Once upon a time, I watched a bit of a British television show called Black Mirror — it was, I was told, a series of scary stories about a dystopian near-future. The one episode I watched in full was about a politician forced by a terrorist to have sex with a pig, and most of it was reaction shots of this guy as he was contemplating the horror of this act. I started to watch a second episode, and it was something about another contrived scenario of public humiliation, and I lost interest. I came to the conclusion that where an American scary story might involve getting chased by zombies or giant spiders or something equally life-threatening, a British scary story was about finding oneself in an embarrassing situation that hurt one’s dignity.
Little did we all know, my assessment was accurate, and the show was written by a psychic. The latest news that seems to be consuming the British public is that…well, here’s the calmest description I’ve seen.
If you’re in the dark regarding “pig-gate”, the details are relatively simple; billionaire tax exile and former Conservative party deputy chairman Lord Michael Ashcroft has co-written, with journalist Isabel Oakeshott, an unauthorised biography of David Cameron. It is not flattering, and includes allegations of drug-taking among other things, but the attention-grabbing assertion is that during an initiation ceremony for an Oxford student society, Cameron “put a private part of his anatomy” in the mouth of a dead pig – and that photographic proof of this deed exists.
I would just like to introduce my British readers to Neal Horsley, the late Republican candidate for governor of Georgia.
Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I…AC: “You had sex with animals?”
NH:
Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.AC: “I’m not so sure that that is so.”
NH:
You didn’t grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?AC: “Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?”
NH:
It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality… Welcome to domestic life on the farm…
I think we might as well resign ourselves to the understanding that all conservative politicians got to their position of power by a process that involved the equivalent of sodomizing a dead pig, and not be surprised when the facts are uncovered.
Shouldn’t that be “Your first rape victim is a mule”?
Not if the mule was begging for it…
First thought: oh FFS. Cameron has done a million things more harmful than arseing around with a piece of already-dead meat from the butcher’s, but will probably take more flak for this than for
decimating workers’ protections, sorry, “freeing” employers to be morerapacious, sorry, better “job creators”. Not to mention all the other shit he has pulled or that has been pulled under his supervision (benefits cuts, our very own drone strikes, effective under-funding and stealth privatisation of the NHS, driving people to use food banks …)Second thought: was this the Bullingdon Club? Did all those overprivileged tossers do this? Boris …????
What really bothers me is that I’m afraid that after the shock wears off, it will go away, without ever having expanded into the reality of frat hazing, and more importantly, how it creates a real “in-group” of the rich and powerful that help keep them insulated from everyone else.
opposablethumbs, no, it was the Piers Gaveston Society, another group of overprivileged tossers.
Charlie Brooker, who wrote Black Mirror, also wrote that David Cameron is a lizard. So, you know, maybe there’s something to that?
WHAT THE FUCK?
To think all this happened BEFORE gay marriage was legal.
@opposablethumbs
Correct, but such humiliation-based initiations into a Society of Silly Buggers who end up in control of our country is worrying, isn’t it? A society of people of enormous privilege who have mutual, deliberately embarrassing secrets to keep? What could possibly go wrong?
On a serious note and not ignoring the horrendous bigotry/nepotism/sexism etc of these sort of unviversity societies you do have to wonder how consenting these young people really are when they are forced to commit an act like inserting their penis into a pig. This episode reflects more poorly on the societies in general than Cameron.
And anyway, whats wrong with fucking animals?
PS where are the fingers of camerons left hand that we can’t see in that picture.? yuk.
As opposablethumbs already mentioned, the problem isn’t so much that Cameron used to fuck dead pigs, it’s that it’s the guy’s nicest trait by far.
You’re joking, right….?
No.
Now now, let’s not go there with the othering. Cameron is a fucking tory, but he’s definitely a fucking human.
latsot
Yes. Yes. Yes it is extremely worrying.
It shores up precisely the cosy, clandestine mutual support cabal of the Exceedingly Rich Toffs that has enabled him to do the million more harmful things.
that “gentle statement” does not sound like bestiality at all. putting his johnson in the mouth of a dead pig while being hazed for a a fraternity, is hardly, ‘sex with a dead pig’. Sounds like the usual frat hazing stunt: one to shame the pledge for perpetuity, to keep the photos hidden from public censure. The scene in Black Mirror was far more horrific, for a political scandal, and involved live pigs, not carcasses. For all the awful policies as PM, this unauthorized biography is actually painting him as a victim of a disgusting hazing ceremony.
