Originally Posted by erinp:
I wonder if it's cross party affair.
Swapping info about the otherone's party?
Lets hope thats all their swapping. 
I may be being a bit thick here but what has who anyone sleeps with got to do with the price of fish unless it is kiddy fiddling stuff again.. how does that affect how you do your job? 
unless it is someone preaching fidelity and being pious and the affair is between marrieds/long term partners I can't see why it needs a crisis meeting.. in fact I really don't want to know who anyone is sleeping with at all... can't compute how it affects their work. 
Remember Profumo ... affairs can compromise.
that was cold war days.... he was swapping secrets with prossies and the reds via pillow talk... the gist of this thread seemed to be about two MP's from the same country banging each other... unless I got it wrong..
Originally Posted by Jenstar:
I think it is two married people olly, which IMO casts a shadow on how trustworthy they are.
Nope still not getting why it is such a fuss to make. .it's not like any of us are in or are going to have a relationship with them are we? to me that's the only time I think knowing people have or are prone to have affairs is of any importance... ie will they do the dirty on me too..
it may make me see their character a bit different, not so much if it is same sex affair and they have different sex partners cos that is a half in half out of the closet situation which is still not as open and as accepted as we like to think it is especially in public servants, hence the muddling of sexual partners.. but still not owt to do with how they perform their job.. it's not unknown for those in power to be into all sorts of sex games as well as putting it about a lot with same sex or opposite sex or just sex of any kind. . still got nothing to do with their job unless they are spending more time in the sack than they are on their paid for jobs.. or preaching one thing and practising another 
Oooh link deleted there ^^^
Agree - makes a lot of outragous claims
which i wud never do
Hmm i dunno - its quite derogatory to them as people.
Calling her a whore, hooker, harlot.
Is its ok to link that?
Originally Posted by Saint:
Hmm i dunno - its quite derogatory to them as people.
Calling her a whore, hooker, harlot. I don;t think its ok to link that.
Thanx, i hadn't listened to it just checked it wasn't a redirect etc. ~Having listened to it his language within the first couple of seconds has got it removed
Glad to help 
Unless the identities of the people in the affair becomes public knowledge in the newspapers or on television, it's safer not to speculate as to who they might be. No-one wants to risk getting sued for libel. That is another reason why that post with the link needed to be removed.
Why are people making references to Hague? the newspaper alleges that it involves nobody who is servig in the cabinet ?
Theresa may with Avva Banana.
Just to be clear, it's definitely not them. 
I'm intrigued as to why this story isn't on the News if it's a "crisis" - don't know about the Press as I don't buy papers. I know that a D Notice can be issued to the media to prevent them talking about certain information but the Notice is issued by the DoD if it concerns national security. But allegedly this is just about an affair so why is the media not discussing it, it's hardly the first time that's come to the public's attention.
Originally Posted by casiopea49:
Why are people making references to Hague? the newspaper alleges that it involves nobody who is servig in the cabinet ?
Very good point, but an easily-forgotten one, it would appear.
It also raises questions as to how genuinely significant this "scandal" is, and why it could "blow Cameron's political agenda out of the water"...
if a super injunction is in place, we'll probably never get to the bottom of this
Originally Posted by Eugene's Lair:
Originally Posted by casiopea49:
Why are people making references to Hague? the newspaper alleges that it involves nobody who is servig in the cabinet ?
Very good point, but an easily-forgotten one, it would appear.
It also raises questions as to how genuinely significant this "scandal" is, and why it could "blow Cameron's political agenda out of the water"...
Originally Posted by casiopea49:
Originally Posted by Eugene's Lair:Too true ! and lets face it these day sex scandals ruin careers they don't bring down governments, not British or U S ones anyhow! It is obvious that if the M o S knows who what and when so do all the others..this way they hit the button first without turning the lights on! tiresome press ploy and sadly once again people get hooked and the facts are distorted and ommited throughpersonal prejudices and the momentum is created !........ Hyperbole!
Originally Posted by casiopea49:
Why are people making references to Hague? the newspaper alleges that it involves nobody who is servig in the cabinet ?
Very good point, but an easily-forgotten one, it would appear.
It also raises questions as to how genuinely significant this "scandal" is, and why it could "blow Cameron's political agenda out of the water"...
I was reading a story a couple of days ago where Andy Coulson was pushing for Samantha Cameron to be given a position as an advisor to PM.
He must really think highly of her...
Indeed!!
I do hope it comes out soon...Id love to see this government crash out of office.
Why? And be replaced with what?
No one has a credible alternative.
I couldn't care less who's in office (within reason) so long as they do good for the country.
