Giving absolute proof that somebody isn't guilty of something is expensive and often pointless.

which is why i didnt use the word "absolute". and also why i offer the alternative of offering proof that proof is unobtainable.

again, doesnt have to be perfect, just good enough. BUT in cases where heads of state are in doubt, the line for "good enough" HAS to be high, lets be clear about that.

and just in case this needs to be said as well, if proof positive of corruption or similar cant be obtained, obviously nothing is to happen.

Yes, it's reducto ad absurdum not false equivalence though

you directly equated corruption (or the possibility thereof) with being a drug trafficker. its also a false equivalency (with the objective of making something seem absurd).

and just so were clear, "reductio ad absurdum" is a logical fallacy. at the very least in this particular case.

If you'd prefer, why don't they investigate every politicians for every possible corruption crime, that way we can be sure right?

again with the logical fallacy. i already told you: because there is reasonable doubt with cameron, due to connections established in the panama papers. why is this concept so difficult to grasp?

I addressed that point later, that the chances are they concluded there was no point carrying out an investigation that they didn't think would provide any actionable results because they have better things to do than provide absolute proof of no wrongdoing about a person they already expected wasn't doing anything wrong.

yeah, now youre just being an arse. an arrogant one, as well. theres reasonable suspicion here. this isnt something thats just supposed to be brushed off.