To go all conspiracy theeryize, one could say the Cameron is a ghost writer, to claim unauthroized, and show himself a victim of fratboy bullies that he was forced to participate to stay in society to get him to control the Parliament.
sorry no. just letting my imag run away with the keyboard…
Animals do not have the mental capacity to consent. Although this doesn’t stop us from (unlike children, the usual comparison, who are in fact considered to have bodily autonomy in the general case) selectively breeding them, artificially inseminating them, confining them, buying and selling them, putting them to work, modifying their behavior with various degrees of aggressiveness, sterilizing them, performing other medical treatments on them, grooming them in ridiculous ways, using them for food, or simply euthanizing them, a sudden interest in their capacity to consent tends to develop when the topic of fucking them comes up. This is very, very definitely not at all because “IT’S ICKY but people are gradually catching on that ‘IT’S ICKY’ isn’t justifiable as a reason for a policy, so it is necessary to find another stated reason, even if it’s laughably inconsistent with our position in every other situation,” but because of Reasons.
(…well, I’ve heard one actually good argument for this stance: that given the rampancy of sexual assault among humans, presenting a simple united front on “SEXUAL CONTACT REQUIRES CONSENT” is more valuable than being consistent in our handling of animal bodily autonomy.)
At least the pig was dead. I’m more worried about living animals potentially getting abused.
It’s wasn’t for a “fraternity”. We don’t have fraternities in the UK. There are no “usual frat hazing stunt[s]”, because there are no frats. From a UK perspective, this is deeply, deeply weird and aberrant behaviour.
Cameron will be secretly delighted. It’s no coincidence that the first source that made this public was the Daily Fail – they also know full well that whilst everyone is shitting themselves all over social media because a drunk university student once did something a bit puerile, Cameron and his cronies can use this as a great day to bury bad news. For instance, breaking an explicit manifesto promise by removing universal free school meals for the youngest pupils, driving people to suicide by declaring them “fit for work” and removing their disability benefits when they can’t actually work due to severe mental health problems and can’t survive without the benefits or continuing to make only the most cosmetic of gestures to tackle the massive humanitarian crisis we helped to create in Syria.
Dunc @ 19:
It would seem you’re wrong:
Oh, pardon, they’re student societies with initiation ceremonies, which aren’t at all like fraternities and hazing. Nope. Not at all.
It does sound like some kind of hazing. (minor PS to non-Brits, though I’m sure it will come as a surprise to precisely nobody: membership of societies like this is the exception, not the rule, even at the poshest unis. It is not just possible but utterly normal and commonplace to go through one’s time at uni and take part in any number of student societies, even holding office in some fairly posh college or university-wide socs, without ever coming into contact with anything like this or any hazing ever. I believe that many people only know about them because of what school – such as Eton – they went to before uni.)
Caine @ : 21:
Oxford student societies are more-or-less unique to Oxford, AFAIK. And no, they’re not really anything like fraternities in the US sense. Not all organisations which have weird initiation rituals are fraternities. The fact that two things share a common characteristic does not make them the same thing.
You don’t get this sort of thing going on at any other university in country that I know of, so it’s not in any sense “usual”. (OK, there are sports clubs which get up to a lot of stupid stuff, but that’s a different thing again.)
For further clarity re 22 and 23: there are common-or-garden student societies of various sorts at all UK universities, but they’re nothing like the “Student Societies” at Oxford, such as the Bullingdon Club and the Piers Gaveston Society.
Let us all be thankful that Horsely’s first victim was a sterile mule. At least he didn’t leave the poor girl in a “family way.”
@Moggie
Funny, but isn’t it othering either way? It’s just that one form of othering is not as dehumanizing.
a politician forced by a terrorist to have sex with a pig
I feel as bad for the pig as I do for the human.
this unauthorized biography is actually painting him as a victim of a disgusting hazing ceremony.
Yes, but… It’s a hazing ceremony that gateways admittance to: a society that does that kind of thing. The purpose of the ceremony is multi-fold but one thing it also serves to do is select out anyone who’d be unwilling to do something so disgusting though peer pressure.
Groucho Marx used to say “I wouldn’t be a member of any club that would have someone like me in it” and I think that really applies in this case.
Every politician wants a legacy, something for which they will be remembered. Dave now has his.
I really enjoyed a few of the Black Mirror episodes. Especially the one with the voluntarily implanted chips that allowed the user to play back their experiences. The pig episode was so ridiculous I told
friends to skip it. It was stupid. Apparently I have very poor judgement on the possibilities of bad behavior of politicians.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/21/cameron-piggate-dead-pig-young-reckless-race-sex-class
You’re right about British scary stories though. Nothing terrifies us more than seeming like a prat in public. Well, that and running out of milk for the tea.
