next »

[invisibleman18]

I never said that he/she didn't have the right to vote, please let's not change the subject of the argument to a useless one.

If a voter changes their mind because they think he might be stupid based on these recent events then they are have no idea of Mr Cameron and therefore shouldn't really be voting in the first place.

Please explain what was meant by the part in bold then. You said a person who might change their mind over this shouldn't be voting. Why not?

If this is indeed the case then yes what he did was foolish but I have, maybe unrealistically, a hope that people in Britain are not so stupid to place their vote based on this.

I didn't really mean people would place their vote based on this. More that this incident may make some who are as yet undecide begin to consider their options. Certainly made me think he's a bit of a fool, although to be fair I obviously live somewhere where I don't hear an awful lot about him on the news.

[Mark]

I should always have the right to vote but I would restrain myself from voting if all I could base it on were the events of the politician breaking a few silly rules on his bicycle, that's what I'm trying to stay.

I think it's absurd this argument has turned into the subject of the right to vote, why the f**k am I trying to defend myself when I'm always the person on the other side this argument.

I'm not going to make any further comment on this - it's not what we were meant to be talking about, it's a nonexistent argument based on a misinterpretation of one of my posts.

[Mark]

I love the things he's proposing but I can't help but feel it's mostly talk and no action. However, if I vote it would probably be for him.

[Mark]

Bravo

Pathetic was the word that was constantly coming to my mind in this argument

[invisibleman18]

Again I will try to explain that I never said, nor intended to say that anyone would decide not to vote for him based on these traffic offences. What I actually said, or at least intended to say, was that the fact that he would openly break the law, whatever law that may be, knowing full well that he was on camera, should rightly lead to some people who are as yet undecided considering whether he is someone they would like to vote for.

That is all.

[invisibleman18]

Well as I said, he's the leader of the opposition leading up to an election. He is always on camera and should realise this. That may not be morally right, but it is fact.

[invisibleman18]

It may seem trivial, but I actually agree with that point. Regardless of what minor laws they may be, what example does someone in his position set to the rest of the country by breaking them?

[Mark]

I sympathise with him not being aware of the cameras on him. The people in Big Brother forget they have cameras on them after a few minutes and they KNOW that they are being filmed.

I still stick by my original point, I think this sort of "offence" has the potential to help him politically, probably most with the young voters. If someone decides to not vote for him based on this then they're either snobs or idiots.

[netcord]

I sympathise with him not being aware of the cameras on him. The people in Big Brother forget they have cameras on them after a few minutes and they KNOW that they are being filmed.

I still stick by my original point, I think this sort of "offence" has the potential to help him politically, probably most with the young voters. If someone decides to not vote for him based on this then they're either snobs or idiots.

Patronising f**ker. You an Neil keep winding up the regulars and soon there'll be none left. Maybe that's your grand plan but Alex was merely making a valid point. No need to belittle him.

[invisibleman18]

Anyway, onto other news.

Anyone heard the story about the hypnotist thief in Italy?
Link