Doing the rounds on Twitter at the moment is the idea that UK Prime Minister David Cameron did something unspeakable to a dead pigs head when he was in University.

Twitter being Twitter, the actual details of the events are sparse and unreliable. I have seen some people indicating that the source of this claim comes from Lord Ashcroft, but I can't find anything concrete.

Did David Cameron really 'insert his private parts' into a dead pigs head?

  • Please do not use the comments to attempt answers. This question is closed for a reason.
    – Sklivvz
    Sep 21, 2015 at 12:50
  • Wasn't intended as an answer, it was explaining the original source of the claim - dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3242550/… Sep 21, 2015 at 12:57
  • @Sklivvz are you sure they were trying to attempt answers, as oppose to establish notability?
    – Golden Cuy
    Sep 21, 2015 at 12:57
  • There's no doubt that the claim is notable, so I am not sure what they mean to achieve. If. They offer a clarification, they should be edited in the question itself.
    – Sklivvz
    Sep 21, 2015 at 13:22
  • 1
    It reminds me a lot of the first episode of the TV series Black Mirror: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Anthem_%28Black_Mirror%29 where the british Prime Minister has to have sex with a pig on air, because of a blackmail.
    – Einenlum
    Sep 21, 2015 at 18:00

1 Answer 1


Probably not.

This story "hit the papers" shortly before October 2015 when the book Call Me Dave, a biography of the then-prime minister David Cameron was released. The book was written by Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Okeshott.

The book alleges that as a student at Oxford University, Cameron took part in some kind of initiation ritual which involved putting "a private part of his anatomy" into the mouth of a dead pig.

The story was told to them by an unnamed MP who claimed to have seen photographic evidence of the event.

Speaking on Channel 4 news (shortly after some excerpts of the book were published to the Daily Mail), Oakeshott said: "We couldn’t get to the bottom of that source’s allegations ... So we merely reported the account that the source gave us … We don’t say whether we believe it to be true". See this video.

In short, no supporting evidence has been produced. It is anecdotal to say, but it was likely a ploy to get publicity for the book.

  • This seems to justify "quite possibly not" rather than "probably not". Jan 18, 2017 at 15:55
  • I disagree, had the MP who had "seen" the photograph, been named (even if they hadn't corroborated the story), then possibly, but as it stands the authors provide only a third-hand account and evidence whatsoever.
    – Prinsig
    Jan 18, 2017 at 16:08
  • Hmm, I dunno. Of inflammatory defamatory claims made in books but not backed up with any evidence, what fraction are true? Or inflammatory defamatory claims made in books but not backed up with any evidence and not followed by a libel action, what fraction are true? Jan 18, 2017 at 16:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .