snowychap Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I understand your point ,although I'm not sure I reported anything as "fact" , it was just to show that alleged abusing of guards on trains isn't sole preserve of the Tory party You said, "talking of trains , remember this from Labours Karl Turner..." The clear implication being that what followed was a factual description of an event rather than a claim made by Staines in his blog. ...someone can of course post in defence of Turner if they are so inclined Why? Seems you are conflating questioning a version of events with defending someone's actions - perhaps you're doing that in the case of Osborne and Mitchell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 You said, "talking of trains , remember this from Labours Karl Turner..." The clear implication being that what followed was a factual description of an event rather than a claim made by Staines in his blog. the lack of IMO at the end of every sentence doesn't make something a "fact" , IMO the clear implication surely is that one can read the article and draw their own conclusions as to it's factual content (and seek alternative sources if they so wish ) ... just like one can read VT and see that Osborne said " do you know who I am " and had a Mexican stand off with the guard , resulting in that Mitchell had to resign to protect him ...or one can go find another sources that suggest he did none of the above perhaps the truth is somewhere between the two ...who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Seems you are conflating questioning a version of events with defending someone's actions - perhaps you're doing that in the case of Osborne and Mitchell? defending was a confusing choice of word in my post in hindsight , but I'm sure folks knew what I meant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I quoted from an article you posted ... you didn't say read the following article , part A is true and the author has seen the light ..but B is baloney and the word of this author isn't to be trusted ... so therefore I took it to mean you endorsed its content .... So , clearly I did read it , where as possibly you stopped half way down and thus missed the part where he criticised the shadow cabinet Pah .... poor show Tony. As I clearly said the post was from a Tory supporter in the Telegraph, he / she was very critical of Cameron as you well know. The last comments were expected from a Tory supporter and if you read it as you will clearly see I pointed out it fitted the typical Tory resorting to type with the language used. Blimey you are struggling now to try and deflect from any questioning and criticsm of Cameron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Not quite the same though is it? How many average commuters will be able to identify the Civil Servants from ANY department - Osbourne is a little more conspicuous wouldn't you say? Personally I have no problem with anyone using 1st class if they feel so inclined. As long as expenses are paid back at the rate of a Standard fare there really is no issue. I really fail to understand your point. Gideon goes public with a policy that he thinks will fit in with this "all in it together" rubbish. A few months later he is highly embarassed to be caught out trying to avoid 1st class payment, and actually doing the very thing he said was now banned. What that has to do with you thinking it is either OK or not to travel 1st class is not clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 the clear implication surely is that one can read the article and draw their own conclusions as to it's factual content... Being given a link to the article in question helps. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Pah .... poor show Tony. As I clearly said the post was from a Tory supporter in the Telegraph, he / she was very critical of Cameron as you well know. The last comments were expected from a Tory supporter and if you read it as you will clearly see I pointed out it fitted the typical Tory resorting to type with the language used. Blimey you are struggling now to try and deflect from any questioning and criticsm of Cameron I'm still can't follow your line of thought. Please help me. Is it that, if the telegraph criticise the Tory party, thats ok, but if they criticise Labour that should be ignored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I'm still can't follow your line of thought. Please help me. Is it that, if the telegraph criticise the Tory party, thats ok, but if they criticise Labour that should be ignored? What? I really don't follow you or are you not reading what is being posted? A quote of a readers comment in the very traditional Tory supporting Telegraph clearly shows that the core supporters are going against Cameron. I am struggling to understand why you cannot see that as an issue for Cameron? or are you trying to cause a problem? Is it a case of criticsm of Cameron being shown is causing you discomfort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I really fail to understand your point. Gideon goes public with a policy that he thinks will fit in with this "all in it together" rubbish. A few months later he is highly embarassed to be caught out trying to avoid 1st class payment, and actually doing the very thing he said was now banned. What that has to do with you thinking it is either OK or not to travel 1st class is not clear. Except thats not actually what happened now is it? Virgin Trains confirmed that one of Osbourne's advisors approached the inspector and paid the upgrade, no questions asked - as reported by the Beeb. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20008342]Auntie Says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Except thats not actually what happened now is it? Virgin Trains confirmed that one of Osbourne's advisors approached the inspector and paid the upgrade, no questions asked - as reported by the Beeb. Auntie]http://www.bbc.co.uk...20008342]Auntie Says :-) that is funny You have not read what was written at all have you? Osborne says "no first class travel" - he is then found a few months later travelling first class. How is that not what happened? He was trying to avoid payment as you well know, else why did he sit in first class after buying a standard ticket? The fact that one of his "oiks" paid the difference only adds to the embarassment for him and the Tory party, as said especially after his previous comments. I actually think he is right with his "no first class" travel as it certainly is not worth the massive costs (ironically the costs are helped to increase by his and the Tory party policies). A lot of companies now do not let their staff travel 1st class likewise business class on planes. That is more "in this together" than some ill thought out headline grabbing rhetoric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 A quote of a readers comment in the very traditional Tory supporting Telegraph clearly shows that the core supporters are going against Cameron. does it therefore follow that being booed by your core supporters means that they also are against you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 does it therefore follow that being booed by your core supporters means that they also are against you :-) Tony the hole you are digging is getting deeper and deeper with every post. Quit now while you still have a ladder out How an argument based on deflection to an event where the Labour leader spoke is in some way a counter argument