Is David Cameron a moron from the outer reaches of the universe? (Part 2)

by Redflag Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:57 am

First topic message reminder :

boatlady wrote:The face I want to kick

Get into the queue boatlady, there are a few million others awaiting to do more than kick him in the face, some would want to hang up up by his B****CKS, myself I would rather like to force him to do a REAL hard days work like cleaning public toilets with a toothbrush lol!

by boatlady Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:23 pm

Trevor - you seem to be getting a bit hot under the collar.
1) I was commenting on the fact that INDIVIDUALS sometimes believe things in their 20's that they would later blush to recall. The other point was that I can see parallels between the behaviour of the current government and the Tory government led by Margaret Thatcher in the '80's. Governments are not the same as individuals, and my point was that Harriet Harman (an individual) is capable of holding differing views at different parts of her life, and may in fact be today a completely viable human being, despite having had some silly ideas when she was younger - just like me and probably also you. I might also want to comment that I believe governments also are capable of moving on from foolish ideas - although I can't see much sign of this government doing so.

2) You are right of course - we've all gone wildly off topic - there is in fact a thread for discussing scandals associated with this government, and that would have been the proper place perhaps to locate this discussion.

In relation to the paedophilia allegations, maybe there's a bit of schadenfreude being expressed on the forum about the discomfiture of the current government which is having to deal with the fallout from events that seem to have taken place in the '80's - sorry if you find that distasteful - but I think we all appreciate that these are serious allegations and that the finger of blame may well come to rest on anyone at all.

I for one completely respect your non-aligned political position and no-one wants to force you into some kind of sinister left-wing mould; however, if you are going to make sweeping statements such as Labour is harping on about the 80's and many Tories are recognising the failings of the time. Since then ALL parties have ignored what they have known, but didn't want to deal with maybe you could give us some links to show where this is happening? Because my impression is that the opposition are mostly commenting on what's happening in the here and now and making promises for the future.

by Stox 16 Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:41 pm

a very fair point boatlady while being quite true at the same time. but its just my view

by trevorw2539 Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:45 pm

Boatlady. If I'm hot under the collar it's not just with one party but both. Scoring of points by either party does not earn any brownie points with the public in general. They want things settled, done and dusted. Where justice must be done, so be it.

That the situation has occured is indisputable, but it is not from the 80's. This goes back much farther than that.

Not because he's a Tory, but because he is a sensible thinker, I agree with Norman Tebbutt. Parliament was always an establishment that must be seen to be above reproach in the old days, so these things were hidden from view. (That's simply put).

The open society we have today has broken that belief. No longer can these things be hidden. So let's deal with them, then let's get on with running the country.

My non-aligned position. I see some of what the Tories have done as being to the benefit of the country - but to the detriment of the poor.
I see Labours stance on the raising of standards for the poor. But I do not think this can happen overnight with £10 minimum wages etc.

There's a lot more but I wait to see Manifestos, promises and decide who can afford what and how it wll affect people - rich and poor.

As to people changing. Yes, people do change. Unfortunately the past doesn't.
Omar Khayyam summed it up nicely. 'The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.......................'. You will know the whole.
What we have done/been in the past cannot be wiped out. I guess that Blair, if he had known what he knew later, would not have joined the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eden would not have been involved in Suez. Chanberlain would not have tried to appease Hitler. What we have done, we have done. We can only try to make amends where necessary.

I've posted this on here because I don't know which other thread to post it on.

If you reply you may not get an answer, or not soon. I'm 2 months behind on a study. Crying or Very sad

by oftenwrong Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:34 pm

Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude told the Commons that fewer [Public sector] workers were taking part in the strike than during previous industrial action. Fewer than 20% of civil servants were on strike, compared with a third during the last big walkout in 2011.

Tory policy in 2014 apparently wishes to mirror the action of Ottomans who invaded the Mediterranean island of Gozo in 1551 and promptly sold the entire population into slavery.

by **Ivan** Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:45 pm

Is David Cameron a moron from the outer reaches of the universe? (Part 2) - Page 4 BsLf6a1IcAAdkoW

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsLf6a1IcAAdkoW.png

by **Ivan** Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:47 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:-
I see some of what the Tories have done as being to the benefit of the country - but to the detriment of the poor.

What a strange remark! I can’t think of one thing that the Tories have done which is of benefit to anyone other than their spiv friends and party donors – while the poor (along with the rest of the population) are the country!

Both parties have had 30 years to deal with this and have failed to do so.

No they haven’t. Most people weren’t aware of the perversions of Cyril Smith and Jimmy Savile until after they were dead in 2010 and 2011 respectively. You seem to contradict yourself when you quote Tebbit as saying: “Parliament was always an establishment that must be seen to be above reproach in the old days, so these things were hidden from view.”

When studying history, it’s important not to judge the behaviour of people in the past by our values and beliefs today. That’s not to say that certain crimes can ever be anything other than evil – murder, rape and the sexual assault of children for a start – but society has changed its attitudes towards such matters as racism, homosexuality (which was illegal in the UK until 1967) and sex outside of marriage.

According to your 2009 article from ‘The Daily Telegraph’, Harriet Harman worked for an “organisation that wanted the age of consent to be lowered to 14”. Personally I don’t think that’s a good idea, but I see that the age of consent is currently 13 in Spain, 14 in Austria, Germany, Hungary and Italy, and 15 in a number of European countries including Denmark, France, Greece and Sweden. In Britain in the Middle Ages, the age of consent was 12. In the 1960s and 1970s, when people became less secretive about their sexual activity, it became obvious that our age of consent of 16 was being widely ignored and hardly anyone was being punished for violating it. If a law is unenforceable, should it be changed? That was possibly the thinking behind the National Council for Civil Liberties’ campaign in the late 1970s to lower the age of consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

In any case, there’s a hell of a difference between campaigning (mistakenly or otherwise) for a change in the law and actively abusing children. The focus of the current investigation is the paedophile ring which was centred on Thatcher’s government of the 1980s and which Savile ‘fed’ with children. This is primarily, but not exclusively, a Tory scandal. We now know that Thatcher’s attorney general, Michael Havers, tried to hide the exposure of a paedophile diplomat named Peter Hayman. Where Cameron is behaving like a moron – to at last get back on topic – is in thinking that the appointment of Havers’ sister to head an investigation is likely to satisfy everyone. However worthy the lady may be, there is a danger that her report will still be perceived as biased. In which case, the bad smell will not go away.

by boatlady Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:33 pm

Nicely put

by Redflag Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:39 pm

I agree with the last paragraph of your post Ivan, this all came out after Scameron had announced who would be heading the inquiry I just wonder if he knew WHO he was handing the inquiry to or is this another job for the boys but girl in his case.

I think there is a lot more to come out about the child abuse that went on during Thatchers Tory gov't within Westminister, this will just be another nail in the coffin of Scameron because if he expects the UK public to believe anything that comes out of his mouth he is misjudging the publics intellegence. Your spot on about this casting a stench over the inquiry when the person chairing it is the sister of the person that tried to stop the missing dossier being handed over to Leon Brittain.

by **Ivan** Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:48 pm

Is David Cameron a moron from the outer reaches of the universe? (Part 2) - Page 4 BsNXeFPIAAArAZq

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsNXeFPIAAArAZq.jpg

by boatlady Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:04 pm

some kind of new elitist martial art?

by bobby Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:40 am

Notice how the racquet is going for the bum.

by trevorw2539 Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:02 pm

When studying history, it’s important not to judge the behaviour of people in the past by our values and beliefs today. That’s not to say that certain crimes can ever be anything other than evil – murder, rape and the sexual assault of children for a start – but society has changed its attitudes towards such matters as racism, homosexuality (which was illegal in the UK until 1967) and sex outside of marriage.

Not so. Western society has. Child marriages still happen in Islamic circles by English Islamics and they see no problem. Nature decrees when children reach child bearing age, society decrees when they should be allowed to follow natural purposes.

Having said that I agree there has to be more to life than bearing children so SOCIETY decrees an age at which this should legally happen, AND RIGHTLY SO.

Age of consent.

In Britain in the Middle Ages, the age of consent was 12.

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html

The Age of consent of the 1200's was set at 12. Mainly for the ruling classes. Not to protect girls, but their chastity. A non-virgin was classed and unmarriagable, unless a widow, whereas in the peasantry this was not so important.

No they haven’t. Most people weren’t aware of the perversions of Cyril Smith and Jimmy Savile until after they were dead in 2010 and 2011 respectively. You seem to contradict yourself when you quote Tebbit as saying: “Parliament was always an establishment that must be seen to be above reproach in the old days, so these things were hidden from view.”

Whether the public knew, and many had a shrewd idea, Paedophilia was known by Parliamentarians long before Savile etc.

Former Conservative cabinet minister Lord Tebbit, who also served in Mrs Thatcher’s Government, said there "may well" have been a political cover-up over child abuse taking place at Westminster in the 1980s.

"At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it,” he said.

"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."

Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been."

According to your 2009 article from ‘The Daily Telegraph’, Harriet Harman worked for an “organisation that wanted the age of consent to be lowered to 14”.

Good bit of cherry picking. 'To allow pornographic pictures involving children if it can be proved the child wasn't harmed...'.

All ready for Paedophiles to drool over. Is that not 'abetting'?

Redflag. The public are not the fools you think they are. They know Parliamentarians of all parties were involved. They don't trust any party. Unless a miracle happens, and I'm not optimistic, the involvement, or should that be non-involvement, of the public in voting next year will prove this.

by boatlady Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:24 pm

So, what do we all think? IS David Cameron a moron from the outer reaches of the universe?

Basketball

by **Ivan** Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:55 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:-
Paedophilia was known by Parliamentarians long before Savile etc……The public are not the fools you think they are. They know Parliamentarians of all parties were involved.

Parliamentarians involved in the cover-up in Thatcher’s government would have known what was going on, but there’s no reason to think that any of that massive Labour intake of 1997 would have done so. We know that evidence was destroyed – the Dickens dossier and up to 114 other files – so the cover-up was pretty effective. But I doubt if many members of the general public were aware of the allegations until stories started swirling around on the internet in recent years.

You remind me of those climate change deniers who try to claim that, because 3% of scientists accept their dubious claims, man-made global warming isn’t a clear-cut issue. I could name one 86-year-old Labour peer who is suspected of being a paedophile, and there was the Liberal Cyril Smith, but from my research all of the other politicians under suspicion are Tories. If you have any evidence to support your assertion that “all parties are involved”, kindly post it here (though without risking any libel action). Otherwise your repeated insistence that “all parties are the same” just comes across as the usual lazy Tory smear we have to put up with whenever one of their very many scandals surfaces.

Maybe soon we can adhere to the moderator's request and get back on topic? headbang

by Redflag Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:27 pm

IVAN That is the only reason those 114 files from the dossier went missing (more than likely shredded) it concerned Tory MPs as we both know the sleaze within Thatchers Tory gov't I do not think there was a week went by that there was not a scandal in the newspapers. Then Edwina Currie came out in her book and another piece of scandal was released about her and John Major in the broom cupboards of the HOC.

by trevorw2539 Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:27 pm

I could name one 86-year-old Labour peer who is suspected of being a paedophile, and there was the Liberal Cyril Smith, but from my research all of the other politicians under suspicion are Tories.

Good, You know more than anyone else. You know all the MP's under suspicion - does that include those on the list that was destroyed?

I bow to your superior knowledge.

And now you can get back to the subject of the thread.

by boatlady Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:20 am

Thank you

by oftenwrong Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:37 pm

The wisdom of David Cameron is shortly to be on display with a pre-election Cabinet Shuffle.

Will he stuff it with female MPs?

Who will be sacrificed? Probably minister-without-portfolio, Ken Clarke. Possibly Andrew Lansley, Eric Pickles or even the universally acclaimed IDS. Doubtful whether DC has the guts to discipline either Gove or May, both Pretenders to his throne.

by **Ivan** Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:14 pm

oftenwrong. It's another example of Cameron’s moronic tendency. He told the recent Tory summer ball that Iain Duncan Smith was one of the three stars of his cabinet, alongside George Osborne and Theresa May. Apart from the stupendous notion that the incompetent and vicious work and pensions secretary is a 'star', what sort of leader singles out three members of his team in this manner? Does he see the rest of them as somehow inferior? Rolling Eyes

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/11/david-cameron-promote-women-young-men-cabinet-reshuffle?

by Redflag Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:50 pm

He selects them for praise because they are VILE VICIOUS like himself Ivan, this is just another reason WHY people of the UK need to vote Labour in May 2015. cheers

by trevorw2539 Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:24 pm

'It is understood a large number of ministers have notified No 10 they would like to stand down from the government'.

Same article quoted by Ivan.

by boatlady Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:30 pm

Rats? Sinking ships?

Or perhaps, principled old fashioned one nation tories who are feeling a bit disgusted

by trevorw2539 Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:01 pm

Rats? Sinking ships?

That presupposes the people believe the Cameron is wrong. I can't read their minds nor am I privy to their personal lives.

Did not a Labour government do the same thing in 2004 - bring in new blood because of the hammering it had taken. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1464919/Reshuffle-looms-as-Blair-seeks-to-inject-new-blood.html

by boatlady Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:19 pm

I was responding to the point that
'It is understood a large number of ministers have notified No 10 they would like to stand down from the government'
and speculating as to the cause for so many ministers wanting to step down:-
in this scenario, there are two possible interpretations that occurred to me

1) The ministers in question may believe that the government is in trouble and may be hastening to distance themselves from such trouble; or,
2) The ministers in question may be feeling revulsion due to the policies of the current government and so taking a chance to disassociate themselves

Of course, from time to time, Prime Ministers of all political parties do decide to reshuffle their cabinets - I just wondered if it is usual for large numbers of ministers to be so very willing to be demoted?

You really probably need to get over the feeling that everything said on here is adamantly lefty and designed to brainwash you. sunny

One of the activities on this thread is to consider the individual called David Cameron (the clue's in the title surely) and his actions as Prime Minister. This sort of involves trying to explain, sometimes in a humorous way, what we think may be the meaning of some of these actions.
The many and various foolishnesses of the Labour party tend not to come under scrutiny in this thread. Perhaps you should start a new thread to do this if you feel the forum lacks balance - I'm sure there's evidence out there of stuff done by previous Labour governments that we might all want to deplore.

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:44 pm

" The ministers in question may be feeling revulsion due to the policies of the current government and so taking a chance to disassociate themselves "

I can't imagine any of the present crop of Tory Ministers feeling revulsion at what has been visited upon so many unfortunate people. We are dealing here with individuals who relish the poverty which they have created and who celebrate the misery they have established amongst the disadvantaged. They are a vicious and evil bunch and they must be removed from power if at all possible.

by Redflag Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:23 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:" The ministers in question may be feeling revulsion due to the policies of the current government and so taking a chance to disassociate themselves "

I can't imagine any of the present crop of Tory Ministers feeling revulsion at what has been visited upon so many unfortunate people. We are dealing here with individuals who relish the poverty which they have created and who celebrate the misery they have established amongst the disadvantaged. They are a vicious and evil bunch and they must be removed from power if at all possible.

Sorry to disappoint Phil Hornby Tory Ministers are not capable of feeling anything FULL STOP So I doubt very much that any of them have the ability to feel disgust this is nothing more than looking after No1 or "Rats Deserting the Sinking Ship" more than likely there constituents have paid them a visit or they have been on twitter and seen what people are saying about them. Here is a laugh for you all I was followed on twitter by Grant Shapps so I put paid to that toot sweet and blocke that VILE & VICIOUS Tory. cheers

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:28 pm

by **Ivan** Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:14 pm

'It is understood a large number of ministers have notified No 10 they would like to stand down from the government'

boatlady. There are two more possibilities:-

1. That statement could be a lie put out by someone such as Grant Shapps to make any cull of ministers appear to be consensual.

2. Certain individuals may be being removed from the government just in case they get arrested in the run-up to the general election. The use of the expression “old lags” (which usually refers to ex-criminals) in the ‘Guardian’ article is interesting, especially as one of those expected to be sacked is being tipped as a possible “new lag”..... Shocked

by trevorw2539 Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:20 pm

Boatlady. Regrettably you would have a job to brainwash me. When the doctor checked my ears a few days ago the otoscope came out the other side.

I have no real interest in Labour Party misdemeanours, and little in researching them or those of any other Parliamentary Party. I have other study interests which take most of my leisure time.

You have my permission to carry on. Wink

'It is understood a large number of ministers have notified No 10 they would like to stand down from the government'

It came from a Guardian article by Nicholas Watt, Chief Political Correspondent of the Guardian

by boatlady Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:25 am

Yes, I know - I read the article - just like you

by boatlady Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:25 am

Ivan - two interesting possibilities there, which had not occurred to me

by oftenwrong Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:24 pm

Is it any wonder that younger voters are completely turned-off by our political system, and increasingly choose not to get involved?

by trevorw2539 Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:23 pm

Boatlady/Ivan.

3 times just recently I have tried to access this thread from Outlook.com having received notification of activity on here. Norton have blocked me on these occasions quoting IPMXP 2020.com as a dangerous website. I don't know computers but I thought I would let you know in case someone is trying to Hack? into your forum. Accessing other ways seems OK. I use Firefox if that is any help.

by **Ivan** Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:39 pm

trevorw2539. Thanks for the information. Our technical specialist and security officer is moonbeam, and I'll pass that on to her.

by Redflag Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:21 pm

boatlady wrote:I was responding to the point that
'It is understood a large number of ministers have notified No 10 they would like to stand down from the government'
and speculating as to the cause for so many ministers wanting to step down:-
in this scenario, there are two possible interpretations that occurred to me

1) The ministers in question may believe that the government is in trouble and may be hastening to distance themselves from such trouble; or,
2) The ministers in question may be feeling revulsion due to the policies of the current government and so taking a chance to disassociate themselves

I think your No1 sounds more likely boatlady, trying to save their own skin in the hope they will keep their seat after May 2015.

by **moonbeam** Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:46 am

trevorw2539 wrote:Boatlady/Ivan.

3 times just recently I have tried to access this thread from Outlook.com having received notification of activity on here. Norton have blocked me on these occasions quoting IPMXP 2020.com as a dangerous website. I don't know computers but I thought I would let you know in case someone is trying to Hack? into your forum. Accessing other ways seems OK. I use Firefox if that is any help.

Is it possible for you to screen shot the exact error the next time it happens? Sometimes the pop up box gives specific info about what, exactly, on that site is triggering the warning. It could be a picture someone posted from there, even.

by **Ivan** Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:06 pm

Ed Miliband may be a geek but David Cameron is simply a git

From an article by Kevin Maguire:-

"David Cameron’s far weirder than Ed Miliband. Dressing up as an Edwardian gentleman at university to join the toffee-nosed Bullingdon Club was freaky. It’s unusual to land your first job because a Buckingham Palace flunky rang to put in a royal word, then your second after mummy-in-law had a cosy chat with the boss. I think it’s strange to shoot deer for sport or ride a retired police horse before country suppers with a flame-haired media manipulator, yet that’s what Cameron did for fun.

In Downing Street there are all those telling little things, like drinking wine while sacking ministers, and bigger, more worrying issues such as this Prime Minister’s casual acquaintance with the truth when discussing living standards or the NHS.

I find Cameron’s insincerity spooky, the breeding of a chap who believes he was born to rule and the odd chat with members of the lower orders is cheaper than handing out alms. The arrogance and incompetence of the Tory leader are a lethal combination – for Britain. Of course Miliband’s weird too, but fighting a losing battle with a bacon buttie or being an intellectual geek don’t compare with Cameron’s upper-class remoteness."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-geek-david-cameron-3923102

by oftenwrong Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:40 am

from The Independent

Rupert Murdoch: 'I hope my daughter isn't friends with David Cameron'

Rupert Murdoch has taken to Twitter to distance himself from continuing rumours of a friendship between his daughter Elisabeth and David Cameron.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/rupert-murdoch-i-hope-my-daughter-isnt-friends-with-david-cameron-9632456.html?origin=internalSearch

by Redflag Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:51 am

oftenwrong wrote:from The Independent

Rupert Murdoch: 'I hope my daughter isn't friends with David Cameron'

Rupert Murdoch has taken to Twitter to distance himself from continuing rumours of a friendship between his daughter Elisabeth and David Cameron.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/rupert-murdoch-i-hope-my-daughter-isnt-friends-with-david-cameron-9632456.html?origin=internalSearch

Another RAT deserting the "SINKING SHIP" OW, I wonder if he will offer the Labour party to turn from a Blue Top and back to a Red Top I hope Ed Miliband tells him where to STICK IT. pokenest

by **Ivan** Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:04 pm

Come home to roost: Cameron’s ‘tough on immigration’ PR stunt backfires

In a botched PR stunt to appear tough on immigration, David Cameron posed for photographs in the home of people arrested for alleged immigration offences, drawing accusations of “bad taste”.

Cameron and home secretary Theresa May were pictured speaking with immigration officials at the Slough address where four men, thought to be Albanian, were earlier detained. Following the visit, the PM issued a direct warning to illegal immigrants that “we will find you and make sure you are sent back to the country you came from”.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of human rights group Liberty, called the visit “bad taste and constitutionally inappropriate for elected politicians to intervene in law enforcement”. "Who gave Mr Cameron permission to look round these premises? Being prime minister doesn't give you the right to enter private property willy nilly”, she said. “Are we going to see politicians electioneering by taking part in immigration searches?”

http://rt.com/uk/176752-cameron-criticized-illegal-immigrants/

by **astradt1** Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:26 pm

Over the past two weeks we have had Cameron accusing Putin of providing arms to the 'Pro-Russian' separatists in Eastern Ukraine and making calls for sanctions.
Today it is announced that the USA will be providing Mortars and grenades to Israel to help them in their continued bombardment of the Palestinian people of Gaza....
And from Cameron......Silence....

by Sponsored content