Christopher Shale - too honest

steelcityblues

Most of you by know have probably heard of the death of Conservative branch chairman Christopher Shale, supposedly of a 'heart attack'.

But look what appeared only in yesterday's Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2008127/JAMES-FORSYTH-Theres-reason-join-Tories-Weve-come-voracious-crass--Who-says-Daves-constituency-chairman.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Excerpt: There's absolutely no reason to join the Conservative Party – and that’s according to David Cameron’s own constituency chairman, Christopher Shale.
In a strategy document seen by The Mail on Sunday, Mr Shale admits that at present there’s ‘no reason to join. Lots of reasons not to’.
The paper, of which Cameron is aware, presents a scathing assessment of the social skills and fundraising efforts of his association.

Though notice how the real damning verdict from long time member Mr. Shale coming a few paragraphs later:

He slams the association’s fundraising efforts, saying: ‘Over the years we have come across as graceless, voracious, crass, always on the take.’

Talk about a 'strange' time to up and die suddenly. So much for the man's loyalty.

CiaranMT

That kind of internal party document would be pretty common within parties, I would have thought. It's the Daily Wail headline that stokes up a story out of what is a healthy bit of introspection for the Tories.

What an odd occurrence that a high-up Tory would die of a heart-attack on a port-a-loo at a music festival noted for it's hippy tendencies. Tragic, of course, for his family and friends, but a bit humourous at the same time. RIP.

What's the conspiracy again?

steelcityblues

CiaranMT wrote: »

That kind of internal party document would be pretty common within parties, I would have thought. It's the Daily Wail headline that stokes up a story out of what is a healthy bit of introspection for the Tories.

What an odd occurrence that a high-up Tory would die of a heart-attack on a port-a-loo at a music festival noted for it's hippy tendencies. Tragic, of course, for his family and friends, but a bit humourous at the same time. RIP.

What's the conspiracy again?

The internal party document with comments by an influential long time member, who is clearly p*ssed off with what his party of choice are at the moment. No light reading there.

What is 'hippy' about Glastonbury anymore? When 'safe' acts like U2, ColdPlay and Beyonce are the big headliners, then it further proves that rock n roll is the greatest money spinner still going. Perfect place for middle of the road, middle aged, Tories and Labourites to camp out for a few days.

Hope you are being sarcastic with the final question. :rolleyes:

hooradiation

steelcityblues wrote: »

Most of you by know have probably heard of the death of Conservative branch chairman Christopher Shale, supposedly of a 'heart attack'.

But look what appeared only in yesterday's Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2008127/JAMES-FORSYTH-Theres-reason-join-Tories-Weve-come-voracious-crass--Who-says-Daves-constituency-chairman.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Excerpt: There's absolutely no reason to join the Conservative Party – and that’s according to David Cameron’s own constituency chairman, Christopher Shale.
In a strategy document seen by The Mail on Sunday, Mr Shale admits that at present there’s ‘no reason to join. Lots of reasons not to’.
The paper, of which Cameron is aware, presents a scathing assessment of the social skills and fundraising efforts of his association.

Though notice how the real damning verdict from long time member Mr. Shale coming a few paragraphs later:

He slams the association’s fundraising efforts, saying: ‘Over the years we have come across as graceless, voracious, crass, always on the take.’

Talk about a 'strange' time to up and die suddenly. So much for the man's loyalty.

I would have thought that the more sensible response to a damning report would be to take action against the problems highlighted rather than shoot the messenger and pretend it never happened.

The idea that such a shaming document must be suppressed is nonsense, seeing as all Mr. Shale was doing was codifying the public perception of the Tories. Killing him for doing so would achieve nothing, change nothing and suppress nothing.

Sorry, not really seeing much to this up at all.

CiaranMT

hooradiation wrote: »

The idea that such a shaming document must be suppressed is nonsense, seeing as all Mr. Shale was doing was codifying the public perception of the Tories. Killing him for doing so would achieve nothing, change nothing and suppress nothing.

It would also be highly illegal :pac:

steelcityblues

hooradiation wrote: »

I would have thought that the more sensible response to a damning report would be to take action against the problems highlighted rather than shoot the messenger and pretend it never happened.

The idea that such a shaming document must be suppressed is nonsense, seeing as all Mr. Shale was doing was codifying the public perception of the Tories. Killing him for doing so would achieve nothing, change nothing and suppress nothing.

Sorry, not really seeing much to this up at all.

