Jump to content



Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2841 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

The fact osbourne mentioned welfare payments were out of control while commenting on the needless deaths of those children in the same sentence was totally unacceptable

 

He is the chancellor of the exchequer, not a reporter for SKY News

 

what is he doing going on national media, commenting on a case of unlawful killing which has nothing to do with the government, then using it as a platform to comment on welfare payments

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Read and reread your post, had a dark laugh but point 1, you said identify a problem. Yes but also create a problem then points 2 to 5 work like a dream.

Is it not what this and previous governments have done?

 

Yeah, it doesn't have to be an actual problem that is 'identified'. By identify, I was meaning, identify to your target audience what the 'problem' is.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using my Trade Union position status, i decided to find out who is behind this negative publicity from the Tory party.

 

Which analyst have they employed in the hope of winning the next election?

 

The answer is Lynton Crosby

 

Lynton Crosby is the campaign director of the conservative party. He is an Australian political analyst who has been described the most powerful man in Australia. He has been described as a master of the political dark arts.

 

Crosby is described as favoring what is called a wedge strategy,

 

whereby the party he advises introduces a divisive or controversial social issue into a campaign, (THATS WELFARE PEOPLE)

aligning its own stance with the dissenting faction of its opponent party, with the goal of causing vitriolic debate inside the opposing party, defection of its supporters, and the legitimizing of sentiment which had previously been considered inappropriate.

 

This is also described as "below the radar" campaigning, with the targeting of marginal constituencies with highly localized campaigning, latching on to local issues and personalities

 

His tactics have included:

 

During the 2001 Australian General Elections, Howard government ministers falsely claimed that seafaring asylum seekers had thrown children overboard in a presumed ploy to secure rescue and passage to Australia, and Howard, in the final days of the campaign, launched a slogan that later grew notorious: "We decide who will come into this country.

 

He is often described as an "evil genius" and a master at negative advertising

 

Everything the conservative party does on media, in public, is staged for maximum impact and direct from the political office. The likes of Cameron and Osbourne cannot say or do anything unless it has gone through this political officer.

 

ALL THE POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE THEM

 

welcome to modern free politics in the UK

Edited by squaddie
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you show me where the word 'sick' can be attributed to what he said I will bow to your suggestion.

 

My blackwatch was very nice thank you for asking.

 

I would indulge your facetious provocation but before I put your toys back in your pram my most pressing issue is the fact the stapler I bought is a bit foobar.

 

So real life 1st world issues v's the internet.

 

I've got pieces of paper to stick together in a meaningful way... will nobody think of the children!

Link to post
Share on other sites
My blackwatch was very nice thank you for asking.

 

I would indulge your facetious provocation but before I put your toys back in your pram my most pressing issue is the fact the stapler I bought is a bit foobar.

 

So real life 1st world issues v's the internet.

 

I've got pieces of paper to stick together in a meaningful way... will nobody think of the children!

 

You really aren't making any sense and your posts are totally irrelevant to the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really aren't making any sense and your posts are totally irrelevant to the subject.

 

I'd rather be irreverent than inflammatory!

 

Now drop it I'm rather tired by your inane protestations!

 

I'm off to find a stream for the Villa match (why I don't know), listen to a bit off Billy Bragg, imbibe some Woodford Reserve and contemplate if the meaning of life really is 42!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It always amuses me when someone can't answer a simple question then becomes abusive to try and detract from the original subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conniff.

 

With respect, why did the Tory' s not take this stance, with regard to the welfare/Philpott issue prior to the court verdict?

 

Philpott had been in receipt of benefits for years, it was on the telly etcetera, so none of it is a surprise.

 

The Tory' s could have debated this at any point over the last couple of years, so why now!!!

 

Allow me to have a stab at the reason...

 

The Tory' s decided to act now, therefore riding the wave of public outrage against a, and let's get it right, child killer. Yes he was milking the system, but that was nothing new as I have already stated. The Tory' s want an excuse to cut more from the welfare bill, they are desperate to do so, and this sick act committed by Philpott is their golden ticket. I bet IDS feels like Charlie Bucket!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Official figure state that there are no more than 200 families in the UK with more than 10 kids claiming benefit

 

To label everyone who claims an out of work benefit as work shy scroungers is just plain wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets take the 'so called' propaganda out of this. I have never pointed to one party. We will look at what was 'actually' said

 

 

 

I see no mention or even a hint of any reference to anyone killing anyone, nor reference to being on benefits making anyone a child killer or child killers are only on benefits.

 

His comments were directed at the system that allows a person to take advantage of and live entirely on benefits. Philpott even said he had no intention of working ever.

 

 

 

Maybe you should take your own advice and not quote "out of context".

 

This is what Osborne actually said:

 

"Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.

 

"But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."

(source here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035)

 

Now, would you like to review your statement that he didn't link the two? Or are you going to keep on trying to defend the indefensible?

 

Edit: Just to help you not dig that hole deeper, before answering, I think you should have a look at what Osborne's boss has said about it, because even he understood Osborne to be linking them:

 

However, speaking on a visit in his constituency of Witney in Oxfordshire, Mr Cameron threw his weight behind Mr Osborne, saying the chancellor had made a point of stressing Philpott was "responsible" for his crimes.

 

"But what the chancellor went on to say is you should ask other questions about our welfare system," said Mr Cameron.

 

"We want to say welfare is there to help people who want to work hard, but it's not a lifestyle choice."

 

(source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22041787)

Edited by Crazy Diamond
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you should take your own advice and not quote "out of context".

 

This is what Osborne actually said:

 

 

(source here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035)

 

Now, would you like to review your statement that he didn't link the two? Or are you going to keep on trying to defend the indefensible?

 

Edit: Just to help you not dig that hole deeper, before answering, I think you should have a look at what Osborne's boss has said about it, because even he understood Osborne to be linking them:

 

 

 

(source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22041787)

 

Well said and I back your comments entirely.

 

I am new to this thread and just read through it and I cant believe that certain people in certain positions would step out of line and attack those who only speak the truth.

 

What you have posted here Crazy Diamond is facts which I hope the Osbourne supporters take on board and feel ashamed for flaming individuals wrongly.

 

Well done mate :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't get where you link the two, they are different subjects separated by punctuation.

 

Because the tory toff was talking about Phillpot and his lifestyle on benefits paid for by tax payers. He just as the Daily Heil both used Phillpot and benefits in the same context. The same message. The same argument.

 

There is no if or buts about it.

 

If this tory inheritance millionaire ( something for nothing) rightly condemned Phillpots actions then why the hell bring benefits ito it?

Why did he have to talk about benefits in the same comment?

Its not as if he was asked to comment on Phillpot and then later in the interview was asked about his attack on benefits. No, he linked both Phillpot and benefits.

So did the daily heil and so did every political pundit.

 

By the way I despise all political partys equally and dont vote in this plutocracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact Osbourne mentioned welfare payments were out of control while commenting on the needless deaths of those children in the same sentence was totally unacceptable

 

He is the chancellor of the exchequer, not a reporter for SKY News

 

 

A reply to my assumption would be nice

I will go so far as to ask why Cameron commented on the philpotts and welfare in defending Osbourne.

 

what the hell has the death of those poor kids got to do with government ministers speaking through the media and mentioning welfare out of control

 

what is he doing going on national media, commenting on a case of unlawful killing which has nothing to do with the government, then using it as a platform to comment on welfare payments

Link to post
Share on other sites

So your take on it is the same is as if I say Wales and Theft in the same sentence I am saying that all people in Wales are thieves. Get real.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact Osbourne mentioned welfare payments were out of control while commenting on the needless deaths of those children in the same sentence was totally unacceptable

 

He is the chancellor of the exchequer, not a reporter for SKY News

 

 

A reply to my assumption would be nice

I will go so far as to ask why Cameron commented on the philpotts and welfare in defending Osbourne.

