Quite so. I honestly wonder if we will ever see this book in the shops.
I don't think Cameron will sue (I think Ms Oakeshott effectively destroyed any credibility the book had yesterday), but if he were going to do so would now be the best time, or would you wait until the publisher had increased the pirnt run and the books were ready for delivery?
Quite so. I honestly wonder if we will ever see this book in the shops.
I don't think Cameron will sue (I think Ms Oakeshott effectively destroyed any credibility the book had yesterday), but if he were going to do so would now be the best time, or would you wait until the publisher had increased the pirnt run and the books were ready for delivery?
A big pulp would be quite funny, but probably not going to happen.
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:
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.
Oh dear, I am starting to get into "When I was at Oxford mode..." but one thing that seems a bit odd is that DC would be a member of the Piers Gaveston club when he was in the Bullingdon Club - I was there in the late 1980s and the view on the PG then was it was the club you joined when you could not get in the Bullingdon Club and was full of wannabee toffs who went to minor public school
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.)
Quite so. I honestly wonder if we will ever see this book in the shops.
I don't think Cameron will sue (I think Ms Oakeshott effectively destroyed any credibility the book had yesterday), but if he were going to do so would now be the best time, or would you wait until the publisher had increased the pirnt run and the books were ready for delivery?
No-one is suing for libel, but if Cameron were to ignore the unfortunate precedent set by Oscar Wilde, then precisely what damage to his reputation would he be claiming? How would a student initiation, however distasteful, be worse than (or even different from) Cameron's acknowledged membership of the Bullingdon?
The problem with the photograph, even if no-one has seen it, is that it makes the late denial seem as if Number Ten was waiting in case the papers had got hold of it. If you know something never happened, you can also be confident there is no photo.
My own view is this is just a bit of fluff that will have the HIGNFY team cursing not being back on air till October. Whether there is anything truly damaging in the rest of the book is another question.
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:
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.
Oh dear, I am starting to get into "When I was at Oxford mode..." but one thing that seems a bit odd is that DC would be a member of the Piers Gaveston club when he was in the Bullingdon Club - I was there in the late 1980s and the view on the PG then was it was the club you joined when you could not get in the Bullingdon Club and was full of wannabee toffs who went to minor public school
Quite so. I honestly wonder if we will ever see this book in the shops.
I don't think Cameron will sue (I think Ms Oakeshott effectively destroyed any credibility the book had yesterday), but if he were going to do so would now be the best time, or would you wait until the publisher had increased the pirnt run and the books were ready for delivery?
I'm certain he won't sue if only because:
1. Mud sticks and
2. Ashcroft has exceedingly deep pockets to take him on.
I doubt these allegations make any difference to the leadership. If the Tories focus on electability, especially to keep Corbyn out if he is still Labour leader, then Boris is the best bet or Cameron if he decides to stay on. Otherwise the Tories normally pick the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in power which favours Osbourne or Hammond
The "source" is a Tory MP who may have an axe to grind.
How do you know it's a Tory?
Didn't Isabel say that ? It is very unlikely a Labour Party MP would have been in such a Hurray Henry gathering. I don't think Ashcroft would be talking to a Labour MP.
I cannot comment on the veracity of the said porcine episode.
I can however say that I went to the odd event when studying in the said vicinity and a great deal went on which made this story look rather tame.
As an example and without naming names and getting too specific the private room upstairs at the Eastgate Hotel had a rather astonishing do in 1982 which I somehow got invited too.
The Hotel were latterly very annoyed as they were expecting a polite yachting club or similar (as that was the "booking") not the boys from hell and I remember that things got rather raucous and then frankly rather deviant when the entertainment began post dessert. The waiting and drinks staff (all female) to be fair simply cleaned away the plates as if nothing was happening.......I got the impression this was nothing new for them.
I do wonder if the real concern is if any more of these pre internet and mobile phone escapades will end up in the public domain. Photographs must be thin on the ground as a camera would surely have led to beer spillage. Cover ups with a complicit MSM have normally been pretty rock solid in the establishment but that seems to be changing in the new technology world we live in.
