Originally Posted by clitheroe1:
“That wasn't how the Harriet Harman story was spun though, it was guilt by association. By your logic, actions by the Bullington Club of smashing up restaurants and other disreputable behaviour means Cameron should also be guilty by association.
Taking the logic you used for Mr Corbyn, because Cameron hasn't denied putting his penis in the mouth of a dead pig means he is guilty of doing this. Failure to deny doesn't mean guilt, unless maybe if you want to smear a Labour politician.”
The difference is the past doings of politicians of all parties are fair game for the media if whatever they got up to was when they were involved in politics and therefore setting themselves up as our betters, or at least with potential power over our everyday lives. What they did at university, if not illegal, is really more or less irrelevant, open to comment on but doing stupid things at that age is pretty normal. Now if the hard drugs accusation was when Cameron was already in politics, that's different, but I suppose to a lot of people that isn't as unusual as students doing odd things with ex-piggies.