I still think it's all about some sort of fratricidal war going on behind the scenes. I know that we shouldn't interfere when our enemies make mistakes, but if Cameron falls he won't be replaced by anything but a more right wing loon.
People think it's bad now, but it can be worse. Ask my Mum's generation.
Originally Posted by Saint:
Why? And be replaced with what?
No one has a credible alternative.
I couldn't care less who's in office (within reason) so long as they do good for the country.
A govt that doesnt expect the poor and vulnerable,sick and disabled to pay for the mistakes of the rich
Sadly i don;t think Labour have much room for significant alternatives
Labour aren't far removed from Cameron at the moment. I've been looking through the applications for our seat and the candidates are all rather bland and inoffensive.
Originally Posted by Amythist:
Originally Posted by Saint:
Why? And be replaced with what?
No one has a credible alternative.
I couldn't care less who's in office (within reason) so long as they do good for the country.
A govt that doesnt expect the poor and vulnerable,sick and disabled to pay for the mistakes of the rich
Amen to that Amythist 
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I still think it's all about some sort of fratricidal war going on behind the scenes. I know that we shouldn't interfere when our enemies make mistakes, but if Cameron falls he won't be replaced by anything but a more right wing loon. People think it's bad now, but it can be worse. Ask my Mum's generation.
Originally Posted by Amythist:
Originally Posted by Saint:
Why? And be replaced with what?
No one has a credible alternative.
I couldn't care less who's in office (within reason) so long as they do good for the country.
A govt that doesnt expect the poor and vulnerable,sick and disabled to pay for the mistakes of the rich
I can't work the link. Please give me a synopsis!
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I can't work the link. Please give me a synopsis!
At least 30 Conservative MPs have signed letters calling for a vote of no confidence in David Cameron's leadership, a leading backbench rebel has said.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the MP - who is believed to have signed one of those letters - told the Huffington Post UK that the number of signers is "into the 30s now".
Some 46 letters would need to be signed for a no confidence vote to be held.
As the HuffPost UK's Ned Simons reported in May: "Under Conservative Party rules a leadership election is triggered if 15% of Conservative MPs call for a no confidence vote in the leader. They do this by sending letters to the chairman of the party's backbench 1922 committee - currently Graham Brady.
"There are currently 304 Tory MPs in the Commons, so 46 of them would need to want to get rid of Cameron for a no confidence vote to be triggered."
Thanks! I appreciate your post!
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
Thanks! I appreciate your post!
No probs ! It also says in the article :
In recent weeks, various Conservative cabinet ministers - including home secretary Theresa May, defence secretary Philip Hammond and education secretary Michael Gove - have been accused of being 'on manoeuvres' and positioning themselves ahead of a leadership contest. Last week, Cameron's former director of communications, Andy Coulson, used an article in GQ magazine to accuse Boris Johnson of wanting the prime minister to "fail miserably" at the next election and then take his job - a charge that the mayor of London has strenuously denied.
Originally Posted by Slinkiwitch x:
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I can't work the link. Please give me a synopsis!
At least 30 Conservative MPs have signed letters calling for a vote of no confidence in David Cameron's leadership, a leading backbench rebel has said.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the MP - who is believed to have signed one of those letters - told the Huffington Post UK that the number of signers is "into the 30s now".
Some 46 letters would need to be signed for a no confidence vote to be held.
As the HuffPost UK's Ned Simons reported in May: "Under Conservative Party rules a leadership election is triggered if 15% of Conservative MPs call for a no confidence vote in the leader. They do this by sending letters to the chairman of the party's backbench 1922 committee - currently Graham Brady.
"There are currently 304 Tory MPs in the Commons, so 46 of them would need to want to get rid of Cameron for a no confidence vote to be triggered."
Liked the bit at the end of the article 'Boris backing Cameron all the way'
Originally Posted by erinp:
Originally Posted by Slinkiwitch x:
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I can't work the link. Please give me a synopsis!
At least 30 Conservative MPs have signed letters calling for a vote of no confidence in David Cameron's leadership, a leading backbench rebel has said.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the MP - who is believed to have signed one of those letters - told the Huffington Post UK that the number of signers is "into the 30s now".
Some 46 letters would need to be signed for a no confidence vote to be held.
As the HuffPost UK's Ned Simons reported in May: "Under Conservative Party rules a leadership election is triggered if 15% of Conservative MPs call for a no confidence vote in the leader. They do this by sending letters to the chairman of the party's backbench 1922 committee - currently Graham Brady.
"There are currently 304 Tory MPs in the Commons, so 46 of them would need to want to get rid of Cameron for a no confidence vote to be triggered."
Liked the bit at the end of the article 'Boris backing Cameron all the way'
aye, backing him all the way .. into a corner !