Cameron resigns

[Flanker7]

There are better examples yet you provide a link to a story which doesn't accuse him of bullying? Why's that then? Arrogant and heavy handed yes, bullying no.

 

No, two wrongs don't make a right. If you accuse someone of bullying back it up. You haven't. As I say a few people on this forum accuse Cameron of being a bully (Anna B is another) but do not provide evidence.

 

I provide evidence of Corbyn actually being accused of bullying as a counter. Not some keyboard warrior conditioned to loath Tories like you but an accusation from an MP. Maybe the irony is lost on you.

 

I think you'll find it fits the definition -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

 

I don't loath (strong word) all Tories. I didn't mention Tories.

 

Warning! - So an MP's accusation is better than mine is it. You seem to show a deference to a person with power and position. This attitude gives them ideas about themselves and leads them to think they are better than others. Before you know where you are they are *high-handed (*correct quote) and arrogant - which can fit the definition of bullying.

[Santo]

I think you'll find it fits the definition -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

 

I don't loath (strong word) all Tories. I didn't mention Tories.

 

Warning! - So an MP's accusation is better than mine is it. You seem to show a deference to a person with power and position. This attitude gives them ideas about themselves and leads them to think they are better than others. Before you know where you are they are *high-handed (*correct quote) and arrogant - which can fit the definition of bullying.

 

Instead of giving me an example of Cameron bullying you give me the wiki entry for bullying? Mmmmm k.

 

Your accusation has no proof. You say he's a bully. That's it. So yes, the MP's accusation is worth more than yours because he's explained his reasoning.

 

You have given one example of Cameron being an ass at PMQs and called it bullying. I'd call it typical of PMQs. You have provided a newspaper article. The word bullying is not used in the article.

 

I know plenty of people that are not bullies but are arrogant.

 

So...in conclusion, until you prove otherwise, you are talking bill hooks. Ok Flanker?

Edited September 15, 2016 by Santo

[Anna B]

Attack ad hominem are easily dismissed merely by pointing them out.

 

---------- Post added 14-09-2016 at 14:41 ----------

 

 

The resettlement grant is something offered to all MP's due to the often transitory nature of service. Theres very few other jobs where you get fired in public on a stage in front of TV cameras after all.

 

What you are saying is that you think rich people shouldn't have it. Are you really saying that wages/salary are to be means tested and if you have a bit squirrelled away in the bank for a rainy day then your employer can just decide to pay you less? Because that's what you are saying - and that's a less fair instead of a more fair society before you bring that up.

 

I'm assuming this is the question you say I haven't answered. I was assuming it was rhetorical but seeing as you insist on a response I'll give it a shot.

 

Getting fired on the public stage doesn't come into it. When you go into politics it's par for the course. The resettlement grant in times of austerity when essential services are being cut is an anomaly that should be at least reduced or done away with.

 

Cameron has already pocketed £20,000 when he resigned as prime minister. He was at liberty to refuse it as other former PM's have done, but chose to take it. He also 'rewarded' his team with extra generous pay offs which ran into £millions (taxpayers money remember) without permission, not to mention gongs and honours. Austerity? What austerity? Austerity is only for the little people.

 

Which brings me to the second part of your question; means testing.

Why is it means testing is also only for the little people, the poor. We have to make sure we don't give them a ha'penny more than we have to in benefits - means test them!

Have you any idea how many 50+ men and women made redundant cannot access a penny of help (benefits) because they are deemed 'too rich?' ie they have more than £16,000 in savings. So at 50+ after a lifetime of paying tax and with a very limited chance of getting another job, they have to live on their savings until they are all gone, and then face an impoverished old age.

 

Don't talk to me about means testing being unfair. But if you means test the poorest then means test the rich as well, and while we're at it, get them to pay their tax!

[Santo]

I'm assuming this is the question you say I haven't answered. I was assuming it was rhetorical but seeing as you insist on a response I'll give it a shot.

 

Getting fired on the public stage doesn't come into it. When you go into politics it's par for the course. The resettlement grant in times of austerity when essential services are being cut is an anomaly that should be at least reduced or done away with.

 

Cameron has already pocketed £20,000 when he resigned as prime minister. He was at liberty to refuse it as other former PM's have done, but chose to take it. He also 'rewarded' his team with extra generous pay offs which ran into £millions (taxpayers money remember) without permission, not to mention gongs and honours. Austerity? What austerity? Austerity is only for the little people.

 

Which brings me to the second part of your question; means testing.

