Is he thick or stupid
 

http://news.sky.com/story/1169049/sr...mil-protesters

He is supposed to be a man of integrity, yet he goes to a country where other world leaders have boycotted, due to human rights problems.

What is he trying to prove. Mr Cameron was confronted by people trying to tell him something, but as usual wasn't listening. He is tryin to prove a point, but l cannot see why he went there.:(

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

He is there to say something directly to the person in control about the problems that have/are happening against the tamil population.
That is better than postulating and not bringing it to the attention of the world.
People just staying away and not talking about it in the open are allowing it to continue.

Take your head out of your backside and stop ranting about things you don't understand.

my 2pw

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

He is there to directly talk to the guy, to bring it to the attention of the UK/The World.

Its better than most of the worlds leaders. For once the guy is trying to do a good thing.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

Dave suffers with what we call IAGS.
I Am God Syndrome.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

Just like you

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

He's trying to be an International Statesman, which he currently isn't, maybe because he can see the writing on the wall for his political career and has seen how much Bliar makes.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

Probably find an advisor told him about the large tamil population in the UK and figured his visit could help with votes at the next election.

Cameron doesn't do anything out of the goodness of his heart, only for benefit of him or his party. Just as bad as Blair and Brown although in different ways.

---------- Post added at 20:31 ---------- Previous post was at 20:29 ----------

If Blair can bomb the middle east and then go on to be the middle east envoy....maybe Cameron can move on to be a Citizens advice bureau advisor to help the poor.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

They guy WON'T change anything in a country that doesn't give a monkey's about human rights.

Thats why people go missing, and why many government leaders won't go there, don't you read the news.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

the UKs version of W.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

He is there because:

1. Gordon Brown agreed the venue in 2009.
2. Prince Charles will be there, representing the Queen. If our heir to the throne can go to Sri Lanka, so can our Prime Minister.
3. He is the Prime Minister, so he doesn't have the luxury of making cheap political gestures from the safety of a TV studio, like, for example, Douglas Alexander.
4. He has the statecraft and the personal strength to go to the Tamil North of the country, in the full knowledge that he was going to *seriously* tee off his hosts back in Colombo.
5. The Tamil people, many of whom did not take up arms against the government and did not ask to be bombed out of their homes as the war came to a bloody end, were really quite keen to see him, because his visit has given their grievances an international platform they would not otherwise have had.

Arthur, your mindless anti-Tory trolling on this forum is getting very tedious.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

Amen to that.

In addition to the points highlighted in Chris's and others posts.

He has given the opportunity to those treated badly by both the government and Tamils an opportunity to have a voice. Albeit briefly, but much better than " not bothering"

He should be applauded not derided.

The fact you do so Arthur, speaks volumes, but nothing we didn't already know.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

I think you're onto something there.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rotesters.html

But I do hope something good comes from this.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

It was organised by Labour back in 2009.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

Did you see Dave after meeting with his opposite number, he had the look of a man that had done a lot of talking and knew not a blind bit of notice had been taken, sort of felt bad for him for about millisecond.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

Any response to this Arthur, so the headline should have been are labour thick or stupid?

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

But at least he tried, much better than sticking his head in the sand and moaning from a distance.

You'll not get any feedback from Arthur regarding this. Arthur reads stuff then turns it into whatever he likes without facts but plenty of fiction. I wonder sometimes if he ever gets through a day without making disparaging remarks about the Torys, be it here or at home.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

Is he thick or stupid? Is there a difference? :confused:

Like him or not, DC has achieved far more by going to Sri Lanka than by staying at home and it's clear that the govt. there certainly doesn't view his presence as being supportive of what's been going on. Well done to him I say.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

:tu:

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

Whilst I would agree with the reason for the visit of DC, I think that in a way it's a waste of time because countries that have these human rights abuses will just carry on as before despite what anyone tells them.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

Why do members bring bring Labour into it. What l am trying is that, here is man going into a country. That other countries have boycotted, saying that l will try and solve this problem. He can't. The guy has already say he won't be dictated to.

To me he is wasting his time.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

To counterpoint your obvious anti Tory obsession?

---------- Post added at 17:29 ---------- Previous post was at 17:28 ----------

You certainly look at a lot of news - but I don't think you READ it.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

Agreed - the news is in the small writing, not just in the headline!!!

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

Well, that's how rags like the Sun and the Mirror get 'readers' isn't it. They rely on people who can see no further than the ends of their noses.

Re: Is he thick or stupid
 

The reason for bringing Labour in to it is that they agreed to the visit back in 2009.

Cameron only went as it was arranged by the last government. Wether DC thinks he will make a difference is neither here nor there. He probably knows it won't make a blind bit of difference.