Still, perhaps this will end the idea that the media only print stuff highly personal about the Left? This is not just a party leader but the PM to boot!
Ouch. Cocaine, having sex with a dead pig, Crosby saying he's a "tosser" and "posh sh*t". What a book. Cameron's base are little old ladies in the midlands, they won't be so excited by this.
I get Ashcroft's beef, but what is his agenda? Why is he doing this now - and who benefits?
Does Ashcroft have the same contempt for Osborne?
Most importantly - from a betting perspective - which potential successor will get the good lords backing?
Had he done it six months ago it may have hurt the Tories chances at the election. Had he done it in four years it may have hurt the Tories chances at the election.
Bit bizarre and maybe get some WTF laughs on Mock the Week but can't see it mattering politically that a retiring PM had an odd past.
Unless he did it while PM.
It does slightly blunt Tory attacks on Corbyn -
"You supported the IRA in 1987"
"Well you did three tons of cocaine and orally raped a dead pig the following weekend"
"About the railways...."
Corbyn supported the IRA while an MP. Has Cameron done any of this while he was an MP?
He was relatively open(ish) about having taken drugs in the past during the leadership election a whole decade ago. The line was always that the past was the past before being an MP.
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
You can't buck history.
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
I happen to agree Scottish independence will happen, and I think pretty soon, but you very much can 'buck history'. Even seemingly inevitable events are not actually inevitable, no matter how much afterwards people try to claim they were, or people beforehand try to claim their favoured cause is.
Some things that once seemed inevitable now seem barmy. The flying cars (I think they were commuter helicopters) and eugenics (all the intellectual rage as the next item in the progressive public policy agenda) of Brave New World are firmly in the "crackpot" category these days, but were taken in deadly earnest at the time.
One delight of reading old books and newspapers is to see the confident predictions and received wisdom of the time, so often comprehensively dashed by the events that followed.
I presume No.10 will not respond directly to the pig allegation - don't want to be quoted saying it, even as part of a denial - so I wonder if we'll get some 'well he hasn't said he didn't do it' follow ups. Could be fun times.
What odds someone cracks a joke referencing it at the Labour conference?
Ouch. Cocaine, having sex with a dead pig, Crosby saying he's a "tosser" and "posh sh*t". What a book. Cameron's base are little old ladies in the midlands, they won't be so excited by this.
I get Ashcroft's beef, but what is his agenda? Why is he doing this now - and who benefits?
Des Ashcroft have the same contempt for Osborne?
He got his opinion polling for the GE so catastrophically wrong?
Ruining my ELBOW in the process! (though to be fair, the other pollsters weren't that great either!)
I don't know about catastrophic. They were useful enough for me to make a decent overall profit on my constituency bets.
In his own words - they were snapshots, not predictions.
Bit bizarre and maybe get some WTF laughs on Mock the Week but can't see it mattering politically that a retiring PM had an odd past.
Unless he did it while PM.
It does slightly blunt Tory attacks on Corbyn -
"You supported the IRA in 1987"
"Well you did three tons of cocaine and orally raped a dead pig the following weekend"
"About the railways...."
Corbyn supported the IRA while an MP. Has Cameron done any of this while he was an MP?
He was relatively open(ish) about having taken drugs in the past during the leadership election a whole decade ago. The line was always that the past was the past before being an MP.
That line doesn't exist for political attacks, or even just things that diminish the dignity of the person being attacked. How long has Cameron already been attacked for being part of the Bullingdon Club for heaven's sake? If it can make someone look bad, it will be used, if not always officially in the case of sillier or more spurious stuff.
Bit bizarre and maybe get some WTF laughs on Mock the Week but can't see it mattering politically that a retiring PM had an odd past.
Unless he did it while PM.
It does slightly blunt Tory attacks on Corbyn -
"You supported the IRA in 1987"
"Well you did three tons of cocaine and orally raped a dead pig the following weekend"
"About the railways...."
Corbyn supported the IRA while an MP. Has Cameron done any of this while he was an MP?