against core Tory supporters writing about Cameron is pushing the boundaries of deflection to a new height. I salute you for that as I thought they were already somehwhat strained. Why not answer the points re the Tory support being very vocal in it's anti Cameron stance? (Note: try and avoid Labour if you can :-) ) Note: Don't bother actually unless you really want to, I'm too busy to play this game now - catch you later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 :-) that is funny You have not read what was written at all have you? Osborne says "no first class travel" - he is then found a few months later travelling first class. How is that not what happened? He was trying to avoid payment as you well know, else why did he sit in first class after buying a standard ticket? I've done that before - booked a Standard fare, got on the train and its been too busy/noisy and moved to 1st and then paid the upgrade when the bloke came round. Our expenses policy here in local government is "cheapest possible" so no way would I get the cost of the upgrade back, but it was worth it. There is a difference between "reducing costs" and "avoiding payment." Pretty sure EVEN Osbourne isn't stupid enough to dodge fares. I'm sure George didn't say "no 1st class travel" - but can see he would have told departments to cut costs on expenses etc, having seen the unholy mess the books were in when Alistair and Ed moved out of the treasury. Thats twice in this thread today where you've cited media reports you agree with as fact and then (once in the same article) dismissed reports where you don't agree as rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 What? I really don't follow you or are you not reading what is being posted? A quote of a readers comment in the very traditional Tory supporting Telegraph clearly shows that the core supporters are going against Cameron. I am struggling to understand why you cannot see that as an issue for Cameron? or are you trying to cause a problem? Is it a case of criticsm of Cameron being shown is causing you discomfort? No, I read what was posted, and as I understand, there was a fair crticism of Cameron but it pointed out that the alternatives are worse. Now I agree with some of the Criticsm. But I still wonder why you choose to quote something but ignore the bits you don't agree with? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. It doesn't seem logical. Also I wonder why you would suggest that any criticism of the PM would cause me any problem or discomfort at all? Rest assured it doesn't. Finally, what leads you to believe I am I trying to cause a problem, just because I don't agree with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Why not answer the points re the Tory support being very vocal in it's anti Cameron stance? (Note: try and avoid Labour if you can :-) ) without seeing a link to the article ( Hello Snowy ) I can't say for sure how many "core" supporters are being vocal in this instance ... how many "core" supporters does it take to write an article in the telegraph ? taking into account they probably all went to Eton or some other posh school , i reckon that one supporter could bash out a few hundred words quite competently ... so is that article the opinion of 1 person or hundreds ?? now , how many "supporters" does it take to boo loudly enough to drown out a droning voice ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 22, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2012 No, I read what was posted, and as I understand, there was a fair crticism of Cameron but it pointed out that the alternatives are worse. Now I agree with some of the Criticsm. But I still wonder why you choose to quote something but ignore the bits you don't agree with? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. It doesn't seem logical. Also I wonder why you would suggest that any criticism of the PM would cause me any problem or discomfort at all? Rest assured it doesn't. Finally, what leads you to believe I am I trying to cause a problem, just because I don't agree with you? I'm not being funny but you do know it was posted to show that traditional Tory supporters, those with voices in the media have started to criticise the Government? It wasn't about agreeing with the argument contained therein. If you haven't realised that then can I suggest you do actually read the topic then if you still haven't realised that then maybe ask for help with the big words? Drat made a post and the criticism of that post appears to be from people DELIBERATELY not reading the post properly. It is written in plain enough English and isn't that hard to understand Tradition Tory supporters in the media have started to criticise Cameron et al, here's an example. There's no here's an example and I agree with every word said. If you want to know the truth, it comes across as trolling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Why is that whenever somebody talks about the government and the opposition, somebody shouts deflection? Surely when you mention the government and what went before or what the alternative is, you’re merely framing the current situation into context? I like the political discussions on here, but at times I think its too partisan often for the sake of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I'm not being funny but you do know it was posted to show that traditional Tory supporters, those with voices in the media have started to criticise the Government? It wasn't about agreeing with the argument contained therein. If you haven't realised that then can I suggest you do actually read the topic then if you still haven't realised that then maybe ask for help with the big words? Drat made a post and the criticism of that post appears to be from people DELIBERATELY not reading the post properly. It is written in plain enough English and isn't that hard to understand Tradition Tory supporters in the media have started to criticise Cameron et al, here's an example. There's no here's an example and I agree with every word said. If you want to know the truth, it comes across as trolling I find this very unfair and it feels like my integrity is being questioned. Because I do not necessarily agree with the post, I have now been accused of 1. not reading it properly 2 questioned as to whether Cameron's criticism affects me personally 3 Out to cause trouble 4 questioning my intelligence regarding asking for help with big words 5 deliberately not reading the post 6 Trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 22, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2012 Go and read the post again and see if you think your reaction to it, is a reaction to what was actually said or a reaction to what you wanted to have been said. Nowhere in that post does Drat claim to agree with any of the words the former Angel of Darkness - Lord Tebbit, it is quoted as an example of senior Tory Grandees using a voice in the media to criticise Cameron. That's it, that is why it's there, that is its purpose and it's not hard to understand that either. The fact that it exists is all that was neccessary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I think I have read the post enough times thank you. I'm wondering how on earth you know what I wanted to be said? I am certain I asked for clarification on the original posters points in a curteous manner. Even if this was not the case I'm sure my 6 points above were not warranted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts