No. And I didn't say, nor imply that either.


I know, hence my point of view all those posts ago. David Cameron is a slippery untrustworthy Prime Minister.

Then you have manged to persuaded me that we need a complete rethink regarding our politicians!
We have laws to protect the public from unscruplous salesmen etc. We have laws regarding unfair contracts.
Yet a politician can appear and say and promise whatever they like and is not held to account if they do not even attempt to carry out their promises made before the election. Like Dave "We have no plans to organise the NHS from the top down" yet the plans had been on the drawing board for at least the last seven years.

The only thing that needs "Organising from the top down is our poitical system" but of course we will not hold our breaths!

You gave the impression that the Tories were more so.






David Cameron is just doing what all politicians do. The problem is the system and the gullibility of the voting public. I wouldn't single Cameron out but tar them all with the same brush. Saying that; he is the best out of a bad bunch. Just look at Blair and Brown.

Yes, we have laws but who makes those laws? Turkey's don't vote for Christmas.

They might be, but I have no evidence for that.


Blair and Brown are in the past; Cameron is now and he is demonstrably slippery.

Prejudices help give some the evidence.




That sounds like bias talking rather than an intelligence assessment. If you think of it what did he do wrong? Some of the criticism levelled at him was beyond his control; i.e. government ministers acting inappropriately. As for the dinner parties; he was entitled to hold them - as all governments have done - and is outside government regulations; i.e. the taxman didn't pay. Of course you could say that you don't believe it, but then again one would only use that view if one was hostile towards the Conservatives. There was no proof that he acted inappropriately and there isn't isn't.

No bias; it is a fact. The Tories are in government and David Cameron is the Prime Minister; the issues we are discussing are of Tory origin.


He's the boss, he carries the can. He clearly chose the 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' method. Plausible dependability is another way of putting it. Just because any one politician did not set a precedent, doesn't make that person immune from criticism for their conduct. If that were the case, then we should have let all the politicians off for the expenses scandal.

The political system needs an overhaul, but those that some elected into power don't want it to change as they have the most to loose. Not all politicians are the same though and not all are interested in power for power's sake.

With my old age it might be synical but I don't belive it!

'till they get awhiff of power and get their snouts buried in the gold plated trough then it all changes. I must admit to being very dissapointed with Daves crew but honestly, who else is there ? Milliband ? I mean come on, seriously ? Anyway, never change dopes in the middle of a fix, thats my motto.

That doesn't mean bias isn't there; anti Tory sentiment.




He maybe the boss but no person can 100% vouch for their underlings. It has never happened in history and it won't happen in the future.

Of course he has seen "evil" and has acted on it. But the problem here is not about him acting upon it but how he should act upon it and that will depend on what side of the fence one is on when applying their criteria.

Any bias that might exist has developed during his tenure, not before.


Of course not, but there are KPIs that need to be adhered to, and in my view he has failed some of them.


I don't know what you mean.

QUOTE (GMR @ Apr 4 2012, 05:44 PM)
Of course he has seen "evil" and has acted on it. But the problem here is not about him acting upon it but how he should act upon it and that will depend on what side of the fence one is on when applying their criteria.

Did Rumsfelt write that?

Well, I can't argue with that. But bias nevertheless.




In your view!






Convenient.

Well, I can't argue with that. But bias nevertheless.




In your view!






Convenient.

He wouldn't have as it was I who taught him how to confuse issues. A good man in a tight situation, but you wouldn't want him as a friend or an ally; he'd confuse the **** out of you. OK when confusing the enemy though.

I've notice constant sniping. Is this just point scoring or a debate?

Stop points scoring then and let us have a debate then. You must also learn to stop this sniping; as I respond likewise, which doesn't help matters on.

I may not agree with everything GMR says, but he is allowed to make his point.

Perhaps you would show me where I have, so I may learn something.