's the Cameron stuff?
Plenty of Tories joined in the bacon gags in the past few days, it's all good fun.
As we discover what a weak and feeble individual we have as Prime Minister-prepared to do literally aything to keep in with the in-crowd George's stock has been rising.
Apart from Corbyn I can't think of a politician who has undergone a greater transformation. From squeaky schoolboy to the power behind the throne.
And thank God for him!
Even his opponents must be glad he's there to give some authority to this tawdry leadership.
I'd say he's a certainty to take over from Cameron and I wouldn't expect he'll have to wait too long.
How desperate Ashcroft,Oakeshott and Dair must be.. In their amateurish effort g to discredit Cameron they have abandoned all the principles of good journalism, made themselves look foolish and in Oakeshotts case.,probably ruined her career. Ashcroft has also committed the cardinal sin of all ..being shunned by the Establishment he craves to be a part of and also by the social circle he moves in He is now deemed to be totally untrustworthy
As we discover what a weak and feeble individual we have as Prime Minister-prepared to do literally aything to keep in with the in-crowd George's stock has been rising.
Apart from Corbyn I can't think of a politician who has undergone a greater transformation. From squeaky schoolboy to the power behind the throne.
And thank God for him!
Even his opponents must be glad he's there to give some authority to this tawdry leadership.
I'd say he's a certainty to take over from Cameron and I wouldn't expect he'll have to wait too long.
I'm saying people (and the press) have the right to say and do things, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of them and (if I don't) that doesn't mean I want them banned.
I would not include in a biography the uncorroborated claims of a single source, without evidence, that even the author will not claim is true.
So just to clear this up, Labour people smear Corbyn and it proves he's useless and dividing the party. The same happens to Cameron and the dissenters should be ashamed of themselves.
What smears has Corbyn faced? Plenty of negative spin on things he's said and done, but most of the stuff there's proof he said the things accused of, even if it is spun. And are they about how he's a pervert, as it's the Cameron stuff?
Plenty of Tories joined in the bacon gags in the past few days, it's all good fun.
Smears, negative spin, all the same.
I can't stick Corbyn but he's been fair game for weeks, now the tories that were dishing it out are whining like little girls.
Who are these PB tories that are whining about this? I am a classic Liberal Conservative who is not moaning about it. Please name them.
Have a read through and decide for yourself, I'm not getting into personal rows I'm too busy enjoying myself at Cameron's expense.
So just to clear this up, Labour people smear Corbyn and it proves he's useless and dividing the party. The same happens to Cameron and the dissenters should be ashamed of themselves.
What smears has Corbyn faced? Plenty of negative spin on things he's said and done, but most of the stuff there's proof he said the things accused of, even if it is spun. And are they about how he's a pervert, as it's the Cameron stuff?
Plenty of Tories joined in the bacon gags in the past few days, it's all good fun.
Smears, negative spin, all the same.
I can't stick Corbyn but he's been fair game for weeks, now the tories that were dishing it out are whining like little girls.
I've defended Corbyn, but your logic is unreasonable - putting negative spin, negative interpretation and context, on an actual provable statement or event on political matters, is not in any way, shape or form equivalent to an unsubstantiated sensational and highly personal accusation.
Have some stories on Corbyn crossed the line? I'd say yes. Has there been a barrage of negativity toward him? Yes. Is it fair game for a Tory to face the same pressure? Yes.
But that does not make a comparison to, potentially, misrepresenting the meaning of actual words on a political matter which it is proven Corbyn said, to a claim some bloke said 3 times Cameron out his penis in a pig, and that's the only thing presented as proof, as the same.
I am not one who thinks the pig thing is no big deal if it's true - apparently I'm a prude - and I'm all for holding ll sides to the same standards, but sometimes things are not in fact equivalents, and that it is an absurd way to generalise to treat all negative stories as the same, when some are more reasonable, or vicious, than others, they still need to be individually judged.
How desperate Ashcroft,Oakeshott and Dair must be.. In their amateurish effort g to discredit Cameron they have abandoned all the principles of good journalism, made themselves look foolish and in Oakeshotts case.,probably ruined her career. Ashcroft has also committed the cardinal sin of all ..being shunned by the Establishment he craves to be a part of and also by the social circle he moves in He is now deemed to be totally untrustworthy
Oakeshott's ruined her career? She's sold an awful lot of newspapers, which might count for a lot in Fleet Street. Some Cameron loyalists will shun her? His enemies won't, and Cameron will have retired in the next year or two.