 

what the hell has the death of those poor kids got to do with government ministers speaking through the media and mentioning welfare out of control

 

what is he doing going on national media, commenting on a case of unlawful killing which has nothing to do with the government, then using it as a platform to comment on welfare payments

 

Because welfare is out of control, your beloved Balls and Brown saw to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

welfare may well be out of control, for whatever reason

 

but i will ask the question again

 

why are two government minister commenting on the unlawful killing of six kids, and bringing welfare into the conversation on national media

 

government do not comment on judicial procedure, that is left to the judges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving aside the fact Osborne and Cameron are vile opportunists; to have such lack of judgement makes you wonder if they're safe running the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because welfare is out of control, your beloved Balls and Brown saw to that.

 

Glad to know which side your bread is buttered now would you please go troll your own part of the board?

 

You have decided to pick on the vulnerable using your lovely green name badge as cover!

 

I am very tempted to use the dead in vein to support my view but I am not a complete and utter thunder ****!

 

Please tell me how your abuse of your position of power is any better than one of our corrupt MPs?

 

I've politely asked you to stand down and move on but no... no... you always have to have the last word!

 

Go you!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i myself have made sincere comments and asked legitimate questions

 

i have not commented on anybodies point of view in an impolite, or sarcastic/derogative way

 

i take great exception to your comment:

 

Because welfare is out of control, your beloved Balls and Brown saw to that.

 

i may well be a trade unionist, but i have the same contempt for the labour party as i do for the conservatives. To link me with the labour party with no supporting evidence i find insulting and derogatory

 

can we now stop this bickering and concentrate on the issues at hand and answer peoples questions in an educated and polite way

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because welfare is out of control, your beloved Balls and Brown saw to that.

 

You've rather put your foot in there, as squaddie asked:

 

 

what is he doing going on national media, commenting on a case of unlawful

killing which has nothing to do with the government, then using it as a platform

to comment on welfare payments

 

So are you basically saying that using this event to promote the welfare cutting agenda, is acceptable because welfare is 'out of control' due to Labour? If that is your genuine opinion you should be able to say it. I don't agree with it, but I feel strongly about people being able to express their genuine views in a debate without being attacked for it (unless they are a troll - and to everyone else taking part here, having a differing or very unpopular opinion, does not make a person a troll if it is their genuine viewpoint, and not comments just to inflame and antagonise).

 

There is nothing to say that a person needs to be of a certain political viewpoint to be able to post on CAG. On the other hand Coniff, denial about the issue and throwing political insults also isn't engaging properly in the debate.

 

Hopefully debate can continue a bit calmer.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to the Bear Garden.

 

There are some posts on this thread which really do push the boundaries for what is acceptable on CAG.

 

While there is always room for healthy and mature debate, it cannot and will not be allowed for discussions to degenerate into a free for all in personal abuse.

 

I will ask that everyone takes a deep breath before posting further and indeed accept that there are bound to be differing views on opinions in matters such as these.

 

If people cannot behave in an appropriate manner then I would suggest that they refrain from posting at all on this subject.

 

Should this thread not be brought back to a more civilised level then I will close it.

 

Thank you.

If I have helped you please leave me a message by clicking my star

 

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI

Read Here

3. Reclaim Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial

Read Here

5. Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

6. Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

7. Thinking of a Full & Final Settlement?

Read Here

 

How To Upload Documents To Cag

Instructions

 

I DON'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM BUT IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

 

 

 

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are perhaps inappropriate for posting on the main forum. Site rules explain this in more detail.

 

If you receive a private message which you consider abusive, derogatory or otherwise inappropriate, whether it be about yourself or other members, please report it using the "report" icon

 

If you are approached (or have been approached) by private message with an offer of help "Off Forum" or with a view to asking you to visit another website, please inform the site team via the report icon, especially if this results in a request for a fee. Remember, this is for your own protection

my views are my own and are given in good faith to try and help people. Please seek professional advice on your case if necessary

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...