Take your head out of your ass and see the offical denial
A denial is where a named individual - either the subject or a verified third party - puts their name to a statement.
A press release - which is the best you can come up with - referencing "sources" is not a denial.
Is that the dictionary defition of a denial? Seems rather narrow.
de·ni·al dəˈnīəl/ noun the action of declaring something to be untrue.
Isn't that what No. 10 did? Ball's in your court now, Dair.
Well not really.
I've put down what I consider adequate for a denial - a reliable attributed statement.
Cameron's backers have put down their requirements - an unattributed press release.
When the Sturgeon story came out, I had a small doubt that it might be true. Not a high chance but it was there nonetheless. Until the French Counsel went on record denying it. So for 90 minutes or so I was worried that this small doubt my prove accurate.
If anyone defending Cameron is claiming to have absolutely no doubts the story is false while there is no denial from a third party and the PM has still not gone on record denying it himself, then I will continue to disbelieve what they say.
Thanks for this - Shadsy isn't being over generous with a 20% overround according to my beadframe, especially given the period Laddies has the use of one's cash. For my money the 5/1 on offer for 2017 looks far better the the 3/1 quoted for both 2018 and 2019.
Might as well give the money to charity ! I don't understand this clamour for Sajid. Suddenly, the Tories love a Muslim.
What has Hammond, for example, done wrong ? Or, May ?
Hammond has let Osborne run foreign relations with China and has stepped back from all the main EC negotiations which Cameron and Osborne are involved in. Apart from his trip to the USA he is a RHINO Foreign Office head. Not the base to launch a Leadership campaign from.
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 "source" is a Tory MP who may have an axe to grind.
How do you know it's a Tory?
Didn't Isabel say that ? It is very unlikely a Labour Party MP would have been in such a Hurray Henry gathering. I don't think Ashcroft would be talking to a Labour MP.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to blame this one on Labour. If the source is a Labour MP you can bet your bottom dollar we would know about it by now as that makes all Dave's problems go away immediately. And you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone on the inside of the story does know who the source is.
Not quite my point.
I'm not blaming anyone.
I'm pointing out that "xy or z would not be doing a or b 25 years ago because they are xy or z now" type reasoning is a little strained, no matter who it is about.
Consider how Harriet Harman has changed her civil liberties spots since 1980, or all those New Labour MPs who used to be on the most bonkers bits of the Far Left. Or their Tory equivalents.
IMO even if Cam had done it it is still fluff. I am sure that many many people have experimented, and I don't see much difference between that and other things sometimes reputedly used. Pleasuring oneself with a dead pig - far more than has been alleged - is only an issue if the pig has suffered some kind of related cruelty first. Perhaps we should prosecute Lady Gaga for her dead cow dress?
Or can we expect to see stories about ladies and hairbrushes or milk bottles, or .. alternatives?
This is about sh*tstirring, newspaper selling and reputation damaging, with a soupcon of revenge. Some of the Corbyn stuff is the same;some of it wasn't.
For me, the more pressing question is Oxford University's remarkable habit of turning intelligent young people into idiots by the time they reach the media and write columns.
Don't put (sic) pretend your frothing drool are my words.
I would never lay claim to your frothing drool
I should have heeded the advice. "Never argue with an idiot. they drag you down to their level and beat you with experiance." I retire from the fray defeated...
OGH: "My own view is that Cameron’s successor could be someone who is not really in the frame at the moment."
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.
I don't think they necessarily have to be in the cabinet now. Cameron himself only joined the shadow cabinet in 2004 (and only got a major shadow cabinet role in 2005) before becoming leader of the party in 2005.
Based on that record it's possible that someone could be appointed to the shadow cabinet in the next couple of years before becoming leader when Cameron steps down - unlikely perhaps, but quite possible.
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 article Scott_P is so reliant on does not mention or attribute the press release to the Prime Minister's Spokesman (another warning flag for those trying to defend Cameron).
It is stated as a "downing street source". It's not even through any official press office channels.
The only attributed statement from official channels is : -
The Prime Minister's official spokeswoman said: "I am not intending to dignify this book by offering any comment. "The author set out his reasons, meanwhile the Prime Minister is focused on getting on with the job of running the country."