I'm saying people (and the press) have the right to say and do things, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of them and (if I don't) that doesn't mean I want them banned.
I would not include in a biography the uncorroborated claims of a single source, without evidence, that even the author will not claim is true.
Surely it is standard form in a biography to include apparently verbatim conversations of which there is no record, and to speculate on motivations of people the author never met?
I've a strong feeling that this set of stories will be long forgotten by the time anyone really concentrates on the next Tory leader and hence will have no or minimal effect on the race. And as Mike says, there is a very good chance that the next leader may not even be in the frame currently.
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.
I cannot see the non-Dom business being significant. It is simply too obscure to gain real traction.
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.
It merely confirms what everybody already knows, these rich toffs help their chums avoid tax where they can and get help in return. It was always thus, they try to keep as much of the loot in their small circle as possible. Everyone knows they are lying conniving cheating nomarks.
Mr kle, I care not if Cameron put his todger in a pig, I care even less if he snorted cocaine, I also don't care if Corbyn had it off with Abbott or smoked cannabis. What I'm enjoying is the whining double standards of tories who are now trying to differentiate between smearing, negative spin, misrepresentation etc etc.
Dry your eyes darlings, Soames and others are joining in the bun fight, the human shield that was Clegg has been removed, let's see what Dave is made of.
I've a strong feeling that this set of stories will be long forgotten by the time anyone really concentrates on the next Tory leader and hence will have no or minimal effect on the race. And as Mike says, there is a very good chance that the next leader may not even be in the frame currently.
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.
I cannot see the non-Dom business being significant. It is simply too obscure to gain real traction.
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.
It merely confirms what everybody already knows, these rich toffs help their chums avoid tax where they can and get help in return. It was always thus, they try to keep as much of the loot in their small circle as possible. Everyone knows they are lying conniving cheating nomarks.
Hmm it's not just Tories who avoid tax you know.. Ed Miliband, Blair, Benn , The Guardian.. etc..
I've a strong feeling that this set of stories will be long forgotten by the time anyone really concentrates on the next Tory leader and hence will have no or minimal effect on the race. And as Mike says, there is a very good chance that the next leader may not even be in the frame currently.
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.
I cannot see the non-Dom business being significant. It is simply too obscure to gain real traction.
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.
It merely confirms what everybody already knows, these rich toffs help their chums evade tax where they can and get help in return. It was always thus, they try to keep as much of the loot in their small circle as possible. Everyone knows they are lying conniving cheating nomarks.
Hmm it's not just Tories who avoid tax you know.. Ed Miliband, Blair, Benn , The Guardian.. etc..
People who don't try and avoid tax are complete idiots
Mr kle, I care not if Cameron put his todger in a pig, I care even less if he snorted cocaine, I also don't care if Corbyn had it off with Abbott or smoked cannabis. What I'm enjoying is the whining double standards of tories who are now trying to differentiate between smearing, negative spin, misrepresentation etc etc.
Dry your eyes darlings, Soames and others are joining in the bun fight, the human shield that was Clegg has been removed, let's see what Dave is made of.
And I'm enjoying your insistence there no difference between such things, because there is and it can be significant - label things as smears which are basically true but misrepresentations, and many people will consider the actual smears to be the same, that is, basically true.
That tactic makes it easy on politicians to avoid having to show what they are made of, as they can lump the more credible and complex accusations in with the ludicrous smears, and itis frankly hilarious to me you seem to think they would be more inconvenienced, not less, by labelling every negative attack as a smear.
And as has been pointed out, people can think that still have been having fun with all this. It is not some either or situation where one can not have a sense of humour on it without also being devoid of nuance and specificity on another point.
I'm saying people (and the press) have the right to say and do things, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of them and (if I don't) that doesn't mean I want them banned.
I would not include in a biography the uncorroborated claims of a single source, without evidence, that even the author will not claim is true.
Many biographies would be mighty thin reading.
Some Conservatives need to reflect on these revelations and the freedom of expression that rightly allows them in our democracy.
PB Tories had great fun over much of Corbyn's youthful dalliances. Sauce, goose and gander spring to mind.
