Which horse do you think david cameron rode last?

hobbit.

Gods rep on Earth.
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Posts
34,913
PM denies riding Brooks loan horse​

Prime Minister David Cameron has denied he has ever ridden the horse which was lent by police to former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks.

But he confirmed that he had ridden as leader of the Opposition with Mrs Brooks's racehorse trainer husband Charlie, a friend since they went to school at Eton.

It emerged earlier this week that the Metropolitan Police lent a horse called Raisa to Mrs Brooks, who resigned last year as chief executive of News International amid the furore over phone hacking allegations.

The horse was stabled at the former tabloid editor's Cotswolds home from 2008-10 before being handed back to the Met. It is understood that the animal has since died.

In an interview with Channel 5 News, Mr Cameron was asked whether he had ever ridden Raisa.

He said: "It's a matter of record that I have been riding with Rebekah Brooks's husband, Charlie Brooks.

"He is a friend of mine for 30 years standing and a neighbour in my constituency so that's a matter of record.

"But since I have been Prime Minister I think I have been on a horse once and it wasn't that one."

A Downing Street spokeswoman said she was not aware of which horse Mr Cameron was referring to.

from http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...denies-riding-brooks-loan-horse-16124930.html

My money is on Shergar. The lying bastard!
 
A horse is a horse, of course, of course, And no one can talk to a horse of course. That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mister Ed
 
am also guessing the sun on sunday will lose a lot of readers this week too
 
am also guessing the sun on sunday will lose a lot of readers this week too

Readers? its the fucking sun!

sales will be stable on merseyside, sad though.. the vermin now have to dodge the sun 7 days a week :D
 
Maybe it's because I'm not from England and know nothing about their politics, but this doesn't seem newsworthy to me. Can someone explain why it matters one way or the other whether or not this man ever rode a particular horse? Even if it was apparently on loan to a criminal, so what? He was friends with her husband for 30 years, and unless he was implicated in her crime, riding the horse the police loaned to her (how does that happen?) doesn't make him a criminal. What's the big deal?
 
she is worse than a criminal, she was editor of a newspaper that regularly hacked into individuals phone messages, the horse was no ordinary horse, the horse was a police horse, yep owned by the police and loaned to her for two , count them two years by the police.
the sleaze that surrounds this woman taints the air that anyone in surrounding areas breathes.
this is the biggest sleaze investigation that this country has ever known
 
basic boarding of a horse cost $1000. per month. that includes 2 feedings a day and the horse lives out in the paddock.
 
she is worse than a criminal, she was editor of a newspaper that regularly hacked into individuals phone messages, the horse was no ordinary horse, the horse was a police horse, yep owned by the police and loaned to her for two , count them two years by the police.
the sleaze that surrounds this woman taints the air that anyone in surrounding areas breathes.
this is the biggest sleaze investigation that this country has ever known

Okay, so she's a sleaze and the police are sleazes and there's an investigation. I still don't see why it's a big deal if he rode the horse or not. I've ridden other people's horses without doing a criminal background check on them first - if the owner is a criminal does that make me one? Is there other evidence this man is involved in her crimes? Riding her horse isn't proof of anything, except that he knows how to ride a horse. I read the article twice and it doesn't say anything about him except that he was friends with her husband and is being accused of riding the horse the police loaned to her, which he says he didn't. Even if he did ride the horse, so what? If the police loaned out the horse, instead of leasing it for money, they are probably guilty of a crime and certainly a misuse of government (ie, taxpayers) property. But riding said horse if he didn't know it was illegally on loan doesn't make him a criminal. It sounds like grasping at straws.
 
Okay, so she's a sleaze and the police are sleazes and there's an investigation. I still don't see why it's a big deal if he rode the horse or not. I've ridden other people's horses without doing a criminal background check on them first - if the owner is a criminal does that make me one? Is there other evidence this man is involved in her crimes? Riding her horse isn't proof of anything, except that he knows how to ride a horse. I read the article twice and it doesn't say anything about him except that he was friends with her husband and is being accused of riding the horse the police loaned to her, which he says he didn't. Even if he did ride the horse, so what? If the police loaned out the horse, instead of leasing it for money, they are probably guilty of a crime and certainly a misuse of government (ie, taxpayers) property. But riding said horse if he didn't know it was illegally on loan doesn't make him a criminal. It sounds like grasping at straws.
When the prime minister is that cozy with someone at the centre of a scandal that involves bribing public officials, it's a problem.
 
basic boarding of a horse cost $1000. per month. that includes 2 feedings a day and the horse lives out in the paddock.

So did the police loan out the horse to avoid the costs of caring for it? That's just stupidity. If they didn't need it, why didn't they just sell it? No boarding fees and money in the public kitty, sounds like a better plan than lending it out for free. If they loaned it to her as a bribe, or back scratching, that's a crime.
 
When the prime minister is that cozy with someone at the centre of a scandal that involves bribing public officials, it's a problem.

I can see that they would need to look into the relationship. But the point of the article seems to be whether or not he rode the horse, and I can't see how that has any bearing one way or the other. Whether he didn't ride the horse, rode it without knowing about her crimes, or rode it knowing full well, it's still not a crime to ride a horse owned (or on loan to) a criminal. It was just a very narrow article dealing with a much bigger, more complex situation, and it sounds more like grasping at straws to try to bring him down. If the worst mud they have to sling is that he might have ridden a horse under her care, they are really reaching.
 
It seems to me that the Metropolitan Police got a good deal. They lent a retired Police horse which was looked after at no cost to them.

Every horse owner knows that a horse is expensive to keep.
 
Back
Top