Surely such an important press release briefing - what Cameron's backers is claiming is a proper "denial" should also be made through official channels as a press release and not an informal, unattributed briefing?
OGH is right. This stuff undermines Osborne as a "more of the same" PM. Members have never voted for the person who was favourite at the start.
Portillo was favourite in 2001 and members did not even get the chance to vote for him in the final two. That was in opposition as was 2005 in government the Tories always pick the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary otherwise if electability is key Boris polls best
It's not a healthy state of affairs when the PM's reputation can be damaged by a claim he wholly denies and which appears to lack any hard evidence (there is a claim a photo exists, although that would, apparently, in itself be a criminal offence).
The only thing we can say with certainty is that Cameron's judgement on Ashcroft was spot on.
Frankly who cares about pig gate? As with the constant Farage and UKIP 'revelations' leading up to the election, the only people who get excited about this are those who hate or Fear Cameron/Tories anyway... Most people will barely notice nor care
Sad that the pig story is getting all the headlines while the important (& definitely true) story of senior army officials begging Cameron not to bomb Libya is ignored... That could be one that really damaged him, particularly as it's the source of the current migrant crisis
Take your head out of your ass and see the offical denial
A denial is where a named individual - either the subject or a verified third party - puts their name to a statement.
A press release - which is the best you can come up with - referencing "sources" is not a denial.
Is that the dictionary defition of a denial? Seems rather narrow.
de·ni·al dəˈnīəl/ noun the action of declaring something to be untrue.
Isn't that what No. 10 did? Ball's in your court now, Dair.
Well not really.
I've put down what I consider adequate for a denial - a reliable attributed statement.
Cameron's backers have put down their requirements - an unattributed press release.
When the Sturgeon story came out, I had a small doubt that it might be true. Not a high chance but it was there nonetheless. Until the French Counsel went on record denying it. So for 90 minutes or so I was worried that this small doubt my prove accurate.
If anyone defending Cameron is claiming to have absolutely no doubts the story is false while there is no denial from a third party and the PM has still not gone on record denying it himself, then I will continue to disbelieve what they say.
So you want someone attributable to deny an unattributable story. Your comparison with the French Consul is facile. The French Consul exists.
I'm not a Conservative voter, so I'm amused by it. The truth will never be fully established but it's telling that Cameron has enemies in his party.
Plus ca change.
We seem to have two radically different leaders for the main parties. One treats politics as a hobby, the other thinks of nothing else. Both a little unsuitable for those reasons.
Frankly who cares about pig gate? As with the constant Farage and UKIP 'revelations' leading up to the election, the only people who get excited about this are those who hate or Fear Cameron/Tories anyway... Most people will barely notice nor care
Sad that the pig story is getting all the headlines while the important (& definitely true) story of senior army officials begging Cameron not to bomb Libya is ignored... That could be one that really damaged him, particularly as it's the source of the current migrant crisis
Where can I find the Libya story? Libya of course is a glaring example of being careful what ypou wish for!
Dair does rather give the impression that if David Cameron knocked on his front door and told him "I did not have any form of intimate contact with a pig - or, just to cover all bases, any other domesticated animal" - he would still be saying "But I don't know you are the REAL David Cameron. Show me some DNA..."
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?
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.....
Dair does rather give the impression that if David Cameron knocked on his front door and told him "I did not have any form of intimate contact with a pig - or, just to cover all bases, any other domesticated animal" - he would still be saying "But I don't know you are the REAL David Cameron. Show me some DNA..."
There are only 2 sources of unvarnished truth in the World.
Frankly who cares about pig gate? As with the constant Farage and UKIP 'revelations' leading up to the election, the only people who get excited about this are those who hate or Fear Cameron/Tories anyway... Most people will barely notice nor care (snip)
I don't know. I'm an occasional Conservative voter (although more likely to vote Lib Dem these days), and I quite like Cameron. Yet I found the story amusing, and even made a few (poor) puns about it yesterday.