Just saw this FPT: "Oakeshott added: “What we have said is that this is the account that we were given and we initially dismissed it as a joke. However the source repeated it on a number of occasions so we have left people to decide for themselves whether it’s true.”"
So, if I repeatedly made a comparable claim [I won't, because I want neither myself nor the site to be subject to legal proceedings], then the mere repetition makes it worthy of inclusion in a biography?
I'm not impressed.
Any journalist who admits that they initially thought a story "was a joke", but then in the retelling of that same story by the same source without any other corroboration convince themselves it is not a joke, but is now a story of vital importance to the nation - probably doesn't deserve to call themselves a journalist.
It is probably two or three lines in a 500-page book. A throwaway anecdote no reader would have noticed had the Daily Mail not splashed it.
What kind of books do you read that the subject of the book being said to put his penis into a dead pig's mouth is no big deal that you wouldn't even notice when you read it?
The sort where the PM was in the Bullingdon and has been cannabis-adjacent, and the Chancellor has been photographed sitting next to a lady typist in front of a week's worth of Colombian marching powder. By and large, people don't care. Piggate is news because it is funny, not because it is outrageous.
I'd be surprised by anyone who's been to university who has not been cannabis-adjacent.
I'm saying people (and the press) have the right to say and do things, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of them and (if I don't) that doesn't mean I want them banned.
I would not include in a biography the uncorroborated claims of a single source, without evidence, that even the author will not claim is true.
Many biographies would be mighty thin reading.
Some Conservatives need to reflect on these revelations and the freedom of expression that rightly allows them in our democracy.
PB Tories had great fun over much of Corbyn's youthful dalliances. Sauce, goose and gander spring to mind.
Corbyn's youthful dalliances were established as being true. If there is a corroborated source for the pig thing, then it's completely legitimate to publish it. But it seems like this entire story is based on one person's dinner party tale, possibly while drunk, possibly embellished, and possibly fabricated to titillate. It certainly wouldn't be the first dinner party tale to do so.
I would have thought there is grounds for libel here, but I'd like to hear from PB's lawyers. Even if there is not, clearly the standard journalistic benchmarks have now been followed, and the journalist involved is now desperately trying to downplay the story because she knows she can not back it up.
I've a strong feeling that this set of stories will be long forgotten by the time anyone really concentrates on the next Tory leader and hence will have no or minimal effect on the race. And as Mike says, there is a very good chance that the next leader may not even be in the frame currently.
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.
I cannot see the non-Dom business being significant. It is simply too obscure to gain real traction.
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.
It merely confirms what everybody already knows, these rich toffs help their chums evade tax where they can and get help in return. It was always thus, they try to keep as much of the loot in their small circle as possible. Everyone knows they are lying conniving cheating nomarks.
Hmm it's not just Tories who avoid tax you know.. Ed Miliband, Blair, Benn , The Guardian.. etc..
People who don't try and avoid tax are complete idiots
A friend, just embarking on a life of thrusting entrepreneurialism, recently took his first year's receipts to an accountant who expressed shock that my friend was not trying to hide anything.
Mr kle you are complicating a very simple situation. An influential Conservative has stuck a knife into the back of the PM, others including conservatives have seized the opportunity to pile in. I don't care if its smears, spin, half truths, whatever, its great to watch after months of arrogant gloating from conservatives.
How desperate Ashcroft,Oakeshott and Dair must be.. In their amateurish effort g to discredit Cameron they have abandoned all the principles of good journalism, made themselves look foolish and in Oakeshotts case.,probably ruined her career. Ashcroft has also committed the cardinal sin of all ..being shunned by the Establishment he craves to be a part of and also by the social circle he moves in He is now deemed to be totally untrustworthy
Ashcroft thinks his money can buy respect. He is wrong.
True stories such as Corbyn's words regarding Hamas and Bin Laden's death are fair game. As is Dave's time at Oxford, or trips to South Africa - there are plenty enough on both leaders to present each as they are.
The story regarding Corbyn giving £45 to the apparent IRA man on the run and Dave's student hi-jinks sticking his todger in a pig's head are both thinly evidenced (from what I can tell) and probably false. Both do however play into lazy stereotypes surrounding the leaders and could concievably be true thus have been printed by the media as they help sell papers.
The libel laws in this country are not a test of law, but of wealth sadly - and thus as others have pointed out the biggest wad wins.
