It’s a sad day when a man can’t state his honest opinion without being accused of making a “slip”.
What does Freud say about this?
The British version of Mitt Romney’s 47%. Wonder if Cameron will try to backpedal this comment for the next four years?
Outright majorities in Uk parliamentary elections are rare; the first past the post system distorts this.
Its the UK so it will be five years, assuming he doesn’t lose next years election.
…when you say one thing but mean your mother.
Freud’s uncle, Eward Bernays was a bit of a wrong 'un as well. As the Adam Curtis documentary Century Of The Self explains.
I’m with @annoyingmouse on this one. I bet he told his mates he’d sneak it in to have a larf at the oiks.
I thought Freud was Bernay’s uncle.
Edit: Or you mean Lord Freuds uncle.
Cameron isn’t just an Eton boy, he’s a former Bullingdon Club member. (The incredibly upper-class Oxford club that infamously went around trashing restaurants and then throwing the money to pay for damages at the proprietors; a recent news report claims that the initiation into the club now involves burning £50 notes in front of beggars.)
To say in the first place that his party is “the trade union for children from the poorest estates and the most chaotic homes” is so bizarre it’s hard to know how to take it seriously. His “slip” is the only thing in that quote that remotely rings true.
Surely, he meant to say “whom”.
My apologies. I slipped on a Freud.
The greatest achievement of these uni social clubs is to get so many people to believe so much nonsense about them. It’s a bunch of students, some of whom I’m sure have more money than sense, doing what students do when they get pissed - trying to cause a stir. To attribute more importance to them is forgetting one’s own time as a student.
Do you not remember that time, when you were out with a bunch of the opposite sex, and you were all pissed, and some took there tops off and ran across the park? For some reason when this (or whatever it might be) happens in Oxbridge it gets emblazoned across the tabloids as an indicator that the “toffs” are running wild and everything is a disaster.
Ad hominems (or perhaps that should be ad academiam) are weak, regardless of who or what they are targetting.
Horseshit. Casual vandalism enabled because one can simply throw money at the victim and walk away is nothing like a bunch of pissed students streaking in a park. It’s criminal damage, disturbing for staff, other patrons and the business owner, and if anyone is injured, it’s a whole swath of other criminal charges. Surely, as a long-time supporter on here of libertarian ideals, you would be against such behaviour damaging, as it does, someone’s ability to turn a buck? How many people are going to return to a restaurant they have witnessed being violently destroyed by a bunch of oafs whilst you are eating? I know I wouldn’t.
I wouldn’t, and I’m certainly not defending the actions of someone if they do that, but I just don’t believe it happens as presented by the media. I’m sure the members of the Bullingdon club love their reputation as what it is, and probably something happened at some point from which the story has arisen. I simply don’t believe half of what is said about it.
Two minutes’ googling. I imagine a better search would find more; they also in their history trashed Christchurch college.
Hah. Knew that would be Cassetteboy
I’m certainly not going to defend the Bullingdon Club either, but I’m afraid you may be missing the point. As heng said, and I fully agree:[quote=“heng, post:15, topic:42077”]
I just don’t believe it happens as presented by the media.
So responding by citing the media is… less than persuasive.
And neither is it likely, given their status, wealth and connections, that all their excesses are public. Where else is one to find reports? Ol’ Heng’s quite fond of our Lords and Masters anyhow.