Cassetteboy have done a remix already
And yet “UK English” Chauvinists are a thing that exists. O.o
@17
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of your points…but how exactly does that make the sweeping generalisation that “fucking animals is ok”, correct?
#33
Ah, but that doesn’t make us look like prats you see. The opinions of non-English people are, naturally, not counted in this calculation. Especially ones who habitually miss the “u” out of words, and replace ae diphthongs with single vowels. Catch an English politician doing that and all the porcine necrophilia in the world won’t be enough to salvage their reputation!
……
…………………..
Did I say it did?
When I heard this this morning, I was not the least surprised. It’s what posh Tories do in their youth. However, I am itching to hear the first time that Cameron gets serious in the House of Commons, and the opposition benches let out an ‘oink!’ in response.
As others have pointed out, annoying a dead animal’s head is possibly the least obnoxious thing this prat and his cronies has done.
I have always found this to be an odd argument. While there are some truly sick people that might try to bang their cat, or hump chickens, or something, most animals are a) larger, and/or b) stronger, c) better able to harm people, than people them, at least while one of them is pretty much nude, an if they really didn’t like what was going on wouldn’t have to say “no”, they would just kick, bite, or trample a person. And.. at least with dogs, which is the most common one anyway, they are already prone to “get excited” about things having sex around them, and even trying to mount things at random. The females not so much, since that part, for animals, tends to be much more instinct driven, but.. males..
So… Yeah, the argument to me is, while not completely wrong, is still not always a valid argument. In the literal sense that they are not as smart as us, or able to talk, maybe. But, they sure as heck could object to it.
Soooooo…. David Cameron, from the proud Clan Cameron of Lochiel is no true Scotsman? :p
Black Mirror is an amazing show and you should give it another chance. The episode with the pig is not indicative of the show as a whole. It’s not a show about humiliation, it’s a show about how new technologies have the potential to warp our basic humanity – written by someone who appreciates technology and understands it, rather than some old scaremongering luddite.
Charlie Brooker, the creator, is also a writer for the Guardian and aggressive atheist.
laurentweppe:
Ask any actual Scotsman if David Cameron is a Scotsman, he’ll probably laugh himself into insensibility at the idea, as Cameron is the very epitome of ‘upper-class English snob’.
However, a little bit of context for these claims – Lord Ashcroft has been a major contributor to the Conservative Party and, despite claims by him to the contrary, the general feeling is that he at least thinks he was snubbed for a senior position in the Tory government that he felt his campaign contributions entitled him to and the claims in this book is his way of sticking two fingers up at Cameron for that perceived snub.
I’m more disgusted by Cameron and/or his buddies burning a £50 note in front of a homeless person than I am about him sticking his penis into a dead pig’s mouth.
Don’t tell me that none of you perverted omnis have ever stuck your dick in pork. Why is this newsworthy?
Of all the things that the overprivileged shit did and does as a man of power, this is the most irrelevant.
Indeed, this plays straight in his hands to distract from his politics.
…
I feel I am always ruining the fun.
Maybe I should just join the mockery and hope that this will be Cameron’s downfall.
Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y @ 17
I agree. Though I am certainly not an advocate of abusing animals, sexually or otherwise, I must concur that it is not an issue of “consent”. We as a species do much more horrible things to animals without their consent than sexually assault them.
Marcello S @45
Nope, never have, never even considered it. My perversions go in other directions than fucking pieces of dead meat.
Animals do not have the mental capacity to consent
It seems to me that the distinction between “Animals” and “humans” is nearly always self-serving.
Humans are animals. The question of mental capcity and consent is the crux. There are animals that are humans that don’t have the mental capacity to consent, either. There are non-humans that probably do (e.g.: dolphins) I understand from a friend of mine that spent a lot of time around dolphins that some of the males looked quite interested in trying some biped action…
And ruin beacon’s taste? How dare you accuse us of such blashphemy!
This was so totally unsurprising — gee, an overprivileged right-wing figure did something disgusting when he was in school, what an astonishing development, stop the presses — that the only thing over which I have any outrage at all is the continued use of “-gate” as a suffix to indicate a scandal. All journalists (and others) who do this ought to have… well, okay, maybe not their heads, or their hands… ah, I know: all those who use this construction ought to have their keyboards chopped off, and be forbidden to buy a replacement.
Redundant letters, redundant fingers…I’m sensing a pattern here :)
well I have had some barbecue pork that was positively orgasmic and have had chicken that inspired thoughts of pure lust but I do not generally have sex with my food!
uncle frogy
I loved Black Mirror, including That Episode. The pig bits were the least interesting thing about it though. More interesting were the build up and reactions shown. I view the current drama the same way — it is the reactions of the tabloids and social media that are far more interesting than a bit of squick.