Why is it means testing is also only for the little people, the poor. We have to make sure we don't give them a ha'penny more than we have to in benefits - means test them!

Have you any idea how many 50+ men and women made redundant cannot access a penny of help (benefits) because they are deemed 'too rich?' ie they have more than £16,000 in savings. So at 50+ after a lifetime of paying tax and with a very limited chance of getting another job, they have to live on their savings until they are all gone, and then face an impoverished old age.

 

Don't talk to me about means testing being unfair. But if you means test the poorest then means test the rich as well, and while we're at it, get them to pay their tax!

 

How many men and women?

 

You can claim JSA for six months before they look at your savings can't you? Are you talking about income based or contribution based?

[Flanker7]

More............

 

"But for some it betrays something else, too. It has been noted before, not least by Ed Miliband, who called it Cameron's "Flashman routine", that the prime minister can resort too easily to bullying, or cheap shots. "When he doesn't have an argument, he'll throw an insult."

 

And, like much bullying, it comes out of a kind of weakness. "It's awfully paternalistic, and politically incredibly stupid," says psychotherapist and writer Susie Orbach, "but what this portrays, or betrays, is that he's flustered, not her. You don't say that kind of thing unless you're flustered. He's trying to silence her, because he's got all shook up." Round one to Eagle, then?" Aida Edemariam

[Santo]

More............

 

"But for some it betrays something else, too. It has been noted before, not least by Ed Miliband, who called it Cameron's "Flashman routine", that the prime minister can resort too easily to bullying, or cheap shots. "When he doesn't have an argument, he'll throw an insult."

 

And, like much bullying, it comes out of a kind of weakness. "It's awfully paternalistic, and politically incredibly stupid," says psychotherapist and writer Susie Orbach, "but what this portrays, or betrays, is that he's flustered, not her. You don't say that kind of thing unless you're flustered. He's trying to silence her, because he's got all shook up." Round one to Eagle, then?" Aida Edemariam

 

Poor form to not provide a link to the source so the full context can be seen.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/28/david-cameron-calm-down-dear

 

So, it's from an article in response to Cameron saying 'calm down dear' to Angel Eagle. Some saw it as sexist. Others think he was quoting a Michael Winner advert. No wonder you didn't bother to include it.

 

Your first evidence of his bullying was him telling Corbyn to do up his tie wasn't it? Which you stripped of context by the way.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-and-jeremy-corbyn-trade-blows-over-each-other-s-mothers-at-pmqs-a6893166.html

 

Do you know what Corbyn has said of Cameron? He said he got on with him on a 'human level.' An odd thing to say if he feels he was bullied by him, no?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-wishes-david-cameron-the-best-for-the-future-as-ex-prime-minister-quits-seat-a7239286.html

 

I'm bored of this argument now. You have failed 4 times to provide evidence of real, proper bullying on the part of David Cameron. The man has resigned now. You will have to find another Tory to dislike. But dislike him for his policies this time, not some reason that is a figment of your imagination.

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Santo

[Flanker7]

Yet more............

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2010/nov/26/david-cameron-bullingdon-michael-white

 

There's no smoke without fire.

 

I'm still looking for the link to an exchange I've read about previously which is a better example.

 

Many of my links mention that Cameron's behaviour is a series of episodes which illustrate an establish personality trait.

 

You're bored. So am I after you have frequently ignored commenting on examples. You seem to prefer to quibble over the context, the reaction of the victim and the definition which I included to show that bullying come in different forms and just because its not labeled as such don't mean its not.

[Obelix]

I'm assuming this is the question you say I haven't answered.....

 

I'm still waiting for you to respond to the question I asked twice now Anna... rather than grandstand about tax how about answering the question?

[Santo]

Yet more............

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2010/nov/26/david-cameron-bullingdon-michael-white

 

There's no smoke without fire.

 

I'm still looking for the link to an exchange I've read about previously which is a better example.

 

Many of my links mention that Cameron's behaviour is a series of episodes which illustrate an establish personality trait.

 

You're bored. So am I after you have frequently ignored commenting on examples. You seem to prefer to quibble over the context, the reaction of the victim and the definition which I included to show that bullying come in different forms and just because its not labeled as such don't mean its not.

 

Yawn. Find another 'evil Tory' to hate. Cameron has resigned.

 

But hate the next one for a reason other than a figment of your imagination as stated. You are wasting your time now, you will not convince me Cameron is a bully any more than Corbyn is. Exert your efforts elsewhere. I find you disingenuous, anal and rather tedious.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Why should one "hate" another merely on grounds of rational disagreement?