Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

David Cameron called 'racist' after accusing Sadiq Khan over links to IS supporter Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The PM occupies a number of offices whilst being PM, of which being an MP is one of them.

    Should he wish to represent the wishes of his constituency, then he does so as an MP or a private citizen, like he did when he wrote that letter to his local council lamenting the front line service cuts that they were engaging in, a policy that ironically was of his own making.

    You use 10 Downing Street to carry out matters of state, not constituency matters, a fact which David Cameron seems well aware of.



    The electorate elect MP's and not the PM. Whilst the PM may be drawn from the Commons, it is not necessary that he, or she plays partisan politics with the office of the PM.

    You may not like it and you may pass it off as "It's always been done this way" but you cannot deny that the Office of the PM should be strictly above partisan politics and looking out for matters of state.
    I can deny it, because that's not how it is. The Prime Minister has never been above partisan politics. I'm baffled as to how you came to assume that it is, or what would lead you to think that. It's almost as if you've never seen any Prime Minister and have no understanding of British politics. The Prime Minister is simply the leader of the governing party, not an impartial statesman. That's what the Monarchy is for.
    You're describing a situation that has never occurred. The job of the Prime Minister is to lead his party. David Cameron is OBVIOUSLY going to rip Labour's candidate for the Mayor of London and support his own. It's not abuse of position, unethical, immoral or against the rules so save your faux outrage.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    It is not a partisan issue, demonstrated by the fact that the Conservative Party are split, as are some of the Labour Party members.

    If the EU referendum was a partisan issue, we would see one clear and coherent message from the Tories, but they seem all over the place.

    The Government, and by extension the civil servants (the people that actually run the country and are the backbone of Westminster), are obliged to remain politically neutral on all policy issues.

    They serve the Crown and the realm, not petty political maneuverings.
    Few issues have all MPs of the two largest parties in consensus. That doesn't stop it being partisan. The official stance of the Conservatives and of Labour is to support remaining in the EU. A minority rebelling that position doesn't change that.

    Again, this has never been the case and is something you've simply made up or wish was so, but it isn't.
    The whole point of the democratic process is to select a party to form and run our government and implement policies. For example, the official position of the HM Government, as dictated by the Conservatives, is that we should retain a nuclear deterrent. Likewise, the official position of HM Government, as dictated by the Conservatives, is that we should remain in the EU.
    The whole point of the civil service is to implement government policies.
    You're complete misunderstanding and ignorance of British politics is astounding.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The man that he has accused, has asked the PM to repeat said statements outside of Parliament. Cameron has not done so, hence, skirting the issue.

    If he has links to extremism, then the police must have carried out some investigation and given that supporting IS is a crime in this country, the fact that said person has not been charged with any offences speaks for itself.

    The simple truth is that Cameron is a coward who hides his oily exterior behind the office of the PM, which perverse and demeans such a distinguished office.
    Ghani hasn't asked the PM anything. He made comments to some low-brow media organisations. I doubt the PM regularly keeps track of 5 Pillars UK.

    It doesn't speak for anything. There are numerous known radicals and terrorist-sympathisers still walking our streets. There are a multitude of reasons as to why the police haven't been able to or won't prosecute. Certainly innocent until proven guilty, but not being prosecuted isn't proof of not being guilty.

    Like I said, the speaker John Bercow generally takes a hard line to MPs abusing privilege, such as flouting super-injunctions.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You seem to misunderstand what the Prime Minister is. It's not a non-partisan constitutional institution like the Monarchy.
    Absolutely of course the Prime Minister is going to help his own candidate and attack others. Of course he is. I'm baffled as to why you would think otherwise, or that it shouldn't be the case. Were you also surprised that the government is allowed to take an official stance in the EU referendum?!

    David Cameron wouldn't be 'hauled up' before judges anyhow. I don't know what the basis is of Cameron's claim that Ghani supports ISIS, but he certainly has numerous dubious links with extremist preachers, radical clerics and convicted terrorists.
    Cameron used his Parliamentary privelege to smear Khan and accuse him of being an extremist.
    Let's take the example. He said Khan shared a platform with Ghani who supports IS.
    To that there are numerous responses:
    1.) Sharing a platform with someone does not mean you agree with them.
    2.) There is zero evidence that Ghani is an IS supporter, Downing street were asked over ten times to provide evidence and failed to do so.
    3.) Ghani actually campaigned and canvassed for the conservatives in 2015!!! Zac Goldsmith had a smiling selfie taken with him and the Conservative candidate for Tooting asked him to help his campaign.