A lot of hypocritical comments on here.
On one hand we denigrate theists for believing a story without hard evidence yet fully accept this titillating story with salivating glee one written by a man with an axe to grind.
What happened to skepticism or is the fact that he’s a Tory colour our views?
pigdowndog,
I you had actually read the tread, you would have seen people do question the story, and others saying that even if true, it doesn’t really matter, because he did far worse things.
@zenlike.
I have read the comments and I never said all of them accept it as fact (read my comment again).
It’s only in your opinion that he’s done “far worse things” no doubt influenced by your political views which you’re perfectly entitled to.
At the moment I’m listening to a discussion about the story by people actually in the know and the story appears to be falling apart by general concensus, and no, they aren’t Tories, quite the opposite.
My opinion is that Lord Ashcroft has made himself look silly and spiteful.
I agree with you on one point though, what the hell does it matter?
“Rich upper-class prick does stupid, disgusting thing to get into weird Oxford student society” is not a particularly extraordinary claim. The antics of the Bullingdon set are pretty well-documented, and this isn’t that much different from what we already know they get up to, so a lower standard of evidence is required than for supernatural claims.
@Dunc
“This is one of the oldest and most effective tricks in politics. Every hack in the business has used it in times of trouble, and it has even been elevated to the level of political mythology in a story about one of Lyndon Johnson’s early campaigns in Texas. The race was close and Johnson was getting worried. Finally he told his campaign manager to start a massive rumor campaign about his opponent’s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his own barnyard sows.
“Christ, we can’t get a way calling him a pig-f—er,” the campaign manager protested. “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.”
“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the s.o.b. deny it.”
“Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” Hunter S Thompson.
@pigdowndog: And? What possible bearing could that have on the actual truth or falsity of the matter?
For the record, I don’t know whether it’s true or not. I just don’t think it’s particularly unlikely. Plus it’s amusing.
pigdowndog
You know, just because once somebdy was wrongly accused of pigfucking doesn’t mean all accusations are false. Especially not in the light of people saying “duh, what’s the matter, don’t we ALL do it?”
Also, you might have noticed that elections in the UK are not due in a long shot
I most certainly don’t, and have nothing but contempt for those who adhere to Maher’s “These religious rubes are superstitious morons who deserve to be beaten into submission by me and my ilk” school of denigrating thought
@Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
“You know, just because once somebody was wrongly accused of pigfucking doesn’t mean all accusations are false. ”
If you have evidence that corroborates the story let’s all hear it.
“Also, you might have noticed that elections in the UK are not due in a long shot”
Not sure what that’s got to do with anything but the instigator of the story is a man who holds a big grudge against Cameron for not giving him a high powered job so it has to be held up to scrutiny and not accepted wholesale, as your nom-de-plume would suggest..
Of course, the people who are claiming that Lord Archer is motivated by a grudge are also people with vested interests in downplaying this story, so we have to be sceptical of their veracity too, right?
Sorry, Lord Ashcroft, not Lord Archer… I always get those two mixed up for some reason.
The jolly japes and wheezes of the Bullingdon club,for which there appears to be plenty of corroboration, make this seem like small beer in comparison imo (in terms of actual harm to others). Whatever their initiation idiocy, the two clubs are absolutely founded on the most conspicuous ostentation of wealth possible (famous for it, even in a setting where many students’ family wealth is far higher than average) and – so much more importantly – on trumpeting abroad their utter contempt for the poor.
pigdowndog
Not my point. My point is that false accusations against others in the past have no bearing upon the veracity of this claim.
You know, I pretty much don’t care whether it’s true or not. As said before, it’s one of the nicer things you can say about him.
“Cameron? Good chap! Used to fuck dead pig heads and tended to forget his kid in the pub!”
As others have pointed out, the claim isn’t particularly outlandish. It’s in line with what we know about upper class male clubs and their “traditions”. Even a lot of his supporters seem ready to believe it and react with “so what, we were all young once!”
@Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
” it’s one of the nicer things you can say about him”
Know him personally do you?
No your opinion of him is totally based on your political perspective.
“Cameron? Good chap! Used to fuck dead pig heads and tended to forget his kid in the pub!”
Can we assume you’ve led a spotless life without any embarrassing moments you’d like to forget?
I couldn’t care less what he or any other person has done, within reason, but what irks me is the inverted snobbery of his detractors.
So what if he’s had a privileged upbringing? He had no control over that much the same as everybody else.