Whereas yesterday was merely funny, today it's hilarious, albeit for different reasons. Posters are embarrassing themselves - whether it is serious posters such as SO smearing Conservative MPs through a lack of basic research, or comic posters such as Dair coming up with self-serving criteria about denials (which we all know would not apply to SNP MPs), or DecrepitJohnL's new-found guilty-until-proven-innocent approach to stories in the media.
It's not a healthy state of affairs when the PM's reputation can be damaged by a claim he wholly denies and which appears to lack any hard evidence (there is a claim a photo exists, although that would, apparently, in itself be a criminal offence).
The only thing we can say with certainty is that Cameron's judgement on Ashcroft was spot on.
Ashcroft has turned out to be a nasty piece of work.
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.
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
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.....
Plus one of the founders has denied Cameron was ever a member and therefore wouldn't have gone through an initiation.
I'm pointing out it does not meet my requirement to consider the story to be false.
Ok, you have managed to go from "no denial", to "a denial I just don't like".
Well, that's progress I guess
No, it is not a denial.
It is a press release without attribution.
Don't put pretend your frothing drool are my words.
A press statement from the PM's official press spokesman is attributable to the PM. That's how it works.
It's not from the official press spokesman.
It's not actually a press statement.
It's a briefing which Politico says is from a "downing street source".
This is one of the most telling aspects of the whole thing. If downing street want to issue an actual denial (especially after waiting so long), one would expect it would be an official press release, not a cloak and dagger unattributed briefing.
As an aside, the worst university jape I remember occurred at a party a good friend of mine went to in a pub on the Mile End road. The rooms upstairs had been booked for a party, and someone/ some people blocked the exits and let off one or a couple of CS gas canisters inside. Some people suffered various minor injuries, both from the crush to get out and the effects of the gas.
I'd been invited to that party, but couldn't go. ISTR my friend was due to represent England at a sport a few days later, and had to miss it due to (slight) injury.
Might as well give the money to charity ! I don't understand this clamour for Sajid. Suddenly, the Tories love a Muslim.
What has Hammond, for example, done wrong ? Or, May ?
Hammond has let Osborne run foreign relations with China and has stepped back from all the main EC negotiations which Cameron and Osborne are involved in. Apart from his trip to the USA he is a RHINO Foreign Office head. Not the base to launch a Leadership campaign from.
The Conservative Party is in danger of falling into the same hole as Labour. If Osborne/Brown run everything from the Treasury, then a few years down the line there are no leadership candidates with anything of note on their CVs. Yesterday we saw Osborne usurp the Foreign and Energy Secretaries on China and the nuclear power station, for instance.
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?
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.
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.....
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 don't think the integrity of the position of PM is damaged by allegations about what said PM got up to as a student.
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.....
Plus one of the founders has denied Cameron was ever a member and therefore wouldn't have gone through an initiation.
Trouble is, the founder was not a contemporary of Cameron's, so it is all guesswork.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
Frankly who cares about pig gate? As with the constant Farage and UKIP 'revelations' leading up to the election, the only people who get excited about this are those who hate or Fear Cameron/Tories anyway... Most people will barely notice nor care (snip)
I don't know. I'm an occasional Conservative voter (although more likely to vote Lib Dem these days), and I quite like Cameron. Yet I found the story amusing, and even made a few (poor) puns about it yesterday.
Whereas yesterday was merely funny, today it's hilarious, albeit for different reasons. Posters are embarrassing themselves - whether it is serious posters such as SO smearing Conservative MPs through a lack of basic research, or comic posters such as Dair coming up with self-serving criteria about denials (which we all know would not apply to SNP MPs), or DecrepitJohnL's new-found guilty-until-proven-innocent approach to stories in the media.
Quite so.
In passing the more important part of these revelations is the ability, indeed necessity, of the great unwashed to poke fun at those whose seek to govern us.
The electorate should treat our political lords and masters as a dog does a lamppost and governments should be grateful they are in a position to receive such largesse.
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 cabinet minister described him [Ashcroft] to me as a “suicide bomber” who was strapped to enough explosives to kill his own reputation but not enough to more than wound his target.
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.