He was relatively open(ish) about having taken drugs in the past during the leadership election a whole decade ago. The line was always that the past was the past before being an MP.
That line doesn't exist for political attacks, or even just things that diminish the dignity of the person being attacked. How long has Cameron already been attacked for being part of the Bullingdon Club for heaven's sake? If it can make someone look bad, it will be used, if not always officially in the case of sillier or more spurious stuff.
He's been attacked for Bullingdon for a decade and it hasn't really cut through and he's won two elections to become PM despite Bullingdon being openly known about.
I'm not sure how much more this will cut through given that Bullingdon was itself not a deal-breaker except for those who'd never support him anyway. To me this merges in with the Bullingdon stuff and drugs stuff as a student we've always known about.
Ouch. Cocaine, having sex with a dead pig, Crosby saying he's a "tosser" and "posh sh*t". What a book. Cameron's base are little old ladies in the midlands, they won't be so excited by this.
Hilarious of course. Oakshott and Ashcroft should do the music halls as a double act. Ashcroft in his time has been a one man trade union - wanting to dictate in return for donate. With predictability poor results for all sides.
Someone needs to get their hands on that photo of Dave sticking his penis into a dead pig. That is seriously disgusting and would surely destroy his career.
Bit bizarre and maybe get some WTF laughs on Mock the Week but can't see it mattering politically that a retiring PM had an odd past.
Unless he did it while PM.
It does slightly blunt Tory attacks on Corbyn -
"You supported the IRA in 1987"
"Well you did three tons of cocaine and orally raped a dead pig the following weekend"
"About the railways...."
Corbyn supported the IRA while an MP. Has Cameron done any of this while he was an MP?
He was relatively open(ish) about having taken drugs in the past during the leadership election a whole decade ago. The line was always that the past was the past before being an MP.
Sure. True.
I have heard hints of this stuff about Sam Cam (quite a wild past) and her husband before. If anything Sam is the wilder of the two. The ironic thing is that the Milibands (Ed and J) were not dissimilar. Also the Osbornes, together and apart.
Corbyn is just a serial philanderer (different generation)
FWIW I reckon this won't especially damage Cameron (unless something worse emerges). Most Brits have personally seen high jinks, or drunken lunacy, or kinky sex, or all three with added dwarves, meh.
Incidentally to declare an interest if I ever become famous I'd rather stuff I did at uni when I was a student in the past stayed in the past too. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Pong.. Do you really want a Pres or PM who follows a murderous religion, to have his finger on the button, and is running a basically christian belief country..Only an idiot would trust such a person .You must always remember that one of the basic tenets and a major principle of Islam is to kill,by any and all means possible,all non believers..got that... ALL NON BELIEVERS..Fun eh.
Do you have a credible source for that?
And if it were true, how come the several million muslims in Britain haven't acted on it during the decades they've been here?
Or is it just your own twisted and prejudiced view of the world?
Oh give over, you virtue signalling halfwit. It's not paranoid to be deeply suspicious of Islamic beliefs, as all of Islam is convulsed by a war of Fundamentalism, which has killed millions already, and which, in the form of ISIS (towards whom 27% of British Muslims feel sympathy) is sworn to kill us all.
Tool.
You're in a sprightly mood this evening.
Certainly there is a deeply dangerous - and worryingly large - strain of jihadist Islam. But to infer from that, as Richard does, that every muslim is out to kill everyone else is paranoid babble.
That's not to say that reasonable precautions shouldn't be taken; it is to say that we shouldn't get het up in some kind of witchhunt.
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?
I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.
Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.
There is a maximum figure but what it is depends on the culture of Islam held. Communities with a background in a secular country like Turkey are more readily integrated than those from a theocracy or those where tribal and family loyalties outweigh respect for the state and law.
I don't know precisely what the figure is - nor what we could do about it were we already over it - but I do think that it would be wise to immigration from Islamic countries to a practical minimum. Your 10% is probably top-side if anything, based on the countries-of-origin from which the majority of current immigrants come.