At least he’s made the best use of that upbringing in the way he thinks is correct and whether you agree is either here nor there.
He’s achieved high office in a democracy. he wasn’t handed the post on a plate!
It’s the same with Jeremy Corbyn, he chooses to go with gut instinct and he’s pilloried by judgmental non-entities.
By the way. I am a Labour supporter who hates the holier than thou attitude of some of the left wing.
I care what he’s done because he’s in charge of my fucking country. The pig’s head thing is not a big deal in itself, but the membership of student societies that exist to show of wealth and make fun of the poor is pretty indicative of the sort of person he is – and that has carried over into his policies. This isn’t someone who did stupid shit as a student and now regrets it. This is someone who is, right now, actively fucking over the poor and disabled.
He can’t help being born into privilege, but he can help his attitudes and behaviours. No-one forced him to join those particular clubs in uni. No-one is forcing him to punish people for being poor now.
jefrir @69
+1
@Giliell, 67
Our data about past incidents informs our prior probability that this claim is true. This isn’t the final conclusion, because we also need to look at the evidence specific to this case. All correct reasoning must do this because of Bayes Theorem.
@jefrir
” actively fucking over the poor and disabled.”
Once again that’s just your political perspective.
The other perspective is that he’s weeding out the idle and lazy who choose to live on benefits.
Don’t let envy and inverted snobbery colour your prejudices.
@72, pigdowndog
Wait, do you realize that one of those claims might be wrong?
Yes. Well, I assume you know that political perspective is quite likely to pop up when discussing a person who has chosen a career of politician. These things do happen you know, so stiff upper lip and all that.
pigdowndog
What a rara avis you are, to be sure. A “Labour supporter” who believes – apparently – that there are enough individuals choosing to live on benefits out of sheer idleness and laziness to actually comprise some sort of statistically significant class, significant enough to warrant government policies that penalise practically all those dependent on benefits. The mentally ill, the physically ill, the underpaid forced to use food banks even though they are working …
How are you on personal integrity, btw? I’m sure you’d never, say, tell a little fib about yourself for rhetorical purposes when posting anonymously on a blog … ?
I remember reading the news article and for a few seconds I was wondering if I hadn’t slipped into some kind of parallel universe where Black Mirror was reality. It was very disconcerting.
Put me off my crispy bacon sammich, let me tell you.
@pigdowndog #72:
Read this, shit for brains.
Here’s the takeaway figure: 10,800 died in one year, within six weeks of having had their Incapacity and/or Disability Benefit removed due to being assessed as fit for work.
If he really intended to “weed out” the idle and lazy who choose to live on unearned benefits, he would have slaughtered his former classmates years ago.
pigdowndog
You can safely assume that I have neither tried to have sex with dead animals nor forgotten my children in the pub. I think the most embarrassing I’ve ever done was puke into my parents’ car and write “James Brooks” into my notebook with a heart drawn around it.
Oh, and horrible typos in tweets that got more than three retweets.
You know, I think it’s been universally agreed upon that people who are trying to weed out humans are the bad ones.
Giliell, #79
Also, whenever people with a lot of money and power talk about “lazy people who live on benefits”.
Continuing the thoughts offered by #79 & #80:
I wonder if pigdowndog et al have even the faintest idea how hard it is to live on social assistance.
Income assistance rate tables for British Columbia.
Unit Size refers to the family unit.
@ Giliell, 79.
“You know, I think it’s been universally agreed upon that people who are trying to weed out humans are the bad ones.”
QFT and Beautifully put. And like in Australia, there really isn’t a significant issue with benefits and pensions being rorted. It is just a quick and easy way of making the party look “hard on crime/cheats/the horrible poor people clogging up the pretty scenery” to appeal to the far right. The fact that people in need are the ones who suffer for it, is always considered unimportant.
Personally, I would much rather pay a few dollars more in taxes and keep the benefits there for those who need it, even if a small number of people *do* game the system. It is better that than removing the safety net from those most in need.
bonzaikitten: “to appeal to the far right.”
And the right, centre-right and centre-left at least, nowadays. Up until less than a week ago it was Labour policy to support the benefits cap, the majority of their MPs voted for it, and a substantial number of polled Labour supporters were – and still are, at least for now – in favour of it too.
Whether that will change now Corbyn is leading Labour and “of course people on benefits are bad” is no longer the unchallenged consensus of the two largest parties remains to be seen. The SNP certainly managed to do well on a strong anti-austerity anti-poverty stance (though there were other factors there too, of course)
@Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
“You know, I think it’s been universally agreed upon that people who are trying to weed out humans are the bad ones.”