I saw a clip of that interview, and I actually felt a little sorry for her. She was like a rabbit caught in the headlights. I think she knows she's mucked up.
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!!
Isabel Oakeshott it must be remembered is the journalist who convinced Vicky Pryce to confess to breaking the law and told her nothing bad would happen to Miss Pryce
Isabel Oakeshott is must be remembered is the journalist who convinced Vicky Pryce to confess to breaking the law and told her nothing bad would happen to Miss Pryce
I remember Tories cheering her along as they scented Huhne's blood. What changed?
Isabel Oakeshott is must be remembered is the journalist who convinced Vicky Pryce to confess to breaking the law and told her nothing bad would happen to Miss Pryce
Mr. Jonathan, can't comment specifically on Bower, but at the time I criticised the media for never giving Brown fair treatment (either praising him without cause, or likewise condemning him for everything, particularly the soldier letter that made a splash on the Sun's front page).
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.
In other news, Michelin are promising faster, more durable tyres. However, they also want 18" (rather than 13") rims. That's not just a style change, it'll fundamentally alter the way suspension works, and will require substantial changes to the cars.
It's also worth noting Pirelli were contracted to produce tyres of limited durability, in a bid to produce exciting racing by copying the accidentally exciting race in Canada a few years ago where, contrary to expectations, the tyres disintegrated rapidly and many pit stops were needed.
For some reason the idiots in charge failed to realise F1 bosses aren't stupid, and instead of driving manically and having 6 stops a race, they just had drivers drive well within their limits.
Cameron's a big boy and the story is pretty likely untrue. Undergraduate did dodgy things at University shocker......
The Mail have played a blinder simultaneously shafting Ashcroft ("REVENGE") and Cameron.
Oakeshott's career may never recover - quite a price for the billionaires' shilling.
So its added to the gaiety of the nation and lengthened the odds on a premature ejection of Corbyn......all in all the Tories have had worse weeks.....and today's 'General disagrees with PM' "shocker" is up there with "Dog bites man"
Yesterday's revelation Cameron fooked a dead pig. Today's his military strategies fooked millions of Libyan and Syrian civilians.
You may have a point with Libya, but the question remains about what would have happened if we had not intervened. Deliberate inaction is as much a choice as deliberate action.
But you're way off mark with Syria. In the end we didn't do anything due to Miliband's traitorous cowardice.
More blame for the migrant crisis can be put at Miliband's and Labour's doors than at Cameron's and the Conservatives.
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?
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!!
Isabel Oakeshott is must be remembered is the journalist who convinced Vicky Pryce to confess to breaking the law and told her nothing bad would happen to Miss Pryce
I remember Tories cheering her along as they scented Huhne's blood. What changed?
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.
Isabel Oakeshott is must be remembered is the journalist who convinced Vicky Pryce to confess to breaking the law and told her nothing bad would happen to Miss Pryce
I remember Tories cheering her along as they scented Huhne's blood. What changed?
The difference being that a cabinet minister lied about his criminal behaviour and was sent to prison whereas any youthful foibles by a future PM are seen as such and we all have a bloody good laugh at his situation.
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.
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.
She was very shrill and defensive on Newsnight last night, and constantly interrupting the far more dignified Anthony Seldon.
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
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!!
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!!
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.
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.
Really? I think the first person to read that book would have been on Twitter in moments going "WTF?????????"
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...
Comments
Can one really prevent publication? Look at the Spycatcher saga,, and we now have the internet, supply on Kindle (etc.)
The problem with the photograph, even if no-one has seen it, is that it makes the late denial seem as if Number Ten was waiting in case the papers had got hold of it. If you know something never happened, you can also be confident there is no photo.
My own view is this is just a bit of fluff that will have the HIGNFY team cursing not being back on air till October. Whether there is anything truly damaging in the rest of the book is another question.
1. Mud sticks and
2. Ashcroft has exceedingly deep pockets to take him on.
Yawn
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/david-cameron-specials/214602152/
SPIN DOCTOR: We have no idea how to handle this
SPIN VET: *chest puffed out* this is my moment
I can however say that I went to the odd event when studying in the said vicinity and a great deal went on which made this story look rather tame.