And it is racist (or religionist or whatever) to expect an extreme action from an individual solely on the basis of the religion held when the evidence doesn't support that belief.
(I'm afraid I can't reply further - dinner calls).
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, butm countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism ·
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don'tden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?
And why are so many Muslims, the massive, landslide, majority, not violent extremists? The problem is there are so many Muslims that there must be a enough extremists to be significant.
Is there an armed group calling themselves "Christian State"? "Hindu State"? "Buddhist State"? "Jehovah's Witnesses State"?
Bit bizarre and maybe get some WTF laughs on Mock the Week but can't see it mattering politically that a retiring PM had an odd past.
Unless he did it while PM.
It does slightly blunt Tory attacks on Corbyn -
"You supported the IRA in 1987"
"Well you did three tons of cocaine and orally raped a dead pig the following weekend"
"About the railways...."
Corbyn supported the IRA while an MP. Has Cameron done any of this while he was an MP?
He was relatively open(ish) about having taken drugs in the past during the leadership election a whole decade ago. The line was always that the past was the past before being an MP.
That line doesn't exist for political attacks, or even just things that diminish the dignity of the person being attacked. How long has Cameron already been attacked for being part of the Bullingdon Club for heaven's sake? If it can make someone look bad, it will be used, if not always officially in the case of sillier or more spurious stuff.
He's been attacked for Bullingdon for a decade and it hasn't really cut through and he's won two elections to become PM despite Bullingdon being openly known about.
I'm not sure how much more this will cut through given that Bullingdon was itself not a deal-breaker except for those who'd never support him anyway. To me this merges in with the Bullingdon stuff and drugs stuff as a student we've always known about.
I'm not suggesting it will really cut through in a serious way, I'm as dismissive about the Bullingdon stuff as anyone and its seriously lazy stuff...but on the other hand, I will now think 'it's claimed he shagged a dead pig' when thinking of Cameron, for a time at least, even if I dismiss it as nonsense (I'm a little concerned at the lack of surprise it might be possible, even as drunken pranking that is not a big deal), which is all, I suspect, the good lord is after.
I find it hard to believe that only Ashcroft knew about the pig story for all these years. Surely somebody would have leaked it to the press years ago?
I think I'd make a great cipher of a politician to be honest - being teetotal, largely solitary and absent from social media, the best charge that could probably be levelled is I'm very boring and a bit weird. Give me a safe seat which doesn't relying on anything so hard as charisma, insight or ideas, and I'd probably be able to be trusted not to cause it to slip away because of a scandal.
The book is to be trailed across multiple issues no doubt - this could be just the beginning, maybe these pranksters start you out on a dead one and work up.
I find it hard to believe that only Ashcroft knew about the pig story for all these years. Surely somebody would have leaked it to the press years ago?
Like Gordon Brown on that rocking horse? Very popular on Guido at the time.
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
You can't buck history.
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
Unfortunately for Labour, it is probably too late for them, they are dead in the water, sliding down below 20%. And the neutral view, likely to be closely tied to the Federalist/Devo-Max view which was once the most popular choice, is waning in popularity.
Before the First Referendum campaign, the middle ground was heavily favoured and while we don't yet have polling of the three way question we can see from such polling in Catalonia that the main casualty of denying an Independence movement is always the middle ground - support for a Federal solution in Spain has plummeted.
And yet no western democracy - Spain, Canada, the UK - has actually seen a secession. .
Someone needs to get their hands on that photo of Dave sticking his penis into a dead pig. That is seriously disgusting and would surely destroy his career.
All the better if the photo doesn't show the perpetrator's head. It'll be the Duchess of Argyll all over again ...
How many people will get down as far as the bits like this:
The book offers a deeply moving account of the PM’s love for his disabled son, and how caring for Ivan (pictured) turned him into a compassionate politician
Heartwarming stuff, I'm sure that will be remembered.
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
You can't buck history.