Also people who twist the words that other people say to fit their prejudices are dishonest.
No-one said he’s trying to “weed out” humans. I said that he could be trying to “weed out” the benefit cheats.
@Saad
“Also, whenever people with a lot of money and power talk about “lazy people who live on benefits”.
Are you saying that there are no “lazy people who live on benefits?
Don’t be so naive!
@Vatican Black Ops, Latrina Lautus
“I wonder if pigdowndog et al have even the faintest idea how hard it is to live on social assistance.”
Yes we do and the cheats make it harder.
Don’t assume you know how I live.
pigdowndog
So people who are lazy and who are cheating benefits are not humans and can therefore be “weeded out”? I don’t know if you noticed, but you sound exactly like the Nazis: redefine certain groups of people as not human, talk about weeding them out like parasites etc. If that’s totally not what you mean then you are the one who needs to take care of their language.
Sure, there’s always somebody. So what? The overwhelming majority (I think research in Germany suggested numbers in the 95%+ range) aren’t lazy and aren’t cheating and they can’t get off benefits because there’s not enough work to go around, even for those who are able bodied.
If you spend your resources on catching “cheats”, with a very high risk of hurting innocent people instead of spending your resources on helping people, you are an asshole who derives joy from hurting people.
Everybody who has ever lived on benefits knows it’s no walk in the park. You’re not compensated royally for it. That’s why food banks exist. If a handfull of people choose that life, who cares. There’s plenty of people who want those jobs.
How?
pigdowndog (#85)
Bullshit. A well-designed system can absorb a certain level of gaming it. There is no danger in forgiving the existence of a few cheaters for the good of the honest majority. It’s game theory, motherfucker.
On the other hand, there is a problem when a cheater has a massively disproportionate amount of influence and money. Greedy bankers, business owners, and politicians do infinitely more damage than even one hundred times as many welfare cheats. Incidentally, those high-powered folk are the very ones who are breaking the system as they tell you to care about the inconsequential welfare cheats. You’re blaming the wrong people.
Giliell (#86)
Even if there were enough jobs, how would we tell who is genuinely “lazy” anyway? Like, for instance, how many people are out there with undiagnosed, unacknowledged depression who “cope” with it by developing an abrasive sense of entitlement and a defensive personality?
A. Noyd
That, too. Though it’s unfortunately not a question that will ever have to be seriously asked in my lifetime.
I’ve always found it very surprising how the rates of laziness in society are so strongly correlated with other economic indicators… I mean, there we were, cruising along fairly nicely, then the credit crisis blows up in 2008, a couple of major financial institutions collapse, GDP tanks, and suddenly millions of people start getting lazy and deciding to live on benefits. Rates of youth laziness in particular suddenly spike up to somewhere over 20% here in the UK, and over 50% in some other parts of Europe. You’d normally think that the base rate of laziness in a society would be fairly constant, and yet it seems to vary wildly depending on the state of the economy. It’s really quite remarkable, and I can’t see any obvious explanation for it.
From the government’s own figures (Sept 2013):
http://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud
To put it in proportion a nice easy-to-read graphic form (and don’t forget – the figures for benefits overpayment and tax underpayment come from official government sources):
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Tax-V-Benefit-Fraud-Graph-Excellent.jpg
So naturally you’d think the government would devote proportionally more effort to combating tax fraud, right? Seeing as how it costs the economy so mamy times more than benefit fraud? Well, no …
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/07/01/benefit-fraud-is-624-times-more-serious-than-tax-evasion/
Because it’s easier and a better vote-grabber to take cheap shots at economically insignificant benefits fraud than to go after tax fraud. Benefits claimants have no friends in high places, after all, while those tax evaders and avoiders are rich people with lawyers. Some of them might even be major party donors …
Dunc@91,
Well I suppose it’s just possible that a lot of people in or with the prospect of shitty jobs saw a wunch of munificently “compensated” merchant bankers getting away with criminal negligence and worse, and concluded that if that was allowed, then simply living a life of harmless idleness on a pittance would and should attract no censure whatever. But somehow I doubt it.
As to the allegation of necrofiliac bestiality against Cameron, it’s unlikely to be true: the authors admit it comes from a single source, supposed photographic evidence has not appeared, and Cameron’s spokesperson has denied he was a member of the Piers Gaveston Society. Of course that could be a lie, but such a lie would be a hostage to fortune. It has distracted attention from another allegation in the book that is much more serious (although not criminal AFAIK): that Cameron knew about Ashcroft’s non-dom tax status earlier than he previously claimed.
