http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171448

 

:rolleyes:

 

What a complete idiot, completely flat-footed by Andrew "Brillo Pad" Neil.... :lol: :lol: :lol: This is almost as good as the Daily Mail's Amanda Knox story...... Hey, perhaps that should be her career now, writing copy for the Fail.... :lol: :lol:

Huzzah! Finally, a proper conference cock-up. The last three weeks have been a bit tame for my liking. Going through the case it's a horrifying mistake for a Home Secretary to make - definitely one where she skimmed through the file and picked out the eyecatching sentence rather than reading the whole thing to find that the cat being mentioned was merely illustrative of the entire reason the man was not deported, rather than the actual reason!

Huzzah! Finally, a proper conference cock-up. The last three weeks have been a bit tame for my liking. Going through the case it's a horrifying mistake for a Home Secretary to make - definitely one where she skimmed through the file and picked out the eyecatching sentence rather than reading the whole thing to find that the cat being mentioned was merely illustrative of the entire reason the man was not deported, rather than the actual reason!

 

In all seriousness though... We can all laugh at this, but r*t**** like the EDL/BNP and their supporters will actually take this seriously..... :unsure:

What a dimwit. OK, so the speech was, presumably, mostly written by party flunkies. But she should have read it before delivering it. When she came across the bit about the cat, the proper response would have been to say to the speechwriters "Hang on, that can't be right, it's just too ridiculous. Go away and find the evidence or delete that bit. After all, I don't want to end up like I don't know what I'm talking about. That's Dave's job."

What a dimwit. OK, so the speech was, presumably, mostly written by party flunkies. But she should have read it before delivering it. When she came across the bit about the cat, the proper response would have been to say to the speechwriters "Hang on, that can't be right, it's just too ridiculous. Go away and find the evidence or delete that bit. After all, I don't want to end up like I don't know what I'm talking about. That's Dave's job."

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Indeed.. Appealing to peoples' prejudices and basically just being lazy....

 

If they do indeed start punching holes in the Human Rights Act, can we seek to overrule the "Right to a fair trial" and put the whole Cabinet up in the docks against the legal system that sent down Amanda Knox for four years? :lol:

If they do indeed start punching holes in the Human Rights Act, can we seek to overrule the "Right to a fair trial" and put the whole Cabinet up in the docks against the legal system that sent down Amanda Knox for four years? :lol:

 

 

Actually, I was thinking more the system that sent Troy Davis to the Gas Chamber......

In his speech Andrew Lansley mentioned people guilty of "misinterpretation, misinformation and misrepresentation". Hmm, was this a sly dig at May? It now seems that the example was her own and was based on a report in the Telegraph. However, the original report made it clear that the cat was only mentioned in passing (and, more or less, in jest) and that this was not a deportation hearing but a "right to remain" hearing.

 

So, there is a morsel of truth in May's claim. However, the morsel was so small that it would have left even a tiny kitten hungry again within the hour.

The Wail are still trying to claim that (dis)May was correct. They claim that the man involved did bring up the subject of his cat in court. That, of course, proves nothing. The Wail seem to think that the judge faced the choice of accepting the applicant's case in its entirety or the case against him in its entirety. Sadly, a lot of their readers are probably dim enough to fall for it. Even some of the readers who have seen the "alternative" version on the Amanda Knox story probably still have an unshakeable belief in that rag's infallibility.

The Wail are still trying to claim that (dis)May was correct. They claim that the man involved did bring up the subject of his cat in court. That, of course, proves nothing. The Wail seem to think that the judge faced the choice of accepting the applicant's case in its entirety or the case against him in its entirety. Sadly, a lot of their readers are probably dim enough to fall for it. Even some of the readers who have seen the "alternative" version on the Amanda Knox story probably still have an unshakeable belief in that rag's infallibility.

 

Daily Fail readers are morons... End of.... :lol: :lol:

 

I mean, naturally you'd bring up the cat, you'd say anything really to be able to stay in the country and not be deported... I'm betting that if Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry win the US election next year, there's gonna be a lot of Americans coming over here, buying cats and claiming asylum status..... :lol: :lol: :lol:

lol - i'm back here and the tories are in more shi-hit then before, didn't think it was possible.

 

You can tell their doing bad when grimly has a new topic every other day on the kunts

lol - i'm back here and the tories are in more shi-hit then before, didn't think it was possible.

 

You can tell their doing bad when grimly has a new topic every other day on the kunts

 

I could potentially have about three or four DIFFERENT Tory Topics every day just about... Someone else beat me to the Liam Fox *cough* affair, however..... :lol:

 

I could potentially have about three or four DIFFERENT Tory Topics every day just about... Someone else beat me to the Liam Fox *cough* affair, however..... :lol:

You're doing what they want you to do. It's not relevant just how "close" Fox and Werrity's friendship was. To quote Clare Short this morning, follow the money.

You're doing what they want you to do. It's not relevant just how "close" Fox and Werrity's friendship was. To quote Clare Short this morning, follow the money.

 

Okay, okay, I'll admit that was a cheap joke... I hold my hand up... I frankly dont care if Fox and Werritty were getting up to extra-marital nookie.... I do care more about the fact that this is a potential problem for national security, and, indeed, one has to wonder whether or not "secret donors" were paying a wage to Werritty as well... Noxy Foxy has three advisors which cost the taxpayer almost £170,000 per year, so, does he NEED them, or does he want to put his pal on the pay-roll...?

Okay, okay, I'll admit that was a cheap joke... I hold my hand up... I frankly dont care if Fox and Werritty were getting up to extra-marital nookie.... I do care more about the fact that this is a potential problem for national security, and, indeed, one has to wonder whether or not "secret donors" were paying a wage to Werritty as well... Noxy Foxy has three advisors which cost the taxpayer almost £170,000 per year, so, does he NEED them, or does he want to put his pal on the pay-roll...?

When Cameron became PM he said that no minister would be allowed more than two special advisers. Somehow, Fox was allowed to appoint a third. Then, of course, there was Werrity, the unofficial fourth. It's impossible to say that name without sounding like you've got a speech impediment.

 

I've already alluded to the national security issue in the Fox thread. How was this man who has not undergone any security vetting (i.e. even less than Andy Coulson) allowed to treat the MoD almost as a second home?