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
Unfortunately for Labour, it is probably too late for them, they are dead in the water, sliding down below 20%. And the neutral view, likely to be closely tied to the Federalist/Devo-Max view which was once the most popular choice, is waning in popularity.
Before the First Referendum campaign, the middle ground was heavily favoured and while we don't yet have polling of the three way question we can see from such polling in Catalonia that the main casualty of denying an Independence movement is always the middle ground - support for a Federal solution in Spain has plummeted.
And yet no western democracy - Spain, Canada, the UK - has actually seen a secession. .
How many people will get down as far as the bits like this:
The book offers a deeply moving account of the PM’s love for his disabled son, and how caring for Ivan (pictured) turned him into a compassionate politician
Heartwarming stuff, I'm sure that will be remembered.
Yes, thank goodness it's finally been revealed after Cameron himself remaining silent on the topic for so many years.
How many people will get down as far as the bits like this:
The book offers a deeply moving account of the PM’s love for his disabled son, and how caring for Ivan (pictured) turned him into a compassionate politician
Heartwarming stuff, I'm sure that will be remembered.
Yes, thank goodness it's finally been revealed after Cameron himself remaining silent on the topic for so many years.
Yes yes, I know, but it doesn't say it reveals it, just that if offers a deeply moving account of it. I just enjoy that they bothered to put in a bit about the book containing positive parts, when it might as well be titled 'The pig shagging chronicles' for how it will be remembered.
But, I thought, all Hurrah Henry types were at it ! Is this a revelation ? I don't think it will harm him politically at all.
Putting your private parts into a dead pig is OK. But talking to the IRA before the entire political establishment did so is wrong !
Technically, that would still be the case if both were indeed true. Personal perversions are not necessarily dangerous to the nation, whereas a sympathizer of the IRA (not just someone who is willing to talk to any people to seek peace) as he has been characterized, would be. However, It would be hard to imagine someone asking for votes though if such perversions were proven, even if they were simply brilliant in all other respects.
How many people will get down as far as the bits like this:
The book offers a deeply moving account of the PM’s love for his disabled son, and how caring for Ivan (pictured) turned him into a compassionate politician
Heartwarming stuff, I'm sure that will be remembered.
Yes, thank goodness it's finally been revealed after Cameron himself remaining silent on the topic for so many years.
Yes yes, I know, but it doesn't say it reveals it, just that if offers a deeply moving account of it. I just enjoy that they bothered to put in a bit about the book containing positive parts, when it might as well be titled 'The pig shagging chronicles' for how it will be remembered.
He may count himself lucky - the story of this one incident as it has emerged, albeit quite gross, has a sort of 'American Pie' 'banter' feel to it. The reality may be that this was an organised initiation into an occult group.
Is there an unwritten rule among top politicians not to talk about allegations like these when the media floats them (involving personal, not policy issues and allegations that is), even obliquely? I'm just wondering if we'll get a chorus line of MPs from all over very happy to say publicly and loudly how they do not believe and think it disgraceful that anyone would suggest Mr Cameron would have performed a sex act on a pig, and in so doing repeat the allegation, or if they naturally will keep pretty quiet and let the media, pundits and amateur support have the fun.
How many people will get down as far as the bits like this:
The book offers a deeply moving account of the PM’s love for his disabled son, and how caring for Ivan (pictured) turned him into a compassionate politician
Heartwarming stuff, I'm sure that will be remembered.
Yes, thank goodness it's finally been revealed after Cameron himself remaining silent on the topic for so many years.
Yes yes, I know, but it doesn't say it reveals it, just that if offers a deeply moving account of it. I just enjoy that they bothered to put in a bit about the book containing positive parts, when it might as well be titled 'The pig shagging chronicles' for how it will be remembered.
He may count himself lucky - the story of this one incident as it has emerged, albeit quite gross, has a sort of 'American Pie' 'banter' feel to it. The reality may be that this was an organised initiation into an occult group.
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
You can't buck history.
