I can't help it

One thing I heard on the Today programme this morning, and something I agree with. Oxford University has an active outreach programme in place at the moment with the aim of encouraging more students from comprehensives to apply to Oxford. This kind of thing will not do that programme any favours. Shame the media have made a big thing of it.

Oxford Uni has had outreach programmes in place for ages.

Not sure what the clubs of Oxford today get up to, but they used to feature all sorts of daft stuff ( my DD was there some years ago) mainly the young men, but some girls clubs that did all sorts as well.Much drink was taken, and initiation and rites formed the cornerstone of it all.When drunk, some people will do almost anything.A lot of men will have been in the same clubs in Oxford As DC ,I don't think that they will be too worried by any allegations,and if they are, can simply deny it.Nobody expects drinking clubs to have sensible rules.So I expect DC will either deny it or laugh it off.
as to the cash for jobs, I think all the parties have been guilty of that over the years for the big donors.

I don't think any knives are out at all for DC, he has already said that will go before the next election.

I think the raucous drinking club members are a tiny minority of Oxford students. Really tiny.

Members of every College in Oxford will belong to some club or other, there is certainly a lot of drinking going on, but that goes for most Unis these days.Also, we must remember, that these are simply allegations made in a book and that the person who ran that particular club says that DC was never a member( there are lots of clubs.)So it's not actual Gospel in the first place.

If Ashcroft were to make these allegations in a court of law, not an autobiography, he would asked some searching questions, such as -

1) "Did you observe this in person?"
If the answer is "no" then the testimony is hearsay, and not admissable, and the next Q is
2)"Who told you this?" so that the information can be traced back to its source.

If the answer to Q1 is "yes", then the next questions are -
3) "Were you a member of the same initiation ceremony?" because if so, then he would presumably have gone through the same initiation himself - which tars him with the same brush. Pots and kettles.
4) "Who else was present?" so that corroboration can be sought.
5) "Why did you wait all those years to disclose this about a man who aspired to high office?" Was it perhaps, because Ashcroft thought he could use it to blackmail himself into office and then turned on Cameron when that preferment failed to materialise? Blackmail is an offence.

Than there are other questions. He claims it was an initiation rite of the Bullingdon club. Someone else has said that JC was never a member of that club. Inconsistency.

Somehow, I can't help feeling that this has no substance, and that is not because I see JC wearing a halo of sanctity and perfection. Heaven knows how let down Corbyn's fervent supporters will be if someone produces a similar accusation against him and their holy image of him. But they would of course have to prove chapter and verse.

Brilliant post Elegran, just one thing, not the Bullingdon (of which DC was undeniably a member) but the Piers Gaveston and no, I do not speak from any experience

rosesarered yes, DC has said he would step down. So why has the right wing media joined in discrediting him and his wife (to a much lesser extent)?

It is the scent of other attackers. It excites the killer instinct.

POGS you said "Ashcroft wrote the book to get revenge for not being given a government post by Cameron. Cameron could not be bought by him."

I agree that it appears Ashcroft wrote the book to get revenge for not being given a government post by Cameron. But as to whether Cameron could not be bought, we don't know. I believe Ashcroft claims that Cameron told him that he'd wanted to appoint him but Clegg had vetoed it.

I think its the sheer hypocrisy that gets me, Dr David Nutt is desperately trying to fund research with drugs that could help with depression, PTSD, anxiety caused by terminal illness etc. etc., but because of their classification finds himself encountering endless barriers and vast costs.

Why do we ignore accounts about the variety of conditions helped by medical cannabis in countries where it is legal, and the savings made in police departments, courts and prisons quite apart from the effects on the lives of those caught with small amounts? (Jeffrey Archer's prison diary is worth reading)!My guess is is lobbying by interested parties such as the tobacco and alcohol industry, big pharma and maybe the evangelical side of the church.

Wilma.... It sells papers.

Though they may well find themselves 'gagged' soon,as it could be a libel matter.

Although if they stick to 'allegedly' and 'according to an unnamed source' they'll be OK. Ashcroft didn't claim it as a definite fact, did he...?

I am amazed at how quickly this story seems to be dying. If it had been JC instead of DC I think it would have 'run and run'. Couldn't be the influence of the Tory Press, could it?
Yes, everyone got up to stupid stuff when we were young but I don't think many people would have (allegedly) shagged a dead animal. Shows a lack of judgment to me and a line of decency which should not be crossed. There are undertones to all of this which are unsavoury. One assumption is that if you pay enough you can buy your way into high office. That goes against the grain with me although I have long accepted that it probably happens. 'Going forth and multiplying' with a pig is a slang term at University for having sex with an unattractive woman. I object to that as well. Drug taking, as long as it is in the past, seems par for the course these days. I don't want people making decisions about my life and others while under the influence. I could go on, but suffice to say, I don't want the PM of my country going into high powered talks where everyone is going 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink'.
If you are in need of a good laughh over it though go to #piggate and read the captions on the pictures. Priceless!

rosesarered yes, although the papers do usually stick to their usual side of the fence. I can't remember the last time the Daily Fail printed something negative about the sainted SamCam.

'Shagged a dead animal' - I don't think there was any suggestion of that, Devorgilla, even by the most anti-Cameron publications. Not even 'allegedly'.

Poetic licence Ana. I was also trying to get around the censor. Depends of course on the sources you read.

Eloethan.

Your post 12.40 You posted:-

"I believe Ashcroft claims that Cameron wanted to appoint him but Clegg had vetoed it"

You are wrong, Nick Clegg has said he did not veto Cameron appointing Ashcroft.

There isn't much censorship on here, Devorgilla. You could have said 'fucked' without any problem.

No evidence that DC was even in that society though - unless of course you know different.

Devorgrilla

Your post19.34. You said

"I am amazed how quickly the story seems to be dying. If had been JC and not DC I think it would have 'run and run'. Couldn't be the influence of the Tory Press could it"

Sorry but I understand the prejudice some posters have of anything right wing/right wing press but how can you square that comment when it is the Daily Mail 'running and running' extracts from Ashcroft's book ? I don't follow your logic.

Wilma

You also seem to think the Daily Mail does not as a general rule write any negative stories re Cameron and as you call her (for some reason) 'the sainted Sam Cam'. The Daily Mail has very often wrote negatively of Cameron, right wing politicians etc. Perhaps the only thing anybody has 'attacked' Sam Cam for has been connected to her job because there is nothing else to write about. .

POGS I called Sam that because it seems to be her nickname on the comments section of the DM and whilst I agree the DM will write about right wing politicians (e.g. MPs' expenses), I don't recall seeing such a negative campaign against DC. Maybe this is the start of finding his replacement.

Re the serialisation of extracts of Ashcroft's book. It must have been too good to pass on.

I have never read any accusation that he was either shagging or fucking the dead pig - what Ashcroft wrote was that he "inserted a private part of his anatomy" into a dead pig's mouth. To shag or fuck it, the said bit of anatomy would have to be rigid.

Even assuming that a cold and ugly pig corpse could be erotic enough to rouse it to phallic status, all those concerned would have been so convulsed with hysterical laughter as to be incapable.