[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Father Mockmas

1. Hence why I said more than ever under the Tories, not that it didn't start happening under Labour, please read my posts more carefully.

2. I'd never heard of it until the Tories got in power, so they've clearly used it more than Labour ever did.

3. So the disabled need to get off their ass and work even if they're physically incapable of doing so? Then don't forget to mention that people are trying to find work but keep being turned down by these nutcases who want to just martyr themselves by blaming the poor for "not taking the jobs."

4. Of course they don't, that's why stuff like BBC News isn't always in favour of the current Party in charge, or pretend to be anyway, and nearly every Newspaper are Tory supporters so to say that they don't control the Media is very naive.

5. He mentioned his Son to excuse his appalling treatment of the NHS and make out that his "the everyday man for taking his Son to the NHS" so yes he used to him to grab votes, intentionally or subconsciously he still did it.

6. And how about instead of hogging all the money for himself and other rich people all of the time, how about he distributes some of the money over to the lower classes so we don't have to have as many Food Banks as we have done under his terms?

So no inaccuracies, just a member in denial of the facts, thank you very much.

I agree, unsurprisingly,with what you say above.
I want to address the point I put in bold.

I really felt for him and his wife when they lost their Son,that is tragic for any parents.
He rightly praises greatly,the wonderful care from the NHS for his Son too.it was an example he used too when he was spouting off he would 'not' be doing any top down re-organisation of the NHS from his govt.

That is then where full justification of your point comes into play.this PM lied to the electorate on that, he got away with it but he lied pure and simple.

Then now on a related issue, he welcomed and I have no doubt appreciated massively the care his Son got from the NHS but he now disregards and virtually ignores the Parents who have children born with deformities who are now having appointments, treatment and operations put back regularly.
That is where his bringing his Son into the issue sticks in my throat and he has mentioned their son in relation to the NHS.
So it his he who brought his Son very sadly, into the political arena.

That to me is a disgrace on his part,even moreso when he was exposed as lying as to his 'No top down re-organisation of the NHS' which barely a year after taking office, he was enacting one of the biggest and most costly shake ups as to re-organisation from the top down there has been.

That is one issue that is the reason I would never likely trust a thing he says or believe him either.

[DemolitionRed]

When Cameron was re-elected this year, the first words he uttered to the British public were, "“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone”

WTF? Only the Independent jumped on his words and stated, "This is the creepiest thing David Cameron has ever said"
Why would Cameron use such overly fascist language and more alarming, why were those words barely noticed by main stream media?

Since May of this year there's been an abundance of new legislation and most of that legislation comes under the guise of “war on terror.”
So what can this new "war on terror" legislation implement?
1. More police-state powers.
2. criminalise speech and political activity.
3. New disruption laws for individuals.
4. New banning laws for groups.
5. New public disorder laws which is based purely on perceived risk. This means peaceful protests can be broken up or stopped prior to taking place.
6. Massive new surveillance....The right to spy.

It would be nice to think this was all for our own safety, lots of people cosy up with those thoughts. Unfortunately its more about constantly and affectively controlling the people of this country; its a slow removal of an open society that we presently know as democracy.

David Cameron should not be trusted with our country.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I agree, unsurprisingly,with what you say above.
I want to address the point I put in bold.

I really felt for him and his wife when they lost their Son,that is tragic for any parents.
He rightly praises greatly,the wonderful care from the NHS for his Son too.it was an example he used too when he was spouting off he would 'not' be doing any top down re-organisation of the NHS from his govt.

That is then where full justification of your point comes into play.this PM lied to the electorate on that, he got away with it but he lied pure and simple.

Then now on a related issue, he welcomed and I have no doubt appreciated massively the care his Son got from the NHS but he now disregards and virtually ignores the Parents who have children born with deformities who are now having appointments, treatment and operations put back regularly.
That is where his bringing his Son into the issue sticks in my throat and he has mentioned their son in relation to the NHS.
So it his he who brought his Son very sadly, into the political arena.

That to me is a disgrace on his part,even moreso when he was exposed as lying as to his 'No top down re-organisation of the NHS' which barely a year after taking office, he was enacting one of the biggest and most costly shake ups as to re-organisation from the top down there has been.

That is one issue that is the reason I would never likely trust a thing he says or believe him either.

You are absolutely right. We all wanted to believe Cameron when he used his son as a heartfelt example. How could we not believe him?

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

When Cameron was re-elected this year, the first words he uttered to the British public were, "“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone”

WTF? Only the Independent jumped on his words and stated, "This is the creepiest thing David Cameron has ever said"
Why would Cameron use such overly fascist language and more alarming, why were those words barely noticed by main stream media?