Yet, you cannot argue that this was a normal report. Describing his own party as being 'graceless, voracious, classless, always on the take', ain't exactly sitting on the fence.

This was leaked to the Mail for a reason too - the paper most read by Middle England Tory voters. Get them to give Shale's comments some consideration, and David Cameron and co. can face a potentially huge job of getting re -elected to government.

There are parallels to David Kelly in 2003, here. Remember, Kelly was investigating the possibility of WMD's in Iraq, when he just happened to be found dead in the woods near his home. Unless you still believe 8 years later, that it was a 'suicide', of course.

It would achieve, change and suppress a lot - dead men can no longer speak out, after all.

CiaranMT

steelcityblues wrote: »

Yet, you cannot argue that this was a normal report. Describing his own party as being 'graceless, voracious, classless, always on the take', ain't exactly sitting on the fence.

This was leaked to the Mail for a reason too - the paper most read by Middle England Tory voters. Get them to give Shale's comments some consideration, and David Cameron and co. can face a potentially huge job of getting re -elected to government.

There are parallels to David Kelly in 2003, here. Remember, Kelly was investigating the possibility of WMD's in Iraq, when he just happened to be found dead in the woods near his home. Unless you still believe 8 years later, that it was a 'suicide', of course.

It would achieve, change and suppress a lot - dead men can no longer speak out, after all.

So, have you any tangible evidence for this CT?

Cos all I'm seeing is a typical in-party report, being reported upon.

If you think that's a damning report, one can only imagine the type of stuff being circulated within FF circles since the election.

steelcityblues

CiaranMT wrote: »

So, have you any tangible evidence for this CT?

Cos all I'm seeing is a typical in-party report, being reported upon.

If you think that's a damning report, one can only imagine the type of stuff being circulated within FF circles since the election.

I don't exactly know what a 'typical' in-party report is, but I would think a lot of positive PR is usually involved, as to accentuate a positive position of the party, and keep the negatives to a minimum. This one does not seem to be the case.

FF is irrelevant here - we are talking about a British case.

As with most of your CT posts, you take a naive view of the possibility of TPTB being involved in foul play - so I'm not expecting you to think hard of what I am posting.

Monty Burnz

steelcityblues wrote: »

Yet, you cannot argue that this was a normal report. Describing his own party as being 'graceless, voracious, classless, always on the take', ain't exactly sitting on the fence.

This was leaked to the Mail for a reason too - the paper most read by Middle England Tory voters. Get them to give Shale's comments some consideration, and David Cameron and co. can face a potentially huge job of getting re -elected to government.

There are parallels to David Kelly in 2003, here. Remember, Kelly was investigating the possibility of WMD's in Iraq, when he just happened to be found dead in the woods near his home. Unless you still believe 8 years later, that it was a 'suicide', of course.

It would achieve, change and suppress a lot - dead men can no longer speak out, after all.

He's wasn't meant to sit on the fence, he was meant to tackle problems with the image of the Tory Party, and that's exactly what he started, by identifying them. Seriously, this would be the stupidest political murder in history: task a guy with identifying problems, then let him (or someone else) leak his findings (which are widely known anyway), and then - to cover it up? - murder him at a music festival.

This one fails the common sense test in an epic fashion.

Monty Burnz

steelcityblues wrote: »

I don't exactly know what a 'typical' in-party report is, but I would think a lot of positive PR is usually involved, as to accentuate a positive position of the party, and keep the negatives to a minimum. This one does not seem to be the case.

Total nonsense. This stuff is absolutely routine. You are speculating about something you don't know about - why would internal party documents have ANY PR element in them at all? They are not for public consumption, they are working papers for the organisations that produce them. And an organisation that only says positive things about itself in its working/policy documents will not last for very long, will it?

This is a bizarre one imho.

hooradiation

steelcityblues wrote: »

Yet, you cannot argue that this was a normal report. Describing his own party as being 'graceless, voracious, classless, always on the take', ain't exactly sitting on the fence.

I never argued it was.
Also, he reported that "graceless, voracious, classless, always on the take" was the public perception of the Torys. Don't ever forget that.

steelcityblues wrote: »

This was leaked to the Mail for a reason too - the paper most read by Middle England Tory voters. Get them to give Shale's comments some consideration, and David Cameron and co. can face a potentially huge job of getting re -elected to government.

They face that regardless of the existence of this report.
firstly - the coalition is not perceived to be doing well in the UK and the conventional wisdom is that the Lib dem voters who have felt burnt by the actions of that party within the coalition will vote labour next time rather than Tory. As long as Labour don't do something astronomically stupid they are looking at a very good shot of being back in power after the next election.