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
Unfortunately for Labour, it is probably too late for them, they are dead in the water, sliding down below 20%. And the neutral view, likely to be closely tied to the Federalist/Devo-Max view which was once the most popular choice, is waning in popularity.
Before the First Referendum campaign, the middle ground was heavily favoured and while we don't yet have polling of the three way question we can see from such polling in Catalonia that the main casualty of denying an Independence movement is always the middle ground - support for a Federal solution in Spain has plummeted.
And yet no western democracy - Spain, Canada, the UK - has actually seen a secession. .
Yes it has, The Irish Free State in 1922.
Norway.
Norway from Sweden in 1905, though technically it was a Union of Crowns, like England and Scotland 1603-1707.
But, I thought, all Hurrah Henry types were at it ! Is this a revelation ? I don't think it will harm him politically at all.
Putting your private parts into a dead pig is OK. But talking to the IRA before the entire political establishment did so is wrong !
Technically, that would still be the case if both were indeed true. Personal perversions are not necessarily dangerous to the nation, whereas a sympathizer of the IRA (not just someone who is willing to talk to any people to seek peace) as he has been characterized, would be. However, It would be hard to imagine someone asking for votes though if such perversions were proven, even if they were simply brilliant in all other respects.
Actually, they are dangerous to the nation, because perversions are kept secret, and secrets are blackmail material. This means the powerful can bend politicians to their will, rather than the national interest. We know for a fact that this has gone on for decades.
The book is to be trailed across multiple issues no doubt - this could be just the beginning, maybe these pranksters start you out on a dead one and work up.
Very true. At this stage though he's still got a long way to go to catch up with some of the stuff I did years ago. No Facebook then and no cameras on phones, thank G-d.
But, I thought, all Hurrah Henry types were at it ! Is this a revelation ? I don't think it will harm him politically at all.
Putting your private parts into a dead pig is OK. But talking to the IRA before the entire political establishment did so is wrong !
Technically, that would still be the case if both were indeed true. Personal perversions are not necessarily dangerous to the nation, whereas a sympathizer of the IRA (not just someone who is willing to talk to any people to seek peace) as he has been characterized, would be. However, It would be hard to imagine someone asking for votes though if such perversions were proven, even if they were simply brilliant in all other respects.
Actually, they are dangerous to the nation, because perversions are kept secret, and secrets are blackmail material. This means the powerful can bend politicians to their will, rather than the national interest. We know for a fact that this has gone on for decades.
That's why i said not 'necessarily' dangerous - they can be, as blackmail material, but there is the possibility such things will not rise to that and become actually dangerous. IRA sympathizing would be automatically dangerous. One has potentiality, the other actuality.
Is the Cameron story for real? No news outlet seems to be running with it
How in the name of all that's holy do you run with it? "This is the News at Ten. The Prime Minister once knowingly stuck his dick in a dead pig. And now Jayne with the weather"
"Mock the Week" this week is going to be hysterical...
But, I thought, all Hurrah Henry types were at it ! Is this a revelation ? I don't think it will harm him politically at all.
Putting your private parts into a dead pig is OK. But talking to the IRA before the entire political establishment did so is wrong !
Technically, that would still be the case if both were indeed true. Personal perversions are not necessarily dangerous to the nation, whereas a sympathizer of the IRA (not just someone who is willing to talk to any people to seek peace) as he has been characterized, would be. However, It would be hard to imagine someone asking for votes though if such perversions were proven, even if they were simply brilliant in all other respects.
Actually, they are dangerous to the nation, because perversions are kept secret, and secrets are blackmail material. This means the powerful can bend politicians to their will, rather than the national interest. We know for a fact that this has gone on for decades.
Cameron's pigfucking bestiality necrophilia is now no longer a secret. Putin must be wetting himself "Bacon sandwich, Prime Minister..."
But, I thought, all Hurrah Henry types were at it ! Is this a revelation ? I don't think it will harm him politically at all.
Putting your private parts into a dead pig is OK. But talking to the IRA before the entire political establishment did so is wrong !