Since May of this year there's been an abundance of new legislation and most of that legislation comes under the guise of “war on terror.”
So what can this new "war on terror" legislation implement?
1. More police-state powers.
2. criminalise speech and political activity.
3. New disruption laws for individuals.
4. New banning laws for groups.
5. New public disorder laws which is based purely on perceived risk. This means peaceful protests can be broken up or stopped prior to taking place.
6. Massive new surveillance....The right to spy.

It would be nice to think this was all for our own safety, lots of people cosy up with those thoughts. Unfortunately its more about constantly and affectively controlling the people of this country; its a slow removal of an open society that we presently know as democracy.

David Cameron should not be trusted with our country.

I don't think those were the first words he said to be fair. I'm not sure it means that much when you quote it out of context either: he was making the point that extremism is a threat to society even if it doesn't overtly encourage violence or terrorism. None of the new legislation has been that draconian really, and its nothing that another PM would not have introduced. Cameron is not some uniquely awful dictator. A lot of new legislation is just allowing the security services to improve their methods and progress in line with new techniques that are used by terrorists and criminals.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Tinselbells

So because you don't like him you are happy to believe the 'pig' story,even there are no hard facts? excuse the pun!?

There's suppose to be pictures of him ****ing a dead Pig, his basically paid people off to not show it until his out of Office, then it will be leaked about 10 to 20 years later.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I agree, unsurprisingly,with what you say above.
I want to address the point I put in bold.

I really felt for him and his wife when they lost their Son,that is tragic for any parents.
He rightly praises greatly,the wonderful care from the NHS for his Son too.it was an example he used too when he was spouting off he would 'not' be doing any top down re-organisation of the NHS from his govt.

That is then where full justification of your point comes into play.this PM lied to the electorate on that, he got away with it but he lied pure and simple.

Then now on a related issue, he welcomed and I have no doubt appreciated massively the care his Son got from the NHS but he now disregards and virtually ignores the Parents who have children born with deformities who are now having appointments, treatment and operations put back regularly.
That is where his bringing his Son into the issue sticks in my throat and he has mentioned their son in relation to the NHS.
So it his he who brought his Son very sadly, into the political arena.

That to me is a disgrace on his part,even moreso when he was exposed as lying as to his 'No top down re-organisation of the NHS' which barely a year after taking office, he was enacting one of the biggest and most costly shake ups as to re-organisation from the top down there has been.

That is one issue that is the reason I would never likely trust a thing he says or believe him either.

Spot on Joey.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I don't think those were the first words he said to be fair. I'm not sure it means that much when you quote it out of context either: he was making the point that extremism is a threat to society even if it doesn't overtly encourage violence or terrorism. None of the new legislation has been that draconian really, and its nothing that another PM would not have introduced. Cameron is not some uniquely awful dictator. A lot of new legislation is just allowing the security services to improve their methods and progress in line with new techniques that are used by terrorists and criminals.

What did I quote out of context? Here's the full paragraph of what he said,

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It's often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that's helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach."

I knew I wasn’t having a knee jerk reaction to those words but then I’ve spent most of my adult life being a libertarian and as such, it was words like this that sent a chill down my spine.

Most people believe the LD coalition was a complete waste of time but the one thing the LD’s successfully prevented during those five years was the implementation of Cameron’s proposed ‘Snooper’s charter.’

That sentence that he uttered, amongst other things was a very direct message to us all, even if we didn’t know it at the time. He was unleashed from the LD’s and could now go ahead with his full implementation of the IPB.

Within weeks of his victory he was reviving those old plans of his for mass surveillance across the length and breadth of Britain. This has always been Cameron’s baby and plans were started long before IS reared its ugly head, but with IS now on everyone’s lips, implementing this proposal was like giving candy to a baby. “Its all in the name of national security. Its about “war on terror”. Its about keeping your children safe”…but is it? Is it really?

If Cameron was worried about national security, why has he allowed such massive cutbacks on our frontline police forces? Why is Osborne proposing by 2020 our local bobbies will be reduced by a further 22,000? If he’s so concerned about home security, why does our Ministry of Defence figures show such drastic cuts in our armed forces over the last five years? Since 2010 we have cut back on over 20,000 soldiers.

Instead, this “war on terror” is going to be managed through massive cyber security! a security that allows access to our phones and our internet records for years. Cyber security isn’t about protecting us from the infidels; the real terrorists really aren’t that careless. Every time I read a news headline about how MI5 have infiltrated and foiled yet more terrorist plots I role my eyes because I simply don’t believe it; its merely a lie fed out to reassure the gullible public.

The new IPB is about restricting our digital freedom and when you restrict digital freedom you start to move towards totalitarianism and this, I believe is what Cameron wants.

[Kizzy]

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Father Mockmas

There's suppose to be pictures of him ****ing a dead Pig, his basically paid people off to not show it until his out of Office, then it will be leaked about 10 to 20 years later.

