Thursday, 27 September 2012

THE PRESIDENT ON THE PHONE, YOU SAY JEEVES? TELL HIM I'M BUSY...WHAT JOLLY JAPES


I was amused to read over at Political Scrapbook, that Mr Cameron was “too busy” playing tennis, at Chequers, to take a call from Mr Obama

If I’m not mistaken, routine calls between people at head of government level are usually booked in advance.

I also suspect that if there had been a call from Mr Obama, Dave the Dick would have been sitting at his desk panting, waiting for the phone to ring. The notion that he would have refused to take an unbooked call (indicating that it was vitally important) is ridiculous.

"But there’s a nuclear war starting."

"I’m sorry Mr President; the prime minister sends his compliments and says that he’s too busy chilaxing to bother with you at the moment."

But I see that this information came from none other than Charlie Brooks, husband of Rebekah (LOL) Brookes, the ginger femme fatale of News International fame. It appears that the Brooks enjoyed our hospitality on at least three occasions at Chequers.

Cameron’s office has been forced to deny, of course, that anything of the kind took place, and a check of the telephone logs for the weekends when Charlie was there appears to confirm this.

Imagine being stupid enough to tell a lie that was bound to be denied, just before his trial for perverting the course of justice.

Charlie is a bit of a Charlie methinks, and a very dim one too.

36 comments:

  1. Could this be Cameron getting his own back on Obama?

    http://scottishindependence2014.co.uk/blogs/blogs-by-members/item/barack-s-phone-call?category_id=1

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cameron snubbing a call from a man he follows around like a lovestruck teenager when he's over here? Aye, okay, "guid 'een".

    In other news, Karen Gillan just phoned asking if I wanted to come round and play Doctors & Nurses, but I told her I had to watch highlights from the Lib Dem conference instead.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you should have gone round to Karen's for a bit of "doctor's and nurses" practice Doug.
    After watching F.M.Q.'s today I have a very strong feeling that Lamont may be in need of some serious medical assistance after being "slapped down" by Nicola Sturgeon.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=474788809209322&set=a.250816424939896.62357.249093695112169&type=1&theater

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ha ha Arbroath... You could almost feel sorry for him... Nah, you couldn't really. Only joking.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Karen Gillan, Doug?

    I 'm always getting her on the phone wanting to play at doctors.

    I always say 'Who?'

    She says 'yes', and we all get confused.

    Are the Lib Dems having a conference?

    Fancy....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Very apt photo:

    http://i1.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article918540.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/johann-lamont-image-1-424429619.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ha ha.. Watched FMQs.

    I thought that Johann sounded like she was close to tears there. I have the feeling she thought she was going to have an easier ride to day. And then she got bitch slapped into the middle of next week.

    I liked the mention of Murdo's tweet.

    Wee Ruth made a bit of a mess of it too. She should get someone who can count to do her research if she is talking figures!

    I miss the Liberals now that they are a minor party and don't automatically get to ask a question. They were always good for a laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ha ha ha ha. Brilliant, Marcia.

    Bless her, a bit of back combing and she's Muggie. Mind you she'll need to get rid of that ASDA bag and get herself a little black number, now she's become a Tory...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Um! is that THE £ 200,000 a year a fecking year Sturgeon who still refuses to pay her fair share.


    Johann Lamont dun well a lot of normal kind and decent hardworking people(Obviously not members of the snp) will reflect on how the snp hierarchy are enriching themselves
    from the public purse.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Of course NONE of Lamont's family or Labour hierarchy are supporters of ANY football club in BRITAIN. Let's face it these guys get paid enough in ONE month that puts ANY M.S.P.'s salary to shame!

    I guess Lamont was too afraid to upset her favourite team's owners, she might not get a freebie to next weeks game!

    ReplyDelete
  11. The personal wealth of all the snps msps has materially and significantly increased since the election..............

