Site Meter

Friday, September 02, 2011

David Cameron: A Major disaster?

David Cameron: A Major disaster?

A little bird pecks away at Cameron's two-faced approach to morals and youthful misbehaviour. Bullingdon Club antics were nothing like the riots, says Cameron

Prime minister embarrassed when asked if there was any parallel between rioters and members of notorious Oxford club

I recall the downfall of John Major when he fell off his high moral horse and landed face down in manure...

Back to Basics (campaign)

People in glass houses are exposed to scrutiny. I suspect that it is not a curtain that is being twitched here, but the rosy red buttock cheeks of David Cameron.

Let's see what William Hague is putting out on the washing line:

"Our foreign policy should always have consistent support for human rights and poverty reduction as its irreducible core and we should always strive to act with moral authority, recognising that once damaged it is hard to restore".

Propping this up is what Kenneth Clarke states at the MoJ under the heading Our responsibilities:

"Human rights

The Human Rights Act ensures that your human rights are respected by public authorities, and makes it unlawful for them to act against your rights.

If you believe that your rights have been interfered with unreasonably, it gives you a way of doing something about it.

We are responsible for developing human rights policy. We can explain what the Act should do and how public authorities should behave under the Act. However, we can't investigate alleged human rights violations and we can't give legal advice. Everyone in the UK is protected by the Act

Given the above from two of Cameron's Cabinet, it begs the question why David Cameron is attacking the idea of human rights for citizens in the UK?


Common sense from a knee-jerking, Bullingdon Club Tory Toff? Perhaps, it's time he had a go at stand up comedy?


Tim said...

I have to admit, I am struggling to get Mr Cameron's logic here.

I don't see much difference between the two situations - both involved a large group of people acting in concert to destroy property. He tries to differentiate between the two by stating:

""As I say, we all do stupid things when we're young. And I think that's clear. But I think what we saw in terms of the riots was actually very well organised, in many cases, looting and stealing and thieving.""

Well, it can safely be said that many of the rioters were young and doing stupid things, so that leaves the '..actually very well organised..' part. So did the Bullingdon Club not book restaurants under an assumed name and get together in a very well organised way with a view to causing trouble?

Maybe I'm simple, but I don't see any material difference.

jailhouselawyer said...

Tim: I am very logical and Cameron's response is not logical. There is no difference except upper and lower class, and the ability to buy one's way out of trouble.

This is a PR disaster for DC.