Do no REAL proof Mocky,just wishful thinking from his haters

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Tinselbells

Do no REAL proof Mocky,just wishful thinking from his haters

If only it was as simple as hating him!
For all I care, David Cameron could have cunnilingus with the oscar winning Babe so long as his political agenda was sound.

I don't hate Cameron, I just don't like some of his politics.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

If only it was as simple as hating him!
For all I care, David Cameron could have cunnilingus with the oscar winning Babe so long as his political agenda was sound.

I don't hate Cameron, I just don't like some of his politics.

Snap for me except I intensely dislike near all his policies.
I have always said he will be a good Son,Father, husband and Friend.

My main wish is that he didn't stay that way avoiding bringing his heartlessness towards those far weaker than himself to the political arena.

Also to be fair to Mock, the pig saga was well documented and reported.it may not have been actually shown but the view was it did take place.
Just because Cameron says it didn't doesn't mean that is enough to contradict the report.
Now if it did not happen, then Cameron of course could be suing left right and centre all who said it did, 'IF' he can prove it didn't,that is.

One wonders why he is not doing so.
He for sure has the means to, unlike for others where he is taking away the legal aid vital for them to fight benefit losses,cuts and rejections.

[DemolitionRed]

I think he just hopes it will all go away and be forgotten about but we all know that he's going to be referred to as 'porky' for the rest of his days!

I wonder if his wife's going to cook him pigs in blankets and pork stuffing for Xmas

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I don't think those were the first words he said to be fair. I'm not sure it means that much when you quote it out of context either: he was making the point that extremism is a threat to society even if it doesn't overtly encourage violence or terrorism. None of the new legislation has been that draconian really, and its nothing that another PM would not have introduced. Cameron is not some uniquely awful dictator. A lot of new legislation is just allowing the security services to improve their methods and progress in line with new techniques that are used by terrorists and criminals.

What of the changes in the lords? Tinkering with the democratic process in force for 100s of years, flooding the chamber with tory donors hasn't worked so on to plan B.
Freedom of information requests, the review of those, erosion of civil liberties or war on terrorism?
Has another PM been as regressive? Not since Thatcher.

[Kizzy]

'The Telegraph has been fined £30,000 for sending hundreds of thousands of emails on the day of the general election urging readers to vote Conservative.

In what he described as an “unprecedented step”, Daily Telegraph editor Chris Evans asked readers to back the Tories in a letter added to its daily email.

But data protection watchdog the Information Commissioner’s Office found the newspaper’s parent company, Telegraph Media Group, broke direct marketing rules.


The watchdog said subscribers might have signed up to receive a daily email, but promoting the Tory election campaign “crossed a line”.

“People may well perceive the paper’s editorial content to have a political bias, but when the Telegraph emailed people directly calling them to vote for a political party they crossed a line,” said Steve Eckersley, head of enforcement at the ICO.

In his letter, Evans described the 7 May general election as “the most important since 1979” and urged Telegraph readers to vote Conservative.'

Torygraph, confirmation of a right wing media.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-conservatives

[Johnnyuk123]

I disagree with the original post. David Cameron is doing a great job of putting the GREAT back in to Great Britain. He is our most popular PM in over a decade.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/13...david-cameron/

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

I disagree with the original post. David Cameron is doing a great job of putting the GREAT back in to Great Britain.

How, exactly? I mean sweeping statements are lovely and everything but you could really do to elaborate, at least a little.

[Kizzy]

Yougov...did they ask 100 conservative voters in westminster?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

How, exactly? I mean sweeping statements are lovely and everything but you could really do to elaborate, at least a little.

Merry Christmas TS, love Dave Iain & co xxx

'The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted that people will see cash losses to their in-work benefits under the new universal credit system and suggested they could make up for it by working an extra 200 hours a year.

In a new document on universal credit, published after parliament has broken up for Christmas, the department said people could “recoup the loss” caused by lower in-work benefits from April 2016 by taking on an extra three or four hours of work a week at the new “national living wage” of £7.20 an hour.'

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...work-allowance

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

Merry Christmas TS, love Dave Iain & co xxx

'The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted that people will see cash losses to their in-work benefits under the new universal credit system and suggested they could make up for it by working an extra 200 hours a year.

In a new document on universal credit, published after parliament has broken up for Christmas, the department said people could “recoup the loss” caused by lower in-work benefits from April 2016 by taking on an extra three or four hours of work a week at the new “national living wage” of £7.20 an hour.'

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...work-allowance

It's utterly bewildering that they think you can just "work more hours" and get paid for them like it's a choice. You get a job with contracted hours... You get paid for those hours... Maybe get overtime if they NEED you to work more. Who can just stroll in and say "Hey I'm going to work an extra 4 hours a week so give me money please".

They are completely disconnected from the real world. Completely.