Secondly - from the very article you linked "Under Cameron’s leadership Tory membership nationally appears to have fallen by about a third, from 259,000 to 177,000. At the same time, local associations have seen their power to select candidates decline dramatically." The Torys are already in trouble, hence why the report was commissioned. They are hemorrhaging supporters and there are no new people replacing them. In fact further down from the quote I used above the Mail article goes into Mr. Shales recommendations on how to appeal to more people.

steelcityblues wrote: »

There are parallels to David Kelly in 2003, here.
Remember, Kelly was investigating the possibility of WMD's in Iraq, when he just happened to be found dead in the woods near his home.

This is a false equivalence.
Dr Kelly was investigating WMDs in Iraq, something very few people in the world would have been aware of and able to speak about. Mr Shale was presenting a report of the public perception of the Torys.

The two subject matters alone make these events only tangentially related.

steelcityblues wrote: »

Unless you still believe 8 years later, that it was a 'suicide', of course.

If i did what bearing at all would that have on this?
Or is it just a lazy ad hominem.

steelcityblues wrote: »

It would achieve, change and suppress a lot - dead men can no longer speak out, after all.

Question:
How does the death of Mr. Shale change or suppress the public perception of the Tory party?

Shooting the messenger can't do anything in this case, so i am at a loss as to what could be gained by doing this.

Even if we take the position that he was murdered for being the bearer of bad news, that still makes no sense. Political parties are in the business of winning elections, even if the report makes for uncomfortable reading, it would be short sighted in the extreme to ignore it and stay the course when defeat at the next elections is staring them right in the face.

steelcityblues

You also have to consider the fact that the general public would not like to be told that they are being represented by liars in government - even if you or I would not be so shocked to hear this.

177,000 members could be whittled down to 100,000 members, if more had emerged.

Mr. Shale - judging by the report - certainly sounded like someone fed up with the nature of his political party today. Whether he was intending to quit and speak more,cannot be ruled out either.

Monty Burnz

steelcityblues wrote: »

Mr. Shale - judging by the report - certainly sounded like someone fed up with the nature of his political party today. Whether he was intending to quit and speak more,cannot be ruled out either.

Good thing they hushed up this disaffected member and took the whole thing out of the media spotlight then. :rolleyes:

steelcityblues

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Good thing they hushed up this disaffected member and took the whole thing out of the media spotlight then. :rolleyes:

What do you mean?

It has already been reported as a 'heart attack', so job done from their point of view.

Majority of people in Britain still believe the news media.

Monty Burnz

steelcityblues wrote: »

What do you mean?

It has already been reported as a 'heart attack', so job done from their point of view.

Majority of people in Britain still believe the news media.

Had anyone heard of his damning report before he suddenly died? I hadn't. Did you?

steelcityblues

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Had anyone heard of his damning report before he suddenly died? I hadn't. Did you?

I was reading through some of the online papers on Saturday, and the name sounded familiar at first when I heard about the death. Later on - did a search, and found out why.

The story might have gained ground beyond the Mail though, which is a possible reason for his death.

Monty Burnz

steelcityblues wrote: »

The story might have gained ground beyond the Mail though, which is a possible reason for his death.

I've another possible reason: natural causes, or slightly unnatural causes (due to recreational drugs). I wonder will there be an autopsy?

steelcityblues

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I've another possible reason: natural causes, or slightly unnatural causes (due to recreational drugs). I wonder will there be an autopsy?

There should be.

Monty Burnz

Some extracts from the internal party document that you think enraged some senior Tories so much that they arranged his immediate assassination:

‘Collectively, we are not always an appealing proposition.
‘Over the years we have come across as graceless, voracious, crass, always on the take.
‘People think we’ll beg and steal from them. And they’re right.
‘When we are together we are not always a group of people to whom many of our potential members are going to be magnetically drawn.
‘When we come together as a group we sometimes morph into something different, less attractive. Our environment alters us.
‘We must look different – when we communicate, when we’re together. We must sound different – in what we say, how we say it, the language we use, our tone of voice. We must behave differently – try to see ourselves as others see us.’
Criticising Tories who want to offer old-style Conservative policies: ‘It’s what, pre-2005, DC used to call double ham and eggs: We’ve offered them ham and eggs repeatedly. They don’t want it. So how can the solution possibly be double ham and eggs?’
Suggesting fundraising opportunities: ‘West Oxfordshire Conservative Association is, in effect, going into the event-management business. The association needs to offer events with “money-can’t-buy” appeal. (Such as) the PMQ DIY Lunch: Bring your own sandwiches to watch PMQs [Prime Minister’s Questions] in a different fine country house in the constituency every week; glass of wine, cup of coffee, informal discussion, yours for a fiver.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008856/Christopher-Shale-death-David-Camerons-Tory-Party-friend-dead-Glastonbury.html#ixzz1QWKvCsEu

Monty Burnz

steelcityblues wrote: »

There should be.