    ReplyDelete
  12. Niko you were on here looking for sympathy for disabled relations and then you go trying to smear the only party willing to do something about it shows the complete vacuousness of your sincerity. Try sticking your head in a bucket of water for 5 mins might bring some sense into your feeble mentality, or morph into a tennis ball for Dave's amusement.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The personal wealth of all the snps msps has materially and significantly increased since the election..............

    And off course ALL the LABOUR M.S.P.'s are living BELOW the bread line. When not in Holyrood they can all be seen sitting on Princes Street with their begging tins out, not to mention that they have all their kids tramping around the streets of Glasgow looking for chimneys to sweep!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Can you show me where you get the information that Nicola Sturgeon collects £200,000 a year, Niko?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Have not all MSPs been paid the same?

    Are not the ministers paid proportionately less than Labour ministers were in the past, given the pay freezes that Mr Salmond has enforced.

    MSPs, of course, vote on their own salaries, just like they do in England. But they all get paid the same, so Labour MSPs will be on these large salaries too...presumably enriching themselves.

    I'm sick of these stuipid arguments from you.

    The Tories admitted it. Johann has just adopted their policies. Murdo is over the moon.

    Ruth is congratulationg Johann for joining them on the dark side.

    The SNP say universal benefits and universal taxation. It's what Labour fought for, so that it wasn't the workhouse for the poor. No more humiliation of having to beg for your benefits.

    I despair.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Johann said it tris and as she is as honest as the Labour party it is lucky that we have a bigger stockpile of roadsalt than last year meaning there should be enough to spread around everyone except Niko and 'friends'.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yep Arbroath. They are all dirt poor... probably give their salaries away

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sad stories from Atos there CH... Sad

    ReplyDelete
  19. Its worse than sad sad tris it is bordering on human criminality as it is not their choice just the situation they find themselves in and when Niko speaks his s... shows him to be a member of the lowest of the low, poor Taz having to endure that everyday. I said over 4 years ago that we need out of this corrupt union asap and this just confirms it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Quite so, Niko, it would be ridiculous to put care for the elderly before weapons of mass destruction and it would be even more ridiculous to have the socialist Lords Foulkes, Martin, Reid etc etc etc miss out on their G%Ts and the money paid out in benefits for the needy. I could go on and on and on.

    I fancy that the Labour Party Standing Orders Committee will be very busy when the "Secret Left" and other internal Labour groups turn up for conference. For once, I wish I was still there!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I see Caron Lindsey is in the soup over her slavish adherence to the pro-Westminster stance of her leader and his pathetic attempt to smear the SNP over so called links with the English Democrats. She got a broadside from the good Rev and must be all at sea.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Where’s the labour in Scottish Labour?

    These are serious questions which the trade union movement can no longer ignore. To say that Scottish Labour represent the interests of working people today would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. Now is the time to make the break with Labour and look to a new future for trade unions and for Scotland – what have we got to lose?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes CH. I'm sorry. Really it is way past sad.

    It is the kind of thing that in some countries they would be taking to the streets over. They wouldn't let the government kill 30+ people a week to save money, so they could spend it on killing folks in Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
  24. That, John, is where I cannot understand the likes of a woman like Lamont. How on earth could she think it was right for Scotland to spend 2 billion a year on WMDs and deny people the free health care of education they get in OUR country.

    She must have been a decent woman at one time. What went wrong?

    What worries me is that it's not worth the money to set up a scheme where everyone under £100,000 has to bed for free education/healthcare/busses/winter fuel. So to make any difference to the finances you'd have to set it far far lower. And on the borderline there are going to be people who won't be able to afford the £9,000 a year to send kids to university.

    I'd say the numbers over £100,000 in Scotland are relatively small, and many won't take advantage of free stuff anyway. Their old people go into private heathcare homes where they pay £1000 a week.

    And to humiliate a the whole population for such a small number, a tiny saving offset against the huge cost of testing everyone who applies, and monitoring them every year...

