Originally posted by Nobby Plumbs
Imagine the indignation on here if this had been about Corbyn. It’s all a bit pathetic IMO much like some of the (less lurid) scare stories about Corbyn.
And yet, we had posters losing their shit because Corbyn did not sing the national anthem at the recent Battle of Britain memorial. I don’t want to trivialise their sacrifice, so let’s deal with a hypothetical for now.
Scenario; you need someone to represent a matter of solemn national interest. If the short-list consisted of:-
a) someone that probably won’t sing the national anthem, but will maintain a dignified posture at the event.
b) someone that has loudly and enthusiastically belted out the national anthem in the direction of every camera he clocks, but in younger years, allegedly thought it’d be a good idea to lob his nob in a hog’s gob to join an elite drinking society.
Who would you go for?
I’ve argued against prosecuting politicians for the folly of youth, and not just for politicians I agree with. The poison pen letter written by one of the Nigel Farage’s former teachers is a good, recent example. First, it’s someone’s opinion, and second, it’s largely about someone else’s alleged political opinions. His lefty teacher was more concerned with his ideas than his actions.
Apart from a wry “how you’ve changed” quip, we don’t really bat an eyelid at political types that start off as one thing and end up the opposite. No one really cares if MPs have done drugs before entering Parliament. The general standard is to ignore everything that someone has done prior to entering political life, but there are limits to what can feasibly be ignored.
UKIPs ragtag formation saw it select a former arsonist and thief as one of its Parliamentary candidates, probably due to their unchecked growth and lack of vetting. The candidate actually came second in the Aberavon constituency, attracting 15.7% of the vote, two points better than the UKIP average. Most parties would have been more risk averse with serious crimes, as it can affect the perception of the candidate. Arson and thievery clearly didn’t make much of an impact to Peter Bush’s numbers, but there are limits as to what people will either vote for, or respect. I am by no means equating the Cameron story with these crimes, but I find it highly doubtful that a convicted rapist or paedophile would ever be selected to stand for Parliament.
As I remarked, this is no way as serious, but it doesn’t need to be. In a different way, this is going to chip away at his credibility every day of his Prime Ministerial career. I am astounded that there has not been a firm denial, but am entirely unsurprised. They’ve gone the “doesn’t dignify a response” route, which if nothing else, it fucking does. That man is going out to do trade deals, sign treaties and generally be the face of our country.
Do you really want everyone he meets, or at least those that weren’t also part of a bizarre elitist club, to think “pig fucker” when they look into that face? Is that a good first impression? If he doesn’t get on top of this story sharpish, speculation will continue endlessly and his position will become untenable. Could be the beginning of the end for Cameron.
Skip to 1hr 12min, and you’ll find out why 
The show is pretty good overall.
