Oh dear! I thought the Tories were better than this

[jake-the-peg]

I feel sure someone not long ago on here told me that they were "better bred" and didn't do this sort of thing

http://news.sky.com/s...%2C_Conservatives_Say


Whatever shade of politician you have to laugh at an "Image guru" being fined for disorderly contact after swearing at a ticket inspector.

And how exactly do you get "dearrested"? -

[Sqad]

jake....you are a human being first and a Tory/Labour/ Lib Dem second and hence you have all the weaknesses of a human being.

Image guru, Catholic priest, whatever.....they all suffer the human failings............except you jake ;-)

[R1Geezer]

come on Jake you you don't believe all that pony do you, The Tory's will out swear anyone in the right sistuation! We are trained by the master, ie The Duke!

[jake-the-peg]

Well I'm not exactly a saint sqad but I don't recall ever getting arrested for disorderly conduct!

I guess that's the problem with a liberal education I just wasn't taught how to treat the underclass properly!

Seriously though can you imagine the conversation when he had to 'fess up to Cameron on that one? - party of familly values and all that !

Do you suppose there's a monopoly card

"Get de-arrested do not go to police station, do not give DNA sample. Pay fine and hope papers are busier with snow and the affairs of the wives of Northern Ireland Ministers"

Maybe Hariettharman had one

£350 Sounds as if one driving without due care and attention = 4 disorderly conducts!

[fredpuli47]

Quite agree, RIG ! But this oik was letting the side down.Fancy only calling the ticket inspector a 'w****r' That's nowhere near the high standards we expect of our fellows Not even an 'F' was uttered. He can't be a true Conservative,only a man hired by the party to work for them. The Duke would be appalled..
Mind,the man claims to have a ticket all the time.Causing such a disturbance when you have a ticket deserves bonus marks !

[R1Geezer]

well the duke would have said something like:
"Naaaf orrrrf, you faaaaarking oik"

[buildersmate]

You'll have to do better than that the discredit the old Tory band-wagon on its way into Numero Dix.

[jake-the-peg]

Why would I pick on him if I wanted to discredit the Tories when Osbourne is waiting in the wings with all the financial accumen of a four year old?

Just enjoying a bit of a laugh at someone who really should know better

Incidently they may have a 9% lead ( that's dropped a bit hasn't it?) but someone pointed out the other day that Cameron has a bigger mountain to climb than Michael Foot had in terms of majority - we could yet see a hung parliament - mind you Clegg will have to up his game a bit first

[R1Geezer]

ok party allegiance aside, you're a sensible bloke jake are you really still going to vote Labour? Have their antics over the last 3 parliaments not dented your confidence at all?

[ludwig]

I can't believe Quizmonster hasn't popped up to chastise you for political point scoring under the guise of asking a question to initiate a rational debate. He hates that sort of thing.

[Quizmonster]

OK...just for you, Ludwig, and in response to Buildersmate...Chambers Dictionary defines a bandwagon as "a fashionable movement, a trend enjoying current success". Note the temporariness inherent in both halves of the definition!
If McHugga DOES make it to Numero Dix...Numero Dix!?...we'll soon see just how temporary bandwagons can be.

[Quizmonster]

One obviously does not expect perspicacity from Tories, but can you TRULY not see the difference between how this question is presented as opposed to the earlier one you are clearly referring to?

[ludwig]

Of course I can see the difference Quizmonster. This question is having a go at the Tories, which means it's ok in your book, whereas the other one was having a pop at Labour, so you got all @rsey about it.
I don't have a problem with either question.

[Quizmonster]

Had you bothered to read what I wrote, Ludwig, you would have seen that it says (quote), "the difference between how this question is PRESENTED as opposed to the earlier one".
That is, my comment - then and now - had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject-matter as such but only the MANNER in which it was stated.
Since you clearly just don't "get it", I'll leave it at that. Heads were never meant to be beaten against brick walls, I find!

[Old_Geezer]

I am incredulous that swearing is an arrestable offence anyway. If you watch one of those "real life" cop programmes on the TV one of the things that could well spoil respect for authority is the "oh you said a naughty word, oh my sensitive ears, well we're going to use that as an excuse to arrest you" moments. Probably seen as a good way to get everyone on their DNA database.