Anyway, tawdry as stories surrounding leaders can be - it is a price of a free press.
How desperate Ashcroft,Oakeshott and Dair must be.. In their amateurish effort g to discredit Cameron they have abandoned all the principles of good journalism, made themselves look foolish and in Oakeshotts case.,probably ruined her career. Ashcroft has also committed the cardinal sin of all ..being shunned by the Establishment he craves to be a part of and also by the social circle he moves in He is now deemed to be totally untrustworthy
Oakeshott's ruined her career? She's sold an awful lot of newspapers, which might count for a lot in Fleet Street. Some Cameron loyalists will shun her? His enemies won't, and Cameron will have retired in the next year or two.
I imagine that mainstream politicians will shun her as they now know she is one of those not-to-be-trusted journalists that just prints whatever they come across without verification. But you're right, she could continue as the in-house journalist for the partisan Labour supporters that don't care about integrity as long as the Tories have been attacked. Thankfully for her, such types are now running the Labour party.
I'm saying people (and the press) have the right to say and do things, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of them and (if I don't) that doesn't mean I want them banned.
I would not include in a biography the uncorroborated claims of a single source, without evidence, that even the author will not claim is true.
Many biographies would be mighty thin reading.
Some Conservatives need to reflect on these revelations and the freedom of expression that rightly allows them in our democracy.
PB Tories had great fun over much of Corbyn's youthful dalliances. Sauce, goose and gander spring to mind.
Corbyn's youthful dalliances were established as being true. If there is a corroborated source for the pig thing, then it's completely legitimate to publish it. But it seems like this entire story is based on one person's dinner party tale, possibly while drunk, possibly embellished, and possibly fabricated to titillate. It certainly wouldn't be the first dinner party tale to do so.
I would have thought there is grounds for libel here, but I'd like to hear from PB's lawyers. Even if there is not, clearly the standard journalistic benchmarks have now been followed, and the journalist involved is now desperately trying to downplay the story because she knows she can not back it up.
If boils down to money. Billionaire Ashcroft can afford to run up 7 figure legal costs and not blink if he loses, Cameron can't.
A shunned Oakshit will have time on her hands now. Perhaps she should spend a couple of years digging about in Ashcroft's past.
Yes must be horrendous for the author of a new book for it to be all over the front pages, the headline if every news bulletin and dominating every blog
(snip) I also understand that Cameron is in South Africa, why? Osborne is in China busy getting a new nuclear power station. Very good timing from both when the brown stuff encounters the air circulating system and straight out of the Yes Prime minister script book. It looks like they knew what was coming and that it's happening at the same time as the LibDem conference is just a lucky coincidence. (snip)
That conspiracy theory suggests that they had long-standing prior knowledge that the story was coming out. Much more likely that Ashcroft and the Mail timed it like this: after the Labour leadership election and before the important party conferences (sorry, Lib Dems!) that might drown out the story.
If you want to make such claims really difficult for the target, it'd be good to time it for when they're out of the country. They have less access to advisers and the media, and it evidently looks to some as if they are running.
If you have evidence that these trips are hastily-planned affairs you might start to have a point. But this is a good time for such foreign trips as parliament is not ssitting.
I think my point was that most of the cogniti on this site know that the visits are planned well in advance and to have the 2 most important members r of the Government a few thousand miles away seems rather interesting (by the way, who is left in charge?) and just what is Cameron doing in SA?
How desperate Ashcroft,Oakeshott and Dair must be.. In their amateurish effort g to discredit Cameron they have abandoned all the principles of good journalism, made themselves look foolish and in Oakeshotts case.,probably ruined her career. Ashcroft has also committed the cardinal sin of all ..being shunned by the Establishment he craves to be a part of and also by the social circle he moves in He is now deemed to be totally untrustworthy
Oakeshott's ruined her career? She's sold an awful lot of newspapers, which might count for a lot in Fleet Street. Some Cameron loyalists will shun her? His enemies won't, and Cameron will have retired in the next year or two.
I imagine that mainstream politicians will shun her as they now know she is one of those not-to-be-trusted journalists that just prints whatever they come across without verification. But you're right, she could continue as the in-house journalist for the partisan Labour supporters that don't care about integrity as long as the Tories have been attacked. Thankfully for her, such types are now running the Labour party.
Cameron's enemies are behind him, where Conservative backbenchers outside his circle have been passed over for their rightful (as they see it) places as junior ministers and in Cabinet.
PB Tories had great fun over much of Corbyn's youthful dalliances. Sauce, goose and gander spring to mind.
Were any of the stories of Corbyn's youthfull dalliances recounted only third-hand to a journalist who printed them despite "not knowing if they were true or not"?
Until then, the two are not directly comparable...
(snip) I also understand that Cameron is in South Africa, why? Osborne is in China busy getting a new nuclear power station. Very good timing from both when the brown stuff encounters the air circulating system and straight out of the Yes Prime minister script book. It looks like they knew what was coming and that it's happening at the same time as the LibDem conference is just a lucky coincidence. (snip)
That conspiracy theory suggests that they had long-standing prior knowledge that the story was coming out. Much more likely that Ashcroft and the Mail timed it like this: after the Labour leadership election and before the important party conferences (sorry, Lib Dems!) that might drown out the story.
If you want to make such claims really difficult for the target, it'd be good to time it for when they're out of the country. They have less access to advisers and the media, and it evidently looks to some as if they are running.
If you have evidence that these trips are hastily-planned affairs you might start to have a point. But this is a good time for such foreign trips as parliament is not ssitting.
I think my point was that most of the cogniti on this site know that the visits are planned well in advance and to have the 2 most important members r of the Government a few thousand miles away seems rather interesting (by the way, who is left in charge?) and just what is Cameron doing in SA?
Why is it 'rather interesting', unless you mean it in a pathetic nudge-nudge wink-wink manner?
I'm saying people (and the press) have the right to say and do things, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of them and (if I don't) that doesn't mean I want them banned.
I would not include in a biography the uncorroborated claims of a single source, without evidence, that even the author will not claim is true.
Many biographies would be mighty thin reading.
Some Conservatives need to reflect on these revelations and the freedom of expression that rightly allows them in our democracy.
PB Tories had great fun over much of Corbyn's youthful dalliances. Sauce, goose and gander spring to mind.
Corbyn's youthful dalliances were established as being true. If there is a corroborated source for the pig thing, then it's completely legitimate to publish it. But it seems like this entire story is based on one person's dinner party tale, possibly while drunk, possibly embellished, and possibly fabricated to titillate. It certainly wouldn't be the first dinner party tale to do so.
I would have thought there is grounds for libel here, but I'd like to hear from PB's lawyers. Even if there is not, clearly the standard journalistic benchmarks have now been followed, and the journalist involved is now desperately trying to downplay the story because she knows she can not back it up.
So you say.
My benchmark for the freedom of the press, especially for politicians, is simply publish and be damned.
A politician may seek redress in many ways should they choose to do so. We shall see if Cameron or Corbyn decide to take any action.
After reassuring Vicky Pryce that everything would be okay - her revenge book landed her in jail.
Ashcroft's revenge book has destroyed his own political reputation.
One would think that perhaps wiser heads wouldn't employ Ms Oakeshott as their little helper when they want to get even. It's backfired twice in a spectacular fashion.
How desperate Ashcroft,Oakeshott and Dair must be.. In their amateurish effort g to discredit Cameron they have abandoned all the principles of good journalism, made themselves look foolish and in Oakeshotts case.,probably ruined her career. Ashcroft has also committed the cardinal sin of all ..being shunned by the Establishment he craves to be a part of and also by the social circle he moves in He is now deemed to be totally untrustworthy
Oakeshott's ruined her career? She's sold an awful lot of newspapers, which might count for a lot in Fleet Street. Some Cameron loyalists will shun her? His enemies won't, and Cameron will have retired in the next year or two.
I imagine that mainstream politicians will shun her as they now know she is one of those not-to-be-trusted journalists that just prints whatever they come across without verification. But you're right, she could continue as the in-house journalist for the partisan Labour supporters that don't care about integrity as long as the Tories have been attacked. Thankfully for her, such types are now running the Labour party.
Good news for the mystery MP. The photo might be legal after all. Publish and be damned...
@Barristerblog: An old post. With a living pig, vaginal or anal sex is illegal but oral sex is legal. Anything goes with a dead pig. http://t.co/L23PlH7i5r
A shunned Oakshit will have time on her hands now. Perhaps she should spend a couple of years digging about in Ashcroft's past.