What’s also interesting is that the book is being serialised in the Daily Mail, a squalid, dishonest, bilious, bigoted pustule of a right-wing publication. The prospect of serious Tory infighting beckons invitingly, with “piggate” (surely “piggygate” would be more euphonious?) now added to the splits over the EU referendum.
@68 pigdowndog
Unlike yours, for you are that most rare of beasts, Oh Pure One.
@72
That might be what he thinks he is doing, or at least part of it anyway, but that’s not what’s actually happening in this little thing we call reality that you should totally check out. I don’t judge a politician by their intentions, i judge them by the consequences of the policies and the real life, actual consequences of his policies have been desastrous for thousands of people. How many completely innocent people have to suffer in his quest to weed out the “idle and lazy”?
You sir, are an asshole, as is Mr.Dickinapig.
I’m sorry, I try not to be a prude and I know I’m sorta “on the outside looking in” when it comes to anything sexual, but I see all this and I just have to say it now and again.
WHY IS EVERYONE SO OBSESSED WITH SEX ALL THE TIME?!
There, I think I got it out of my system.
@83, Cim,
I watch with hope, as it seems to be that our politics shadows the UK’s. I look forward to people being treated as people again.
@Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia
“You sir, are an asshole, as is Mr.Dickinapig.”
When losing an argument resort to insults.
Well done.
@A. Noyd
Can you point to anywhere in my comments where I’m defending greedy bankers or big business?
I was responding to a specific point so stop throwing strawmen into the argument.
If you choose to overlook low level cheating then you’re guilty of condoning dishonesty and depriving the honest people who abide by the rules.
You might have noticed that was my conclussion, not my argument, but since you can’t argue against the argument you are going to pretend that me calling you an asshole, as you deserve for ignoring the real and very serious consequences of a policy, is all i said, because that way you reassure yourself that you really are right, even though you definitely are not. Yep….an asshole…an openly dishonest one too.
To be fair, the ‘White Bear’ episode of series two of Black Mirror is horrifying and disturbing in a many-layered way. It’s a brilliant piece of speculative fiction.
@Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia
“You might have noticed that was my conclussion”
Your “conclussion” is just your opinion not fact.
” since you can’t argue against the argument you are going to pretend that me calling you an asshole”
Read my previous comments and you’ll see that I did put forward an argument.
If you are insistent on throwing childish insults at me could please use the proper term of “arsehole”. I’m not American.
“as you deserve for ignoring the real and very serious consequences of a policy,”
I’m not ignoring any consequences but putting them into perspective. There are benefit cheats and I confront them every week.
I have not said that no-one is unaffected by the policy but I don’t feel the need to scream incoherently against it because it offends my political leanings as I suspect you do as it’s not as black and white as you seem to think it is.
I doubt you’re a Tory.
“Yep….an asshole…an openly dishonest one too.”
May I suggest you glance in a mirror?
pigdowndog
The dog that didn’t bark.
You insist on wasting massive resources on a negligible problem, as demonstrated by opposablethumbs, talking about “weeding out” people. You defend a policy that is cruel and unfair and that kills. Ignoring massive scale tax fraud while using huge resources to harass and hurt poor people are in fact the same politics. Love and the marriage, love and the marriage, go together like the horse and carriage…
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
“You insist on wasting massive resources on a negligible problem,”
The discussion was about benefit fraud which I commented on. I didn’t expand it to “greedy bankers” of which I’m also critical but in your haste to lambaste a politician that you obviously don’t like you spew your venom in all directions in the hope that it makes sense.
” You defend a policy that is cruel and unfair and that kills. Ignoring massive scale tax fraud ”
I don’t defend massive tax fraud but it wasn’t part of the initial subject so why would I comment on it?
I also see the low level abuse of the benefit system (the subject I was commenting on) every week but that doesn’t mean I’m defending tax evaders, greedy bankers or corrupt business men or women!
If you want to condemn bad practices I’m with you but don’t try to whitewash the abuse carried out by the less wealthy just because it salves your conscience.
” Love and the marriage, love and the marriage, go together like the horse and carriage…”
By the way not sure what relevance that has to the subject but there’s no definite article in the lines of that song.
pigdowndog
There’s convenient tags you can use. “blockquote”, for example.
Yes, and people have given good reasons for not liking Cameron. Waging a war on the poor, dismanteling the NHS, refusing to take in refugees are pretty good reasons to not like him.
Benefit fraud is extremely low, as demonstrated, and your willingness to throw lots of people under the bus to catch a few black sheep speaks volumes about you.
QFT.