    So if Ghani does support IS, it means an ISIS supporter was invited to canvas for the tories.

    Ghani opposed Khan because of his support for gay marriage.
    Khan's a human rights lawyer, it's his job to defend his clients. It would be like berating a criminal lawyer for having 'dubious links' with criminals. Everyone deserves legal representation.

    Not to mention Khan has called islamic extremism a 'cancer', he's supported gay marriage which ostracised him from many in his community and he even whipped through the 42 day detention without trial bill in the commons - hardly an islamic extremist symapthiser.

    Khan is a centrist who's tackled extremism within his community forcefully.
    He's exactly the type of person we need, a secular muslim who will fight islamic extremism.
    People like Khan encourage other secular Muslims to fight extremism and not be drawn in by it, he's a role model to them. This conservative campaign to paint him as an extremist or extremist sympathiser is disgraceful and has been berated by numerous tories such as Peter Oborne.

    To label him an extremist and come up with these non-sensical extremist links which relate to his job as a human rights lawyer is disgraceful.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    So, on the whole Khan issue, of course Khan is cosy with terrorists and Islamic extremists. He's a clever guy, he could have made a fortune in banking, or been comfortable as a doctor, but he chose to dedicate his life to defending terrorists and Islamic extremists. Therefore, he likes and approves of them, even if he thinks they go a bit far sometimes (Arthur Scargill thought the USSR went a bit far sometimes, but still liked and approved of it).

    However Cameron's attack is still wrong. Khan's connections to, and love of, Islamic extremists are no different to those of Cherie Blair. The accusation is that Khan uses the British legal system as a weapon to defend terrorists and Muslim extremists, but that isn't what Blair does, she uses the terrorists and Muslim extremists as a weapon against her opponents in the British state. Is Khan a British left-elite who sees Muslim extremists as useful idiots, or is he a Muslim extremist who sees British left-elites as useful idiots? It doesn't matter, they will both lead us to the same place. Either neither of these things make one unsuitable to hold public office in this country, or both do.

    Cameron's attack doesn't make this point, in fact it obscures it, by focussing the debate on the truth of Khan's motivations, which are both unknowable and irrelevant.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Cameron used his Parliamentary privelege to smear Khan and accuse him of being an extremist.
    Let's take the example. He said Khan shared a platform with Ghani who supports IS.
    To that there are numerous responses:
    1.) Sharing a platform with someone does not mean you agree with them.
    2.) There is zero evidence that Ghani is an IS supporter, Downing street were asked over ten times to provide evidence and failed to do so.
    3.) Ghani actually campaigned and canvassed for the conservatives in 2015!!! Zac Goldsmith had a smiling selfie taken with him and the Conservative candidate for Tooting asked him to help his campaign.

    So if Ghani does support IS, it means an ISIS supporter was invited to canvas for the tories.

    Ghani opposed Khan because of his support for gay marriage.
    Khan's a human rights lawyer, it's his job to defend his clients. It would be like berating a criminal lawyer for having 'dubious links' with criminals. Everyone deserves legal representation.

    Not to mention Khan has called islamic extremism a 'cancer', he's supported gay marriage which ostracised him from many in his community and he even whipped through the 42 day detention without trial bill in the commons - hardly an islamic extremist symapthiser.

    Khan is a centrist who's tackled extremism within his community forcefully.
    He's exactly the type of person we need, a secular muslim who will fight islamic extremism.
    People like Khan encourage other secular Muslims to fight extremism and not be drawn in by it, he's a role model to them. This conservative campaign to paint him as an extremist or extremist sympathiser is disgraceful and has been berated by numerous tories such as Peter Oborne.

    To label him an extremist and come up with these non-sensical extremist links which relate to his job as a human rights lawyer is disgraceful.
    He didn't use Parliamentary privilege to 'smear' Khan. Slating MPs during Commons proceedings isn't illegal. He simply took advantage of PMQs to push this ridiculous narrative.
    And yeah, you're right, the Tories shouldn't be smearing Khan. I think we all know Khan isn't a terrorist sympathiser no matter who he's associated with (and I still maintain Ghani is an extremist), and it's childish for Cameron to be going down this path.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    So, on the whole Khan issue, of course Khan is cosy with terrorists and Islamic extremists. He's a clever guy, he could have made a fortune in banking, or been comfortable as a doctor, but he chose to dedicate his life to defending terrorists and Islamic extremists. Therefore, he likes and approves of them, even if he thinks they go a bit far sometimes (Arthur Scargill thought the USSR went a bit far sometimes, but still liked and approved of it).