Yes must be horrendous for the author of a new book for it to be all over the front pages, the headline if every news bulletin and dominating every blog
Kitty Kelley did very well thank you. There's a gap in the market right now.
I'm saying people (and the press) have the right to say and do things, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of them and (if I don't) that doesn't mean I want them banned.
I would not include in a biography the uncorroborated claims of a single source, without evidence, that even the author will not claim is true.
Many biographies would be mighty thin reading.
Some Conservatives need to reflect on these revelations and the freedom of expression that rightly allows them in our democracy.
PB Tories had great fun over much of Corbyn's youthful dalliances. Sauce, goose and gander spring to mind.
Corbyn's youthful dalliances were established as being true. If there is a corroborated source for the pig thing, then it's completely legitimate to publish it. But it seems like this entire story is based on one person's dinner party tale, possibly while drunk, possibly embellished, and possibly fabricated to titillate. It certainly wouldn't be the first dinner party tale to do so.
I would have thought there is grounds for libel here, but I'd like to hear from PB's lawyers. Even if there is not, clearly the standard journalistic benchmarks have now been followed, and the journalist involved is now desperately trying to downplay the story because she knows she can not back it up.
If boils down to money. Billionaire Ashcroft can afford to run up 7 figure legal costs and not blink if he loses, Cameron can't.
Well, Cameron is said to be worth up to £30 million, and as Blair has shown, there are big cheques outside Westminster. Cameron is not in Ashcroft's league but he can afford to lose a libel action, at least in financial terms. Reputationally, he'd be a laughing stock win or lose.
Mr kle you are complicating a very simple situation. An influential Conservative has stuck a knife into the back of the PM, others including conservatives have seized the opportunity to pile in. I don't care if its smears, spin, half truths, whatever, its great to watch after months of arrogant gloating from conservatives.
Schadenfreude.
I'm not complicating it at all - you were making a false equivalency which undermines having fun about it, by pretending that anything negative said about a politician is a smear. I'm trying to enjoy this scandal, and you made it political by pretending that the Corbyn stuff, however over the top, was smearing on the level of the glorious dick in a pig story. If you thought at best only potentially msrepresenting COrbyn's word was the same as the pig stuff? Well, then it becomes a matter for serious political discussion not an amusing, if concerning if true, story, as most of the COrbyn stuff (barr the Abbot story, which as I say I found heart warming, such good friends for so long) contained some level of sunstance at least.
Comments
She is reporting that a Tory MP is telling dinner companions that Cameron committed porcine irrumatio.
This is actually quite an important point when the discussion is on whether or not the story should have been published.
Of course in the UK, there are no required standards of journalism. But using the higher standards of the United States (yes I know but sadly this is true), for a story to be legitimate it requires two sources.
The source can be the journalist.
The source is NOT two piece of evidence - it can be the same evidence from two sources.
In a co-authored piece, the co-authors can be both sources if it was seperately discovered.
So, in this example, Ashcroft could conceivably have been a dinner companion of the Tory MP and heard the claim. Then Oakshott heard it from a different companion or the Tory MP himself. That would be robust to publish (but not necessarily in court).
Because Newsnight did not question her on this, we don't actually know if it was legitimate for the story to be published. All we have is Tory backers saying exactly what you would expect Tory backers to say.
I suspect some Tories have never resigned themselves to Cameron and, despite his public persona, is a marmite personality behind the scenes and like any pol has enemies.
Said Tories had hoped that the 2015 would unseat Cameron and the could regain their influence without a shot fired.
With Ed's failure they are having to take the initiative. If so we can expect more of this and the next 5 years could be quite different to the last.
I'm bored of this now - yesterday was the best the Mail had, now rehashed stuff from people we already know hate him.
I'd be surprised if any of this touches Cameron at all considering what he endured over Coulson.
Although he retains much goodwill for his sterling undercover work in the run up to the election in blind-siding the blue's opponents.
One story is about alleged extreme hijinx, while a student, by a third party who wasn't there and without any corroboration.
Not the same thing at all.
Anyway, turning to F1: Japan's a good circuit. It's also quite like Silverstone in some regards. I expect Mercedes to be back on crushing form. If they're not, then that *may* through the title up in the air (if we had a new order of speed of Ferrari - Red Bull - Mercedes that could be enough for Vettel to take the title. There's 25 points for a win and 10 for 5th. 15 points over 6 races would overturn Hamilton's 49 point lead over Vettel. However, I do not think that will happen).