Technically, that would still be the case if both were indeed true. Personal perversions are not necessarily dangerous to the nation, whereas a sympathizer of the IRA (not just someone who is willing to talk to any people to seek peace) as he has been characterized, would be. However, It would be hard to imagine someone asking for votes though if such perversions were proven, even if they were simply brilliant in all other respects.
Actually, they are dangerous to the nation, because perversions are kept secret, and secrets are blackmail material. This means the powerful can bend politicians to their will, rather than the national interest. We know for a fact that this has gone on for decades.
Cameron's pigfucking bestiality necrophilia is now no longer a secret. Putin must be wetting himself "Bacon sandwich, Prime Minister..."
Oh gods, I hope that is usually on the menu for the PM's breakfast, and if the staff dare prepare it tomorrow - better hope they stay up late on news websites, or get the early papers.
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
You can't buck history.
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
Unfortunately for Labour, it is probably too late for them, they are dead in the water, sliding down below 20%. And the neutral view, likely to be closely tied to the Federalist/Devo-Max view which was once the most popular choice, is waning in popularity.
Before the First Referendum campaign, the middle ground was heavily favoured and while we don't yet have polling of the three way question we can see from such polling in Catalonia that the main casualty of denying an Independence movement is always the middle ground - support for a Federal solution in Spain has plummeted.
And yet no western democracy - Spain, Canada, the UK - has actually seen a secession. .
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
You can't buck history.
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
Unfortunately for Labour, it is probably too late for them, they are dead in the water, sliding down below 20%. And the neutral view, likely to be closely tied to the Federalist/Devo-Max view which was once the most popular choice, is waning in popularity.
Before the First Referendum campaign, the middle ground was heavily favoured and while we don't yet have polling of the three way question we can see from such polling in Catalonia that the main casualty of denying an Independence movement is always the middle ground - support for a Federal solution in Spain has plummeted.
And yet no western democracy - Spain, Canada, the UK - has actually seen a secession. .
But, I thought, all Hurrah Henry types were at it ! Is this a revelation ? I don't think it will harm him politically at all.
Putting your private parts into a dead pig is OK. But talking to the IRA before the entire political establishment did so is wrong !
Technically, that would still be the case if both were indeed true. Personal perversions are not necessarily dangerous to the nation, whereas a sympathizer of the IRA (not just someone who is willing to talk to any people to seek peace) as he has been characterized, would be. However, It would be hard to imagine someone asking for votes though if such perversions were proven, even if they were simply brilliant in all other respects.
Actually, they are dangerous to the nation, because perversions are kept secret, and secrets are blackmail material. This means the powerful can bend politicians to their will, rather than the national interest. We know for a fact that this has gone on for decades.
Cameron's pigfucking bestiality necrophilia is now no longer a secret. Putin must be wetting himself "Bacon sandwich, Prime Minister..."
This story is going to be best among the 'serious' news outlets - there are few things better than seeing some editor struggling to fit an inherently lurid tale into the moderate newsspeak of a 'serious' paper or tv station.
"It is alleged that in a state of insobriety while a student at Oxford that Mr Cameron, 49, engaged in prurient acts as part of initiation rites of a social club, including disturbing details of deceased porcine involvement. Mr Cameron has been unavailable for comment, while Mr Corbyn's spokesman had a fit of hysteria and was unable to respond".
But, I thought, all Hurrah Henry types were at it ! Is this a revelation ? I don't think it will harm him politically at all.
Putting your private parts into a dead pig is OK. But talking to the IRA before the entire political establishment did so is wrong !
Technically, that would still be the case if both were indeed true. Personal perversions are not necessarily dangerous to the nation, whereas a sympathizer of the IRA (not just someone who is willing to talk to any people to seek peace) as he has been characterized, would be. However, It would be hard to imagine someone asking for votes though if such perversions were proven, even if they were simply brilliant in all other respects.
Actually, they are dangerous to the nation, because perversions are kept secret, and secrets are blackmail material. This means the powerful can bend politicians to their will, rather than the national interest. We know for a fact that this has gone on for decades.
Cameron's pigfucking bestiality necrophilia is now no longer a secret. Putin must be wetting himself "Bacon sandwich, Prime Minister..."
Oh gods, I hope that is usually on the menu for the PM's breakfast, and if the staff dare prepare it tomorrow - better hope they stay up late on news websites, or get the early papers.
It's one of those things that just kills conversation, isn't it. Cameron Pigfucker. What do you do with something like that?
A quick read of the DM story seems to have a lot of "I was told by someone who was there that Dave did xxxxxx " so not exactly first-hand accounts.
Ashcroft needs the witnesses to come forward and if the photo exists then why iis it not in the book?
This is all very strange, but a change from Corbyn. It should be an interesting week
Do you think the Daily Mail's lawyers would have allowed this if they were not certain of the facts ? Or, for that matter, is Downing Street denying "Poking a Pork" ?
Comments
Unless he did it while PM.
Still, perhaps this will end the idea that the media only print stuff highly personal about the Left? This is not just a party leader but the PM to boot!
And with that I am off to read this lurid story (if it is available online)
Had he done it in four years it may have hurt the Tories chances at the election.
This is silly season.
He was relatively open(ish) about having taken drugs in the past during the leadership election a whole decade ago. The line was always that the past was the past before being an MP.
One delight of reading old books and newspapers is to see the confident predictions and received wisdom of the time, so often comprehensively dashed by the events that followed.
What odds someone cracks a joke referencing it at the Labour conference?
In his own words - they were snapshots, not predictions.
Post of the year
I'm not sure how much more this will cut through given that Bullingdon was itself not a deal-breaker except for those who'd never support him anyway. To me this merges in with the Bullingdon stuff and drugs stuff as a student we've always known about.
A clear choice : Pigs mouth or Ham ass
Someone needs to get their hands on that photo of Dave sticking his penis into a dead pig. That is seriously disgusting and would surely destroy his career.
https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/645327243254886400
I don't know precisely what the figure is - nor what we could do about it were we already over it - but I do think that it would be wise to immigration from Islamic countries to a practical minimum. Your 10% is probably top-side if anything, based on the countries-of-origin from which the majority of current immigrants come.
And it is racist (or religionist or whatever) to expect an extreme action from an individual solely on the basis of the religion held when the evidence doesn't support that belief.
(I'm afraid I can't reply further - dinner calls).
https://twitter.com/john_neptune/status/645722255109062657
I thought sausages were supposed to come out of pigs?
Could be worse, could have been a live pig.
http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/pigs-animals-lyrics.html
Revenge !
Also, the only "democracy" that occupies an entire nation for 48 years !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Campbell,_Duchess_of_Argyll#Divorce_from_the_Duke_of_Argyll
The book offers a deeply moving account of the PM’s love for his disabled son, and how caring for Ivan (pictured) turned him into a compassionate politician
Heartwarming stuff, I'm sure that will be remembered.
Good deal, anyone know?
When you go out for revenge, first dig two graves.
[scene: Red Rag editorial meeting]
"How about we say Cameron porked a dead pig's head?"
"It needs to be plausibele..."
Ashcroft needs the witnesses to come forward and if the photo exists then why iis it not in the book?
This is all very strange, but a change from Corbyn. It should be an interesting week
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/645661126185848832
That said one person's debauched behaviour is another person's typical night out in Manchester.
"Mock the Week" this week is going to be hysterical...
(sorry!)
"Jasper from Stoke Newington asks:
'Does the prime minister think it acceptable to put ones private parts into farmyard animals?' "
'At least when I shagged a pig I DIDNT PROMOTE IT TO THE SHADOW CABINET AFTERWARDS!'
"It is alleged that in a state of insobriety while a student at Oxford that Mr Cameron, 49, engaged in prurient acts as part of initiation rites of a social club, including disturbing details of deceased porcine involvement. Mr Cameron has been unavailable for comment, while Mr Corbyn's spokesman had a fit of hysteria and was unable to respond".