    However Cameron's attack is still wrong. Khan's connections to, and love of, Islamic extremists are no different to those of Cherie Blair. The accusation is that Khan uses the British legal system as a weapon to defend terrorists and Muslim extremists, but that isn't what Blair does, she uses the terrorists and Muslim extremists as a weapon against her opponents in the British state. Is Khan a British left-elite who sees Muslim extremists as useful idiots, or is he a Muslim extremist who sees British left-elites as useful idiots? It doesn't matter, they will both lead us to the same place. Either neither of these things make one unsuitable to hold public office in this country, or both do.

    Cameron's attack doesn't make this point, in fact it obscures it, by focussing the debate on the truth of Khan's motivations, which are both unknowable and irrelevant.
    What a load of utter drivel. Everything's always a conspiracy for you isn't it?

    All people have a right to a lawyer. Its one of the things that separates us from barbarous nations, it's an inalienable human right. He was interested in law and wanted to work in it. He wanted to represent people whose human rights had been violated, whoever they were.

    As a lawyer you have a duty to your client.
    Is a doctor who treats a murderer a murder sympathiser?

    Again, like berating a criminal lawyer for defending criminals. It's their job to.
    Even the Nazis at the Nuremberg trial were given legal representation, it doesn't make the people who represented then Nazi sympathisers.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What a load of utter drivel. Everything's always a conspiracy for you isn't it?
    I only believe in open conspiracies.

    All people have a right to a lawyer. Its one of the things that separates us from barbarous nations, it's an inalienable human right.

    As a lawyer you have a duty to your client.
    Yes and this man chooses to engage clients overwhelmingly of a certain type. That suggests he feels a stronger duty toward that type than others.

    Is a doctor who treats a murderer a murder sympathiser?
    A doctor who only treats mobsters, often in warehouses by the docks and hidden lockups, is probably a mob doctor.

    Again, like berating a criminal lawyer for defending criminals. It's their job to.
    It's no one's job to become a criminal lawyer first of all. When you are making the choice between crime and the magic circle, you are probably not thinking of all the dosh you're going to make at the Old Bailey. Second, he has not represented a broad cross-section of criminals, which suggests that his interest in them is not merely a detached and noble belief in every man getting his day in court.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The job of the Prime Minister is to lead the country, not his party.
    They're one and the same, since the PM will be leading the government run by his party.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Hence, the different titles that he or she will hold (i.e: Leader of the Conservative Party, First Lord of Treasury, Member of Parliament etc etc)
    That's an irrelevant point. It doesn't matter what titles come associated with the post, that doesn't suddenly make the PM this imaginary non-partisan umpire that you think it is.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Not at all. The whole point of the democratic process is to select a representative (i.e: a person, not a party).
    No, the General Election is about selecting a representative. The democratic process is the system of democracy employed. In the case of the UK, the end game is for a party to form and run a government.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The country would function just as well, if not better if we left the civil servants to simply run the country.
    Civil servants do run the country. Literally. They are the ones that do the leg work behind implementing government policy.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Perhaps the most idiotic statement that I have had the misfortune of reading today.
    Probably best not re-read your posts on this thread then.
    It's quite simple. You're claiming the fact that Ghani hasn't been prosecuted is conclusive proof that Cameron's claims are false. Of course it isn't. That's a logical fallacy on your part. It's not really that hard of a concept to grasp.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The fact remains that the PM is an arrogant fool and a coward who hides parliamentary privilege to sling mud at citizens of his own country, in a desperate attempt to usher his cronies into coveted positions.
    Breaking news, Prime Minister tries to help his party's candidate win an election, TheArtofProtest baffled as he was born yesterday.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I only believe in open conspiracies.


    Yes and this man chooses to engage clients overwhelmingly of a certain type. That suggests he feels a stronger duty toward that type than others.


    A doctor who only treats mobsters, often in warehouses by the docks and hidden lockups, is probably a mob doctor.


    It's no one's job to become a criminal lawyer first of all. When you are making the choice between crime and the magic circle, you are probably not thinking of all the dosh you're going to make at the Old Bailey. Second, he has not represented a broad cross-section of criminals, which suggests that his interest in them is not merely a detached and noble belief in every man getting his day in court.
    For a start human rights law isn't just defending 'extremists', it's a wide ranging profession which involves representing all types of people from victims of domestic abuse, victims of bullying, victims of police brutality, children who've been mistreated, local authorities etc. You know nothing about law.

    You're trying to say anyone who becomes a criminal or human rights lawyer is a terrorist or extremist sympathiser. What a ridiculous person you are.
    Some people prefer criminal law, not as well paid but far more interesting and far less siting in an office all day.

    What separates us from barbarous nations is that all people are entitled to legal representation, you may need it one day, so to castigate all criminal and human rights lawyers as terrorist sympathisers is utterly ridiculous and pathetic.

    Khan was a lawyer, a respected human rights lawyer. To judge a lawyer for representing their clients is beyond stupid but that doesn't surprise me coming from you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    For a start human rights law isn't just defending 'extremists', it's a wide ranging profession which involves representing all types of people from victims of domestic abuse, victims of bullying, victims of police brutality, children who've been mistreated, local authorities etc. You know nothing about law.

    You're trying to say anyone who becomes a criminal or human rights lawyer is a terrorist or extremist sympathiser. What a ridiculous person you are.
    Some people prefer criminal law, not as well paid but far more interesting and far less siting in an office all day.

    What separates us from barbarous nations is that all people are entitled to legal representation, you may need it one day, so to castigate all criminal and human rights lawyers as terrorist sympathisers is utterly ridiculous and pathetic.

    Khan was a lawyer, a respected human rights lawyer. To judge a lawyer for representing their clients is beyond stupid but that doesn't surprise me coming from you.
    I think it's just spluttering at this point, so I'll let others decide.

    (I will say that the fact that Khan publicly endorsed gay marriage suggests that he is really a Cherie Blair type - an integrated left-elite - rather than a Muslim extremist. That is one of the few true wedge issues between them, something where the gag reflex is triggered on both sides.)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I think it's just spluttering at this point, so I'll let others decide.

    (I will say that the fact that Khan publicly endorsed gay marriage suggests that he is really a Cherie Blair type - an integrated left-elite - rather than a Muslim extremist. That is one of the few true wedge issues between them, something where the gag reflex is triggered on both sides.)
    Which extremists has Khan cosier up to?
    Labelling criminal and human rights lawyers as terrorist sympathisers is ridiculous, what about all those right wing criminal lawyers?

    You really are a conspiracy theorist with serious Victim mentality, someone's always out to get you aren't they?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    He didn't use Parliamentary privilege to 'smear' Khan. Slating MPs during Commons proceedings isn't illegal. He simply took advantage of PMQs to push this ridiculous narrative.
    And yeah, you're right, the Tories shouldn't be smearing Khan. I think we all know Khan isn't a terrorist sympathiser no matter who he's associated with (and I still maintain Ghani is an extremist), and it's childish for Cameron to be going down this path.
    Agreed.
    I genuinely do think such tactics deter secular Muslims like Khan from taking a stand seeing how they're treated as extremist, when in reality secular Muslims fighting Islamic extremism is exactly what we need.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Newsme)
    What the hell is BMP?
    It's a far right British nationalist party omg I meant BNP sozzz

    They are racist gits man
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    he is a ******
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    It's a far right British nationalist party omg I meant BNP sozzz

    They are racist gits man
    u mad bruh?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The Blue Nose)
    u mad bruh?
    I'm rather calm.

    Fight me if you are against Sadiq Khan- I'm not that extreme but ok.

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    I'm rather calm.

    Fight me if you are against Sadiq Khan- I'm not that extreme but ok.

    I hate all muslims
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The Blue Nose)
    I hate all muslims
    I hate all Donald Tramp clones, what's your point?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    I hate all Donald Tramp clones, what's your point?
    My point is we should close the borders and stop people coming in
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The Blue Nose)
    My point is we should close the borders and stop people coming in
    It's weird because we are all technically immigrants in a sense- we can't help the fact that the entire migrant crisis ARE ALL REFUGEES as their country is in danger.

    If you were in their place, wouldn't you want a superpower(our UK government) to help you- the things about putting yourself into 'someone else's shoes', I think you should try that babe.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    It's weird because we are all technically immigrants in a sense- we can't help the fact that the entire migrant crisis ARE ALL REFUGEES as their country is in danger.

    If you were in their place, wouldn't you want a superpower(our UK government) to help you- the things about putting yourself into 'someone else's shoes', I think you should try that babe.
    never we are full as it is
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.