Edited to correct an error with the points (had it as 12 originally).
He has Osprey Publishing too. You can make shops think that distributing the book is not a good idea. Of course Ashcroft might self publish on the internet.
The problem with the Spycatcher was that it was true.
Whatever is thrown up will get the response "well at least he didn't f**K a pig". This will then lead to a discussion why the accusation is more serious than f**king a pig. As soon as that happens the accuser has lost the argument by default.
Firstly, the book, from what has been extracted, is mostly mush drawn from uncorrobotated sources. However, I think that it has been written in a code that the insiders know and understand. Ashcroft seems to have the ability to get back up by his sources if it goes to court and seems to be waiting to be sued.
Secondly, Cameron has not as yet, personally, denied the stories. Getting secondary or third away levels to try and rubbish the stories will not work.
I also understand that Cameron is in South Africa, why? Osborne is in China busy getting a new nuclear power station. Very good timing from both when the brown stuff encounters the air circulating system and straight out of the Yes Prime minister script book. It looks like they knew what was coming and that it's happening at the same time as the LibDem conference is just a lucky coincidence.
The one big danger that I can see by reading the comments on this and previous threads, is the assumption that "everyone" knows what goes on at the highest levels of our society and accept it. They don't care if they don't "know" about it, but when it is brought out in the open, they remember their being stopped having similar fun and games, or, the interactions with the authorities if they, the members of their families and friends broke the rules. It enforces the perception of them and us.
I'll be more circumspect about believing her stuff in future. A great pity. And I can imagine that a lot of politicos won't give her intv/snippets for quite a while.
On the non Dom status, evidence of a clear lie could be damaging, but donations from billionaires are already dodgy in the public eye and Ashcroft is clearly out to get Cameron, so unless he's got better proof than his own notes it will verve liked by more lurid claims,
Conservatives don't have a veto to determine what is "right" for the press to print.
If you want to make such claims really difficult for the target, it'd be good to time it for when they're out of the country. They have less access to advisers and the media, and it evidently looks to some as if they are running.
If you have evidence that these trips are hastily-planned affairs you might start to have a point. But this is a good time for such foreign trips as parliament is not ssitting.
I'm criticising Oakeshott for committing shoddy journalism as part of another's vendetta project. Disliking something doesn't mean I necessarily want it banned, or for the state to have greater powers.
Indeed, this idea that some espouse that everything must be banned or mandatory is something I despise. It's entirely possible to disapprove wholeheartedly of something without wanting it to be verboten.
This pig story is the 'dead cat'. It is all that is being talked about. It is also both completely silly, completely irrelevant and likely completely untrue. Had this not been there and the Mail had led on the armed forces issue or something else related to the office of being PM that could have been much more damaging.
Libya matters since it's clearly turned out badly, and that's relevant when we discuss Syria. (What is the military advice now?) The non-dom question is the potential nasty one, though, as it was discussed in such detail that the possibility that Cameron slipped up by accident is slim. I don't think he can afford to be thought to have deliberately lied, even outside Westminster, and he'd probably prefer that we were discussing pigs.
Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality) May 2006 - Jun 2007
( http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/andy-burnham/1427 )
But my biggest criticisms of him are:
*) He set up a closed inquiry that even the chair said was inadequate, and did not get to the truth;
*) The way he says he regrets the public inquiry that did get to the truth as it hurt the trust's reputation. Because a trust's reputation is more important that patients' health.
Aside from those little details, well done.
ABIS.
I can't see that lasting too long. And isn't he an adviser of sorts too?
1. Loses links with the Lib Dems after the Huhne episode.
2. Regarded as persona non grata by the Cameron and Osborne folk in the Conservative party.
Which leaves her one choice. Only write about Labour in the future.
Unemployable as a political editor except for Mirror, People, Guardian/Observer and Independent.
This allegation regarding Cameron is an uncorroborated story the publisher didn't believe or see evidence for regarding alleged university hijinx.
Yeah that's the same thing *rolleyes*
Plenty of Tories joined in the bacon gags in the past few days, it's all good fun.
I can't stick Corbyn but he's been fair game for weeks, now the tories that were dishing it out are whining like little girls.
Do you agree or not that this material should published? Quite so Sean.
