[bots]

Originally Posted by Father Mockmas

You mean factually correct, because the last time I checked all of those stuff happened under Cameron's terms has it not? Except the Pig stuff of course.

Originally Posted by Father Mockmas

Yes David Cameron is such a great leader that we've had.

The NHS privitised more than ever

Zero Hour Contracts where people don't know when they're gonna be working next

Forcing the disabled who are unfit to work to actually work

Having a disabled person climb a ladder in a Library which they ended up falling down

Getting the Media to attack everything about Ed Milliband (including his Father) whilst covering up his horrible Pig deeds

Using his dead Son to try and win votes during the General Election because his too **** to come up with decent policies

And of course we've had more Food Banks during Cameron's terms than we've ever done under Blair's or Brown's terms.

So no there's nothing respectable about this pillock, his like a more unlikeable version of George W Bush.

Let me go through it then

NHS sub-contracting has been happening for years and was actively encouraged under the last labour government.

zero hours contracts were actively encouraged by the last labour government

Its not forcing those who cannot work to work, its forcing those who have been playing the system for years to get off their ass and get a job rather than sponging off the system.

The government do not control the media.

David Cameron has never used the death of his son to further his political agenda, and its actually disgusting to suggest it.

We had food banks under labour too, and the reason for the increase are many, not least of which is getting food to those that need it.

=====


Factual inaccuracies

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

Let me go through it then

NHS sub-contracting has been happening for years and was actively encouraged under the last labour government.

zero hours contracts were actively encouraged by the last labour government

Its not forcing those who cannot work to work, its forcing those who have been playing the system for years to get off their ass and get a job rather than sponging off the system.

The government do not control the media.

David Cameron has never used the death of his son to further his political agenda, and its actually disgusting to suggest it.

We had food banks under labour too, and the reason for the increase are many, not least of which is getting food to those that need it.

=====


Factual inaccuracies

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.

[Kazanne]

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'm sorry Mocky,but bringing his son into your dislike of him is so low,one of the best pics I ever saw of a father and son was him and Ivan,I am so disappointed that you see it that way,I certainly didn't.plus the only the reason I voted for him is because I know what will happen God forbid Labour take power as they are.

[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.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Reg_Holdsworth_Fan

Davidiot Cameron has ruined this country over the five years he's been in power that even Kim Jong-un is a better leader than him.

All Davididot has done is mess up the NHS, not shut our borders when he had to and most recently allowing us to invade Syria to "fight" ISIS when it is completely unnecessary and what he doesn't know is that he may be responsible for the deaths of our men and women!!!

Davidiot Cameron is a WAR CRIMINAL who doesn't know how to run this country, god knows how he won the General Election this year when there were far better parties out there!!!!


SCREW YOU DAVIDIOT CAMERON!!!!!

YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A CHIPPY OIK, A PRETENTIOUS PIFFLER AND THE LOWEST OF THE LOW!!!

YOU MESSED UP THIS COUNTRY!!!!!

I disagree with some of it, but I agree with you on him being a disgraceful leader, how his even still PM after the Pig scandal is a disgrace considering any normal day person goes and ****s a dead Pig they'd end up in jail.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Father Mockmas

I disagree with some of it, but I agree with you on him being a disgraceful leader, how his even still PM after the Pig scandal is a disgrace considering any normal day person goes and ****s a dead Pig they'd end up in jail.

Believe me Mock my friend,in my Uni days I came across some really odd things happening by, and between students, that would make Cameron's almost pale into insignificance.
If his is even correct in the first place of course to be fair to him.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Believe me Mock my friend,in my Uni days I came across some really odd things happening by, and between students, that would make Cameron's almost pale into insignificance.
If his is even correct in the first place of course to be fair to him.

Oh there probably is, but they're not running one of the most influential countries in the world.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Father Mockmas

Oh there probably is, but they're not running one of the most influential countries in the world.

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

[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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Father Mockmas

Oh there probably is, but they're not running one of the most influential countries in the world.

No way of justifiably arguing against that point you make Mock, none at all, well said.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Father Mockmas

I disagree with some of it, but I agree with you on him being a disgraceful leader, how his even still PM after the Pig scandal is a disgrace considering any normal day person goes and ****s a dead Pig they'd end up in jail.