“Benefit cheats” is such a common dog whistle, pigdowndog, and very easy to blow; we see the same tactic in USAnianland (“welfare queens”) and so many other places. Because it is easier for us to relate to a picture made up of individuals and concrete, easy-to-understand behaviours than to information about corporate structures and accounting practices and tax rules that very very few of us understand. So very easy to get us to focus on the mote we can relate to and blame it for all our problems while we ignore the beam that’s too big and out-of-reach for us to grasp.
And this is so prevalent and so dangerously misleading that you simply cannot “innocently” criticise the bogeyman “benefits cheaters” devoid of context; the context is right there in Tory policy, and to deliberately try to focus on the distraction alone is to give tacit approval to their scapegoating.
So, that whole being a Labour supporter thing, how’s that working out for you?
Bankers: *tank the economy*
Bankers: *make shit-tons of money for themselves anyway*
Bankers: Whoopsie. Oh, hey, look. Welfare cheats. How dare they, the greedy bastards! Get ‘em!
Business owners: *use the bad economy as an excuse to pay workers non-living wages*
Business owners: *keep making profit for shareholders*
Business owners: Welfare cheats! Welfare cheats! They’re hurting you!
Politicians: *climb into the pockets of lobbyists*
Politicians: *give gobs of public money to the bankers and business owners*
Politicians: *cut benefits*
Politicians: Has to be done. There are welfare cheats, you know. Gotta weed ‘em out. If it hurts the honest, well… look, a funny cloud! Anyway, welfare cheats! They’re forcing us to give less to everyone. Bad economy, you know.
you: Omg, welfare cheats! Welfare cheats matter! We can’t condone dishonesty, you guys!
me: Um, welfare cheats aren’t a problem. Politicians, business owners and bankers are.
opposablethumbs: Here are data supporting that, even.
you: Who says I defend bankers and big business?
Anything you say against bankers and big business would be pretense so long as your concern is a hand-me-down from them, the actual villains, you blithering dumbfuck. You’re worried about dishonesty? Then stop parroting the fucking lies of the people who are the real problem. You’re flailing on their hook and are apparently too dumb to know you’ve even been caught.
“Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-”
“your willingness to throw lots of people under the bus to catch a few black sheep speaks volumes about you.”
Your willingness to throw out generalisations to bolster your biased and unbalanced views also speak volumes about you.
Remove those rose tinted glasses.
“A. Noyd”
” you blithering dumbfuck.”
Your devastating wit is positively Wildean!
“your biased and unbalanced views”
Your irony is also in fine fettle.
Well done.
@opposablethumbs
“Benefit cheats” is such a common dog whistle”
That was the initial subject which I commented on.
A few shrill people decided to expand it to greedy bankers, tax evaders et al of which I wholly condemn but in their dogmatic hatred of any deviance from their narrow political view it seems, in their minds eye, that I embrace those that hurt our system.
“So, that whole being a Labour supporter thing, how’s that working out for you?”
Fine thanks due to discarding the ridiculous blinkered approach that some hard of thinking folks have.
pigdowndog
You know, people here have given you arguments, statistics, data.a ll you have given us is “you’re biased, you just don’t like Cameron, your dislike has biased you”
I guess you think you’re really brilliant and unbiased and rational and supercool here, but you’re far from it.
pigdowndog (#108)
You don’t get points for avoiding giving a substantial response because I called you a rude name. You do know, that don’t you? Try again.
Also, why are you quoting yourself and then talking about some sort of irony on my part?
Context, pigdowndog, context. It is disingenuous (to put it politely) to pretend that you can legitimately discuss benefit fraud without recognising that it is a massive red herring economically and politically.
That being a red herring is its main, one might almost say it’s only real significance.
In pure economic terms it is a non-problem; the government’s own figures show that benefit fraud is less than 1% of overall benefits and tax credits expenditure. So over 99% of benefits and tax credits are going to those legitimately entitled to them. Over 99%.
That’s rather important to any honest consideration of benefit fraud. In fact to omit it – and then to keep right on excluding it – might almost look … misleading. To put it politely.
I wonder if someone’s done a study on all the politicians who talk about lazy people on benefits. I’m curious to find out what percentage of those politicians actually push for legislation to help the poor citizens of their countries and what percentage try to pass laws that hurt them.
From my experience following U.S. politics, it seems like the ones who go on about “moochers and takers” don’t give one fuck about poor people who depend on welfare.
opposablethumbs (#112)
Gosh, it’s almost like the excessive focus on benefit fraud is a kind of fraud in and of itself. *cough*
“Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-”
“You’re really brilliant and unbiased and rational and supercool”
At last!
You’ve seen the light.
QFT.