I doubt these revelations will have any long term effect on the fortunes of the government. Broadly speaking the wider public understand that the young do young and foolish things. Twas ever thus.
So the only question is how long Cameron knew compared to what he said?
Apart from Corbyn I can't think of a politician who has undergone a greater transformation. From squeaky schoolboy to the power behind the throne.
And thank God for him!
Even his opponents must be glad he's there to give some authority to this tawdry leadership.
I'd say he's a certainty to take over from Cameron and I wouldn't expect he'll have to wait too long.
I'm saying people (and the press) have the right to say and do things, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of them and (if I don't) that doesn't mean I want them banned.
I would not include in a biography the uncorroborated claims of a single source, without evidence, that even the author will not claim is true.
Have some stories on Corbyn crossed the line? I'd say yes. Has there been a barrage of negativity toward him? Yes. Is it fair game for a Tory to face the same pressure? Yes.
But that does not make a comparison to, potentially, misrepresenting the meaning of actual words on a political matter which it is proven Corbyn said, to a claim some bloke said 3 times Cameron out his penis in a pig, and that's the only thing presented as proof, as the same.
I am not one who thinks the pig thing is no big deal if it's true - apparently I'm a prude - and I'm all for holding ll sides to the same standards, but sometimes things are not in fact equivalents, and that it is an absurd way to generalise to treat all negative stories as the same, when some are more reasonable, or vicious, than others, they still need to be individually judged.
Dry your eyes darlings, Soames and others are joining in the bun fight, the human shield that was Clegg has been removed, let's see what Dave is made of.
Mr. L, well, I might use such things in my writing. But then, I write fiction. And those of you enamoured with the lurid shenanigans of a wealthy bounder may prefer to buy this [by me]:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Edrics-Temple-Adventures-Edric-Book-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/
Pathetic is the right word.
Some of the Corbyn and much of the Cameron allegations are.
That tactic makes it easy on politicians to avoid having to show what they are made of, as they can lump the more credible and complex accusations in with the ludicrous smears, and itis frankly hilarious to me you seem to think they would be more inconvenienced, not less, by labelling every negative attack as a smear.
And as has been pointed out, people can think that still have been having fun with all this. It is not some either or situation where one can not have a sense of humour on it without also being devoid of nuance and specificity on another point.
Some Conservatives need to reflect on these revelations and the freedom of expression that rightly allows them in our democracy.
PB Tories had great fun over much of Corbyn's youthful dalliances. Sauce, goose and gander spring to mind.
"Time to lay Osborne "
One for the Prime Minister then. He seems pretty indiscriminate
Thucydides is better than Herodotus.
I never criticised Corbyn for the Diane Abbott encounter in his youth.
I would have thought there is grounds for libel here, but I'd like to hear from PB's lawyers. Even if there is not, clearly the standard journalistic benchmarks have now been followed, and the journalist involved is now desperately trying to downplay the story because she knows she can not back it up.
you'll be going back to your louche days Mr R
Schadenfreude.
True stories such as Corbyn's words regarding Hamas and Bin Laden's death are fair game. As is Dave's time at Oxford, or trips to South Africa - there are plenty enough on both leaders to present each as they are.
The story regarding Corbyn giving £45 to the apparent IRA man on the run and Dave's student hi-jinks sticking his todger in a pig's head are both thinly evidenced (from what I can tell) and probably false.
Both do however play into lazy stereotypes surrounding the leaders and could concievably be true thus have been printed by the media as they help sell papers.
The libel laws in this country are not a test of law, but of wealth sadly - and thus as others have pointed out the biggest wad wins.
Anyway, tawdry as stories surrounding leaders can be - it is a price of a free press.
Until then, the two are not directly comparable...
Time for you to get a tinfoil hat methinks.
My benchmark for the freedom of the press, especially for politicians, is simply publish and be damned.
A politician may seek redress in many ways should they choose to do so. We shall see if Cameron or Corbyn decide to take any action.
Ashcroft's revenge book has destroyed his own political reputation.
One would think that perhaps wiser heads wouldn't employ Ms Oakeshott as their little helper when they want to get even. It's backfired twice in a spectacular fashion.
@Barristerblog: An old post. With a living pig, vaginal or anal sex is illegal but oral sex is legal. Anything goes with a dead pig. http://t.co/L23PlH7i5r
Good day to all.