As an example and without naming names and getting too specific the private room upstairs at the Eastgate Hotel had a rather astonishing do in 1982 which I somehow got invited too.
The Hotel were latterly very annoyed as they were expecting a polite yachting club or similar (as that was the "booking") not the boys from hell and I remember that things got rather raucous and then frankly rather deviant when the entertainment began post dessert. The waiting and drinks staff (all female) to be fair simply cleaned away the plates as if nothing was happening.......I got the impression this was nothing new for them.
I do wonder if the real concern is if any more of these pre internet and mobile phone escapades will end up in the public domain.
Photographs must be thin on the ground as a camera would surely have led to beer spillage. Cover ups with a complicit MSM have normally been pretty rock solid in the establishment but that seems to be changing in the new technology world we live in.
I've put down what I consider adequate for a denial - a reliable attributed statement.
Cameron's backers have put down their requirements - an unattributed press release.
When the Sturgeon story came out, I had a small doubt that it might be true. Not a high chance but it was there nonetheless. Until the French Counsel went on record denying it. So for 90 minutes or so I was worried that this small doubt my prove accurate.
If anyone defending Cameron is claiming to have absolutely no doubts the story is false while there is no denial from a third party and the PM has still not gone on record denying it himself, then I will continue to disbelieve what they say.
Which part of that is unreliable or unattributable?
Are you REALLY this stupid? I admit, it's a very good act.
@EdConwaySky: After @George_Osborne started talking here, the Shanghai stock exchange hit a new intraday high. Just saying http://t.co/rJj04RGTzZ
For my money the 5/1 on offer for 2017 looks far better the the 3/1 quoted for both 2018 and 2019.
I'm pointing out it does not meet my requirement to consider the story to be false.
Well, that's progress I guess
It is a press release without attribution.
Don't put pretend your frothing drool are my words.
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.
I'm not blaming anyone.
I'm pointing out that "xy or z would not be doing a or b 25 years ago because they are xy or z now" type reasoning is a little strained, no matter who it is about.
Consider how Harriet Harman has changed her civil liberties spots since 1980, or all those New Labour MPs who used to be on the most bonkers bits of the Far Left. Or their Tory equivalents.
IMO even if Cam had done it it is still fluff. I am sure that many many people have experimented, and I don't see much difference between that and other things sometimes reputedly used. Pleasuring oneself with a dead pig - far more than has been alleged - is only an issue if the pig has suffered some kind of related cruelty first. Perhaps we should prosecute Lady Gaga for her dead cow dress?
Or can we expect to see stories about ladies and hairbrushes or milk bottles, or .. alternatives?
This is about sh*tstirring, newspaper selling and reputation damaging, with a soupcon of revenge. Some of the Corbyn stuff is the same;some of it wasn't.
For me, the more pressing question is Oxford University's remarkable habit of turning intelligent young people into idiots by the time they reach the media and write columns.
At this stage, however, the truth is irrelevant. Whatever the outcome, Dave will forever be known as a porcine irrumator.
It's a stement from the official spokeperson to the PM. It doesn't get more "attributable" than that. I would never lay claim to your frothing drool
I should have heeded the advice. "Never argue with an idiot. they drag you down to their level and beat you with experiance." I retire from the fray defeated...
Based on that record it's possible that someone could be appointed to the shadow cabinet in the next couple of years before becoming leader when Cameron steps down - unlikely perhaps, but quite possible.
The problem with the Spycatcher was that it was true.
'The book they tried to ban'
Would that increase or decrease demand?
It is stated as a "downing street source". It's not even through any official press office channels.
https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/downing-street-says-cameron-pig-claims-are-nonsense
The only attributed statement from official channels is : -
The Prime Minister's official spokeswoman said: "I am not intending to dignify this book by offering any comment.
"The author set out his reasons, meanwhile the Prime Minister is focused on getting on with the job of running the country."
Surely such an important
press releasebriefing - what Cameron's backers is claiming is a proper "denial" should also be made through official channels as a press release and not an informal, unattributed briefing?It's not a healthy state of affairs when the PM's reputation can be damaged by a claim he wholly denies and which appears to lack any hard evidence (there is a claim a photo exists, although that would, apparently, in itself be a criminal offence).