Were you there Mocky? Is there proof this story is infact true? or is it merely to discredit someone people don't like? and believe me you are over reacting many a sheep shagger still roam freely

[Kizzy]

That is Britain today, in which the parties have lost any interest in the public and the public have lost their interest in the parties. Mair mourned these trends, even while he understood them to be deeply rooted, reflecting the decline of social institutions such as trade unions and the church as well as the professionalisation of politics. Mass engagement in politics had allowed the public greater say, however imperfect, over how their countries were to be run and in whose interest. It is no accident that the golden age of mass parties in Britain was also the golden age of the Keynesian welfare state.

What remains, argued Mair, is a “governing class”. This is a kind of working aristocracy of politicians: some politicos sport distinguished family names (Kinnocks, Goulds and Benns), but all are increasingly divorced in background, education and profession from the people they are meant to be representing. And increasingly they are financed by the working aristocracy of business people and financiers who run our economy. Half of Conservative funding comes from the finance sector, which is duly repaid in tax cuts for the super-rich and advisory posts for private equiteers such as Adrian Beecroft.

Even Jeremy Corbyn’s rise can be explained through Mair’s lens: here is a not especially prepossessing backbencher who smashed his opponents for the leadership because he better represented the views of the Labour base. Writing in September, political scientist Henry Farrell argued that Corbyn proved Mair right – but that his party “will face relentless opposition from the elites that have replaced the masses as the main source of resources for parties and politicians”. That has proved eerily prescient. Britain’s party democracy is in its death throes; what is supplanting it is an unholy coalition of elites and cults.

Maybe the mantra 'they work for us' is no longer credible?

With the demise of unionised workers and the donations to party funds coming from kickbacks from the financial and private sector, maybe they now work for them?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ults?CMP=fb_gu

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Livia]

Considering the alternative, I'd say he's doing a pretty good job in the circumstances. But this obviously isn't for discussion on this thread. It's more a thread about statements it seems to me.

[Rob!]

David *Hamron.

[lostalex]

david cameron seems to be the most capable of any major party.

clegg, miliband, and corbyn do not seem like viable leaders of the UK to me.

[empire]

Today, the main parties offer nothing to the people, what makes this worse is that cameron is a puppet to the EU, he could not stop throwing benefit money away to eastern europe, because the eu says they can't, british politics, is even more weak now than it was years ago, cameron is too spineless, like the rest of are career politicians, thats what the two main parties are now, we will never have a strong leader again, them days are gone, when was the last time we had a strong leader, that was a long time ago.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by empire

Today, the main parties offer nothing to the people, what makes this worse is that cameron is a puppet to the EU, he could not stop throwing benefit money away to eastern europe, because the eu says they can't, british politics, is even more weak now than it was years ago, cameron is too spineless, like the rest of are career politicians, thats what the two main parties are now, we will never have a strong leader again, them days are gone, when was the last time we had a strong leader, that was a long time ago.

You say "career politicians" like it's a bad thing. What do you want, people who dip in and out? Who flit from job to job?

[joeysteele]

I don't agree that Cameron is a puppet to the EU.
I do genuinely believe that he wants to stay in the EU and will do what he can to bring that about.

His problem is he just hasn't controlled the anti EU section of the Conservative party, believe me,Labour have splits on the EU too but they are nothing as to that may come in the Conservative party if he gets all this reform work wrong for either side.
Which he already is doing, his refusal to allow 16/17 year olds the vote will in an exit result, have the pro EU sections of his party gunning for him for that refusal.

His attitude to the SNP at PMQs today as to their rightful and massive concerns as to what if Scotland and indeed if more of the Countries that make up the UK, vote to remain in but a part of England,probably the far South carry an exit result.
If he brings us out of the EU on that basis, he will create in a flash the worst likely constitutional crisis the UK has had in recent centuries.

It is his attitude that will be the problem on that issue, as is the case often across the board as to policy making, with a lot of his attitude, whereby he pays lip service to problems but rarely solves any really.
In the end actually a lot of the time creating problems that need not be there in the first place.

[bots]

I don't disagree that it is unfortunate when regions of the country hold different political stances to others, but with the EU we cannot be in or out by region, so it has to be by consensus of the country as whole.

I don't believe we will be out of the EU, it may be artificially bigged up to be closer than it is, but when it comes to voting day, it will be majority for remaining in.

[Kizzy]

[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