Cameron and the Pig

, if* it indicates that the Prime Minister thinks there are more important things for his press officials to deal with than ancient stories about him, then it would be quite refreshing. Governments shouldn’t be obsessed with what is in the papers and if they are not that is a good thing.

Well he didn’t shy away from hitting the home runs that the mail lined up for him in the election
Camerons tainted himself just by taking so much money from Ashcroft in the 1st place

It’s down to Corbyn to show he’s better than that

I think someone might have been mentioned earlier in the thread of similar tactics being previously used (I vaguely remember someone suggesting it) but it was only last night that I learnt about presidential hopeful Lyndon Johnson and the pig-shagging allegation.

In case the link to the Spectator article hasn’t been previously posted here it is –

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/09/has-ashcrofts-unnamed-tory-source-been-reading-hunter-s-thompson/

The interesting bit being :

“Christ, we can’t get a way calling him a pig-f—er,” the campaign manager protested. “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.”

“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.”’

as I said earlier, (it was Stoner what posted it)

the difference is that ‘Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that ‘ doesnt apply here as weve all become so used to tales of our elite burning £50 notes infront of homeless people and trashing restaurants at their special university drinking societies that ****ing the head of a dead pig doesnt seem as outlandish as it should

Im sure Ashcroft knows that, which is why he knows that the story has legs (or trotters) even without any proof

It’s down to Corbyn to show he’s better than that

Hm, appointing ‘Lord’ Mike Watson as education spokesman after a spot of fire-raising (which he eventually admitted). I know it was a while ago, spent conviction and all that, but misguided move IMO.

weve all become so used to tales of our elite burning £50 notes infront of homeless people and trashing restaurants

I’m obviously not reading the right newspapers, have you got any links to these stories that you’ve become used to, preferably ones involving Cameron?

try to keep up ernie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-bullingdon-club-what-we-know-about-the-secretive-oxford-university-society-david-cameron-definitely-did-attend-10513119.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/21/bullingdon-club-five-things-we-know_n_8169064.html

there was even a play
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posh_(play)

and a film
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Riot_Club

just like santa having a red suit and beard, 29ers only being any good for XC ,
whilst at Uni dave, gidders and borris were unspeaklably arrogant boors who indulged in all kinds of drunken antics paid for by the offshore trustfunds their dads setup, this is all well established in the nation’s consciousness, hence;

Britons wearily accept that their prime minister put his cock in a pig’s mouth

Yes thank you kimbers I was fully aware of the Bullingdon Club.

I was hoping for links to these stories which apparently means that we’ve all become so used to tales of our elite burning £50 notes in front of homeless people and trashing restaurants, and that preferably implicate Cameron. Which would explain your keenness to accept a story despite the complete lack of any evidence and which the raconteur himself doesn’t claim to believe.

All you’ve provided is wikipedia links about the Bullingdon Club and two newspaper articles published in the last couple of days. Where are these stories that you’ve become “so used to” ?

Some people have expressed the hope that Corbyn’s election as leader of the Labour Party will herald a new style of politics, considering the fuss created by some over what is almost certainly a made up story rather than focusing solely on real issue suggests that any change in the style of politics won’t be universal. There’s a surprise.

its not that I believe it, nor do many people have to

its plausable, thats what matters,
ask anyone what they assossciate it with; bullingdon = osborne, johnson, cameron, elitist white tie drunken debauchery etc etc
hence 8 pages on here, twitter/facebook piggy overload and our PM being fellated by a dead pigs head dominating the tv and newspaper headlines for the last couple of days

maybe Corbyn will change things, we’ll have to wait until the next PMQs and see whether he lets it pass, or whether the entire opposition bench will slip on piggy masks the minute Cameron steps up
Although I suspect if he mentions anything itll be about ashcrofts non-dom status

its plausable, thats what matters

Well it would be a little more plausible if the unnamed person was named.

It would be a little more plausible if the unnamed MP had been there rather than allegedly claiming to have seen a photograph.

It would be a little more plausible if the authors of the book had been able to contact the unnamed individual to establish whether he stood by the alleged claim – they say that they have been unable to contact him.

It would be a little more plausible if it was Lord Ashcroft himself who had seen this alleged photograph.

It would be a little more plausible if Lord Ashcroft and his coauthor said that they themselves believed the story.

It would be a little more plausible if there was any evidence.

So when you add all that up it doesn’t sound very plausible to me.

But there’s a film and a play and everyfink, Ernie! What more factual evidence do you want?

Pretty strong defence there Captain – what do you think those lovely lads got up to then? Was it all charity work ?

As for ernie lots of things would makechange the rumour into a fact but Kimbers point, a valid one IMHO, is the fact that you can suggest it and folk believe it – has anyone – even the Cpt – actually tried to deny it happened?- tells us a lot about this uber privileged group

Oddly enough the only person who thinks it is not plausible is you. I would imagine if it was not plausible; the PM would be suing for defamation as someone has just said he had oral sex with a dead pigs head and he wont even deny it or sue.

whilst at Uni dave, gidders and borris were unspeaklably arrogant boors who indulged in all kinds of drunken antics paid for by the offshore trustfunds their dads setup, this is all well established in the nation’s consciousness, hence;

Interestingly, Delingpole seems to remember it all very differently:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/22/dave-drugs-and-me-at-oxford/

I don’t think you can say that it’s plausible just because he hasn’t sued for defamation. Maybe he’s got better things to do than spend his time and money in a pointless and fantastically expensive legal battle with an annoyed oligarch?

Oddly enough the only person who thinks it is not plausible is you.

I don’t think I’m the only person who thinks that it is probably a made up story. Unless you are referring to this thread in which case I would suggest that you are over emphasizing the importance of threads on the chat section of a MTB forum.

I would imagine if it was not plausible; the PM would be suing for defamation as someone has just said he had oral sex with a dead pigs head

Who said he had oral sex with a dead pigs head? Certainly not Lord Ashcroft. I asked you earlier who would you be taking to court and you failed to answer Junkyard, perhaps you missed the question?

If so you might have missed this as well :

This is what the co-author of the book Isabel Oakeshott has said : “We were very careful in the way in which we worded the story and it’s up to people to decide whether they think it’s true or not – we don’t say whether we believe it to be true.”

EDIT : BTW I haven’t said that it isn’t plausible, I guess anything is “plausible”. I said that it doesn’t sound very plausible to me. Mostly because the lack of any evidence, the anonymity of the unnamed person, and the fact that Lord Ashcroft himself doesn’t claim to believe it.

It’s probably Boris who has the photo…. 🙂

I refuse to countenance the possibility that dellingpole is a good example of the nation’s consciousness

Its not about facts, as I said its about plausibility
do I think its likely it happened, nah, Dave surely wasnt that desperate for acceptance by his peers at uni

however, if a picture surfaced of the act, I wouldnt be surprised either, Oxford drinnking clubs have a rep for debauchery, after all, though this would be at the extreme end of what I imagine they get up to

all of that just reflects ashcrofts insidious cunning at how he got the rumour out there, so as to cover himself and still wreak maximum damage

I don’t think you can say that it’s plausible just because he hasn’t sued for defamation. Maybe he’s got better things to do than spend his time and money in a pointless and fantastically expensive legal battle with an annoyed oligarch?

Yes that is it is a lie that he cannot even be arsed denying it.

I accept you can do this sort of thing with the lack of a denial but IMHO [almost]everyone would be speaking out publicly if they were accused of this and they had not done it.

I missed all of that ernie [ dipping in and out of the thread/forum in a bit of rush and not intentional] and I am not entirely sure what you are asking me
If it helps he did not have oral sex as I imagine the dead animal was incapable of performing it when he placed his member inside its mouth. Forgive my tabloid sensationalism and over description of the sordid act.

As for who to sue I imagine he must be able to sue someone or issue a strongly worded denial explaining he cannot sue because of the way they said it and challenge them to say it explicitly and they wont as they know it is not true

He has been fairly blasse about the claim.

As for who to sue I imagine he must be able to sue someone

Well go on, name someone.

i.e. he’s ignored it.

Well go on, name someone.

Ok, I’m not an internet lawyer so why is he unable to sue the newspaper? They’ve clearly published claims which to some extent damage the reputation of David Cameron.

I accept you can do this sort of thing with the lack of a denial but IMHO [almost]everyone would be speaking out publicly if they were accused of this and they had not done it.

Cameron’s the prime minister, he won’t be suing anyone or even speaking about the matter.

However the Prime Minister’s spokeswoman said: “I’m not intending to dignify this book by offering any comment or any PM reaction to it.”

That’s all you’ll hear from him or his office.

And well done to ernie on this thread, very even handed and no trace of hypocrisy.

He’s perfectly entitled to sue the newspaper. Use of the term ‘allegedly’ does not mean you can print whatever the hell you like.

However, imagine the court case (and there would be one, because Ashcroft is immensely rich and bitter as hell), which would pick over in great detail all sorts of crap from decades ago, put a serving PM in the witness box being asked if he ever took drugs, had sex with any main course. It would do 10x more damage even if the central allegation had no substance whatsoever and he won pots of money.

Which is why he will ignore it, and why the Mail is on pretty safe ground.

Ok, I’m not an internet lawyer so why is he unable to sue the newspaper? They’ve clearly published claims which to some extent damage the reputation of David Cameron.

Ffs if every time a newspaper published a claim that to some extent damaged the reputation of a politician they were taken to court the courts would instantly be overwhelmed.

I haven’t read the Daily Mail’s article but I assume it simply reports on the allegation just like all the other newspapers, and this thread. You think Cameron can sue STW? I’m no internet lawyer either but I think it’s unlikely.

EDIT : I accept martinhutch’s legal advice above ^

I don’t think I’m the only person who thinks that it is probably a made up story.

I dare say you’re right. Ironically, the fact that it’s in a national newspaper, and doubly so the Mail, actually reduces its credence.

Thing is, there’s plenty of people who really want it to be true. And there’s many more, me included, who don’t really care or not but have spent two days enjoying its comedy value.

The following is an excerpt from the “Oxford Handbook” (the Oxford Student Union guide to the University) for 1984, the year before Cameron went up to Oxford, talking about dining societies

Others (Dining Societies) seem to exist to give the very rich a chance to gather and confer social status on each other; the Bullingdon seems to be a case in point. If you are eligible to be elected to any of the latter type, they will ask you. If you don’t know whether you are eligible you probably aren’t.

In my time, the Bullingdon’s reputation was for a bit of gratuitous vandalism, but there were far worse offenders, which they paid for and having a very expensive uniform.

Thing is, there’s plenty of people who really want it to be true.

I’m sure that’s true. To be honest I don’t think the allegation is that serious, so what if he put his knob in a dead pig’s head as part of some silly childhood shenanigans with mates? I can think of far worse and reprehensible behaviour than that.

I just think the fact there’s no evidence and the story originates from someone with a personal grudge means it shouldn’t be given too much credit.

This is unacceptable behaviour for a Prime Minister :

But since it happened when he was young and foolish it was accepted and didn’t damage him when the public became aware. If he had done it behind Angela Merkel at a G8 photocall it would have been different though.

Students, eh?

He’s certainly got Balls dressing in Hugo Boss.

Is it bikebuoy?

we’ve all become so used to tales of our elite burning £50 notes in front of homeless people and trashing restaurants

Surely everyone at University did this?

Same goes for dressing up as Hugo Boss and gate crashing a bar mitzvah.

Well go on, name someone.

Shall we start with Martin suggestion of the DM and make a very long list?

Cameron’s the prime minister, he won’t be suing anyone or even speaking about the matter or even denying it.

That’s all you’ll hear from him or his office. because it is true

FTFY
IMHO the lack of a denial is very telling. He is a PR man and a PR man gave this answer because it was the best they could give. Please reflect on why that might be the case.

I just think the fact there’s no evidence and the story originates from someone with a personal grudge means it shouldn’t be given too much credit.

TBH, had the PM bothered to deny it i would tend to agree.

IMHO the lack of a denial is very telling. He is a PR man and a PR man gave this answer because it was the best they could give. Please reflect on why that might be the case.

Not being a PR man I’d have a guess that the whole matter has comedy value and nothing else. Next week, it’ll be used to wrap fish and chips (or pork sausages). Unless Cameron decides to sue, keeping the whole thing in the papers and keeping it high profile and giving Lord haw Haw the chance to further embarrass him in a public court. Which I doubt he does.

TBH, had the PM bothered to deny it i would tend to agree.

The Hunter S Thompson stuff quoted above applies. If you’re denying shagging a dead pig, the headline is ‘Cameron denies porking’. If you ‘don’t even dignify it with a comment’, then the newspaper doesn’t have such an easy way of regurgitating it for our amusement. Eventually the news machine turns its gaze onto claims that Jeremy Corbyn pleasured a squirrel*

*allegedly 🙂

They wanted something that was plausible without lying that was the best they could do

for want it to be true [ shooting the messenger a bit] I dont really care as I dont think any more or any less of him as I dont [ foreign aid budget aside] I have little respect for him anyway.

Squirrel Castro?

trashing restaurants at their special university drinking societies

So the womens uni hockey and rugby teams have re-branded as a special drinking societies?

“I just think the fact there’s no evidence and the story originates from someone with a personal grudge means it shouldn’t be given too much credit.”

TBH, had the PM bothered to deny it i would tend to agree.

So you disagree and think we should give plenty of credit to a story with no evidence and which originates from someone with a personal grudge.

I have to say that I’m finding the comments from people whom you would expect to be the first to denounce tabloid gutter raking, and salacious innuendos deliberately aimed at damaging politicians, quite remarkable.

What’s your opinion on Corbyn being a supporter of terrorism Junkyard? Can we assume that as he hasn’t sued any newspaper for suggesting the possibility that he is indeed a supporter of terrorism? In this case we’ve even seen the photographic evidence!

And you ridicule JHJ for offering his assumptions as credible evidence, ffs.

The claims come from Michael Ashcroft.

That’s enough for me to be confident that whatever else I might think of DC, he didn’t do this.

So you disagree and think we should give plenty of credit to a story with no evidence and which originates from someone with a personal grudge.

If you ignore what I said then yes that is correct.
As for the JHJ/corbyn terrorism/ shoot the messenger/mockery stuff AGAIN can I just say Mleh I am not interested in hitting big but thanks for the invite to play.