    How about we save money by saying, ... Foulkes or Martin or any of the4 rest of them earned very good money from the public all these years. They can have the title "Lords", if it means that much to them (of course, it's for their wives!!!!), but they aren't getting any money....?

    Haven't heard that suggestion from the party of the people, have we?

    Will Niko put that to conference?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Munguin: For the thinking Liberal's take on that story, see Andrew page. Scottish Liberal.

    If teh SNP has links with EDF then we need to know... and they need to explain them, but from what I can see (and hope) there is n substance to claims that Rennie made to conference... which in itself is quite something for a supposed national leader.

    "My speech is based on a bit of gossip! I don't have any fact to back it up, but i did hear it in the canteen...Honest."

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ooops...CH

    The STUC should be at the Labour conference. I wonder what they will say about this. Like John I find myself looking forward to Labour's conference.

    The usual banality will surely be replaced with sparks.

    ReplyDelete
  27. That' a good summation of Labour's problems.

    So we have a Labour Party that is only interested in defeating the SNP, by whatever means, and a Liberal Pary comsumed by hatred of the SNP... both despite agreeing with most of its policies.

    What opposition does that leave?

    Under Annabel it left the Tories, but it doesn't seem to me that Ruth is up to the job of filling her boots as the sole opposition.

    We are badly served by these clowns.

    ReplyDelete
  28. a Labour Party that is only interested in defeating the SNP, by whatever (any) means..........(Necessary )

    Jean Paul Sartre

    yep whatever our enemy is the snp front and centre 24/7



    And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

    ReplyDelete
  29. I thought it was me who said that, Niko...not Jean Paul Sartre!!

    Never mind... me or Jean Paul... what the...

    So, if you believe it to be the truth, isn't it a little on the disingenuous side for Mrs Lamont to be going on and on about how the SNP only his wan policy, and that's tae tear pear wee Scoatlan' awa frae its mitherland.

    Anyway, despite the fact that it's always nice to read the Bible with you, Niko, I think you'll find that it's not your eye that offends you guys is it...

    It's our AYE!

    ReplyDelete
  30. CH: I particularly like the lines below. So if anyone has difficulty reading links from the small box, if you read nothing else, read this:

    “The very point of the Labour movement was that this was a false dichotomy – that the place of a worker in society is neither to suffer according to the failures the markets place on them or to be gifted relief from above according to the whims of the rich. In fact, being part of society makes you part of a wider social contract that imparts on you certain rights as a human. This is the start of the welfare state. This is the fundamental principle of universalism.”
    ”Benefit two of universalism is even more important – it holds society together. Let me just keep on down the same road as Ms Lamont; I very rarely find myself going to Ayr and never from the Glasgow direction. Why should I pay for the A77? Or what about the B778 or B785? I might easily go my whole life without need of them. Somewhere on the B785 will live a man with a lot more money than me. Why should I on my very modest salary pay for his road? In fact, I live in a very low crime part of rural Scotland. Why should I even pay for the police to protect rich people from theft by poor people?
    “The answer is more than obvious – because down that road lies only barbarism. Universalism means that whoever you are, at whatever moment someone asks, if you need it, it’s there for you. You don’t have to beg and become an object of ridicule and victimisation. You don’t have to wear a sign saying ‘I’m a failure; please help me because I’m so very useless as a human’.

    That is socialism. Not the lazy mess that Miliband and now Lamont seem to represent.


    ReplyDelete
  31. It's interesting that Mr Miliband is fighting the Tories' desire to take benefit away from couples on over £45,000.

    'Even millionaires should get child benefit', he says.

    Was Mrs McThatcher (I stole that idea from Wullie on Wings) aware of that?

    ReplyDelete
  32. The pigeon post from Labour, sorry Tory, Towers hasn't arrived at Lamont's bolt hole yet Tris. Once it does she'll be out of her bolt hole next year at some point with a "revision" of HER dermination of who IS and who ISN'T rich!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Johann maybe uses the same bolt hole as Iain did...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jda2ivskI8

    ReplyDelete