Would you accept the autopsy findings if they state he was a 56 year-old man who simply died of a heart attack? Or would you just enlarge the conspiracy from David Cameron + MI5 or whatever you need right now to include the doctors and/or the coroner?

steelcityblues

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Would you accept the autopsy findings if they state he was a 56 year-old man who simply died of a heart attack? Or would you just enlarge the conspiracy from David Cameron + MI5 or whatever you need right now to include the doctors and/or the coroner?

I can't remember a full autopsy report ever being leaked to the public, so who can say for definite.

Honest question: do you ever believe governments, even 'democratic' ones, are capable of covering up someone's death?

Many would argue it happened in the six counties and Dublin/Monaghan on this island, for example.

Monty Burnz

steelcityblues wrote: »

Honest question: do you ever believe governments, even 'democratic' ones, are capable of covering up someone's death?

You mean covering up someone's murder, at their own hand? I'm sure it's possible, but I imagine it's exceedingly rare. If you read a bit about the success of the Soviet spy machine versus that of the West during the Cold War, you'll gain some insights into why.

steelcityblues

Hmmm.... Cold War. After you posted the last comment, I found this. From a mainstream source too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/03/germany.topstories3


Photographs of victims of a secret torture programme operated by British authorities during the early days of the cold war are published for the first time today after being concealed for almost 60 years.
The pictures show men who had suffered months of starvation, sleep deprivation, beatings and extreme cold at one of a number of interrogation centres run by the War Office in postwar Germany.

Given that was roughly 60 years ago, what would make you sure the authorities are more trustworthy and above board today?

Monty Burnz

steelcityblues wrote: »

Given that was roughly 60 years ago, what would make you sure the authorities are more trustworthy and above board today?

Apparently believing that war with the Soviet Union was inevitable, the War Office was seeking information about Russian military and intelligence methods. Dozens of women were also detained and tortured, as were a number of genuine Soviet agents, scores of suspected Nazis, and former members of the SS.

You are comparing the mistreatment and torture of Nazis and Russian spies in 1946 with the deliberate murder of members of staff of the Tory party today?

hooradiation

steelcityblues wrote: »

You also have to consider the fact that the general public would not like to be told that they are being represented by liars in government - even if you or I would not be so shocked to hear this.

No, I do not have to consider that at all.
This is a report on the public perception of the Tories. This isn't revealing any great secret, it's telling the Tory leadership what people think of them.
So, in that regard, I doubt the general public would be very surprised to hear that they don't think highly of the Tories.

steelcityblues wrote: »

Mr. Shale - judging by the report - certainly sounded like someone fed up with the nature of his political party today. Whether he was intending to quit and speak more,cannot be ruled out either.

Fed up or crushingly honest?

And while you're correct nobody can know what he planned to do next, this is insufficient grounds for a murder theory, given that the information he presented is widely available and known seeing as it's public opinion.
People aren't going to suddenly stop thinking that the tories are "graceless, voracious, crass, always on the take" simply because Mr Shale is dead.

CiaranMT

Some people really do live in different worlds.

@steelcityblues, you may think I'm naive to believe that there was no foul play in Shale's death. You're entitled to that view.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are quite willing to accept the rather unfortunate coincidence which occurred around the same time of the poor man's death.

You can't seriously think that an internal party policy thinker was bumped off for writing a report on what was wrong with said party, and identifying areas to improve upon. The fact that you think there would be PR 'spin' put on a (normally) private document like this just betrays a basic lack of understanding.

Ditto the rather obtuse references to Soviet-US Cold War era tensions.

You're making the whole thing out to be far bigger than it is.

markesmith

I've always found the Milligan case in '94 to be very puzzling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Milligan

Monty Burnz

markesmith wrote: »

I've always found the Milligan case in '94 to be very puzzling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Milligan

What about Michael Hutchence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hutchence

markesmith

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What about Michael Hutchence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hutchence

Was he another Tory?