The only thing we can say with certainty is that Cameron's judgement on Ashcroft was spot on.
Apollo 13.
Sad that the pig story is getting all the headlines while the important (& definitely true) story of senior army officials begging Cameron not to bomb Libya is ignored... That could be one that really damaged him, particularly as it's the source of the current migrant crisis
I'm not a Conservative voter, so I'm amused by it. The truth will never be fully established but it's telling that Cameron has enemies in his party.
Plus ca change.
We seem to have two radically different leaders for the main parties. One treats politics as a hobby, the other thinks of nothing else. Both a little unsuitable for those reasons.
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.
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.....
The Nat onal and Wings over Bath.
All else is suspect.
Whereas yesterday was merely funny, today it's hilarious, albeit for different reasons. Posters are embarrassing themselves - whether it is serious posters such as SO smearing Conservative MPs through a lack of basic research, or comic posters such as Dair coming up with self-serving criteria about denials (which we all know would not apply to SNP MPs), or DecrepitJohnL's new-found guilty-until-proven-innocent approach to stories in the media.
Edit - Guido lists potential candidates:
http://order-order.com/2015/09/21/who-squealed/#:0bqSs9VOW4kzPQ
Does he still help fund/support this site?
Rather than banning books, they should go the whole hog.
"an unbook by an unperson unsaid that our dear leader did an unthing. Doubleplusungood!
It's not actually a press statement.
It's a briefing which Politico says is from a "downing street source".
This is one of the most telling aspects of the whole thing. If downing street want to issue an actual denial (especially after waiting so long), one would expect it would be an official press release, not a cloak and dagger unattributed briefing.
I'd been invited to that party, but couldn't go. ISTR my friend was due to represent England at a sport a few days later, and had to miss it due to (slight) injury.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/09/has-ashcrofts-unnamed-tory-source-been-reading-hunter-s-thompson/?prefermobile
I was referring to Surbiton's post below and confused my Labour-leaning posters.
Sorry.
I shall go and sit in the corner for ten minutes.
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.
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!!
In passing the more important part of these revelations is the ability, indeed necessity, of the great unwashed to poke fun at those whose seek to govern us.
The electorate should treat our political lords and masters as a dog does a lamppost and governments should be grateful they are in a position to receive such largesse.
One cabinet minister described him [Ashcroft] to me as a “suicide bomber” who was strapped to enough explosives to kill his own reputation but not enough to more than wound his target.
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.
In other news, Michelin are promising faster, more durable tyres. However, they also want 18" (rather than 13") rims. That's not just a style change, it'll fundamentally alter the way suspension works, and will require substantial changes to the cars.
It's also worth noting Pirelli were contracted to produce tyres of limited durability, in a bid to produce exciting racing by copying the accidentally exciting race in Canada a few years ago where, contrary to expectations, the tyres disintegrated rapidly and many pit stops were needed.
For some reason the idiots in charge failed to realise F1 bosses aren't stupid, and instead of driving manically and having 6 stops a race, they just had drivers drive well within their limits.
Cameron's a big boy and the story is pretty likely untrue. Undergraduate did dodgy things at University shocker......
The Mail have played a blinder simultaneously shafting Ashcroft ("REVENGE") and Cameron.
Oakeshott's career may never recover - quite a price for the billionaires' shilling.
So its added to the gaiety of the nation and lengthened the odds on a premature ejection of Corbyn......all in all the Tories have had worse weeks.....and today's 'General disagrees with PM' "shocker" is up there with "Dog bites man"
But you're way off mark with Syria. In the end we didn't do anything due to Miliband's traitorous cowardice.
More blame for the migrant crisis can be put at Miliband's and Labour's doors than at Cameron's and the Conservatives.
Argue specifically against what I have said - if you think you can demonstrate my bias.
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-34317265
But I guess nationalised failures are fine, whilst privatised ones are evil? I guess that explains Stafford ...
The left have confirmed in the last 36 hours a leader's past is fair game.