Cameron should fall on his sword

DonDaddyD

If one of the top Rozzers had to fall on his sword due to criticism of recruiting Neil Wallis and the guy that hired him, Met Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates, has also met with his gladius. Then isn't it a matter of time until Cameron partakes in this honorable Roman tradition for employing Andy Coulson?

Cameron won't! And it's clear that he is trying to distance himself from all of this as much as possible. So that leaves the obvious...

How long do you think it will be before Red Ed targets Cameron and calls for him to follow the Rozzers and fall on his sword?

It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks!

asprilla

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 107184085/

spen666

Why should Cameron resign? He has not done anything wrong.


Think you will find Stephenson resigned not for hiring Wallis, but because his position became untenable after taking a 5 week luxuary break at Champneys as a freebie.

Irrespective of who is emoployed or owns Champneys, the police have to be seen to be free of bribes and bungs and what else could a 5 week freebie be considered as other than a bribe or bung


[edit] Was it 3 weeks instead of 5?[/edit]

EKE_38BPM

I think when there is a major scandal like this, the people involved should really fall on their sword (or commit harikiri). Just quitting (to work on the after dinner speech circuit) doesn't cut it for me.

But then, that takes a sense of honour and how many politicians have that?

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

Why should Cameron resign? He has not done anything wrong.


Think you will find Stephenson resigned not for hiring Wallis, but because his position became untenable after taking a 5 week luxuary break at Champneys as a freebie.

Irrespective of who is emoployed or owns Champneys, the police have to be seen to be free of bribes and bungs and what else could a 5 week freebie be considered as other than a bribe or bung

A get well soon present to a mate?

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Why should Cameron resign? He has not done anything wrong.


Think you will find Stephenson resigned not for hiring Wallis, but because his position became untenable after taking a 5 week luxuary break at Champneys as a freebie.

Irrespective of who is emoployed or owns Champneys, the police have to be seen to be free of bribes and bungs and what else could a 5 week freebie be considered as other than a bribe or bung


[edit] Was it 3 weeks instead of 5?[/edit]

Every day it appears Cameron knew/knows more about the scandal both about the people he hires and decides to let into #10 and the police, whether that's corruption or illegally influencing the police.

If it continues like this, Cameron as prime minister will become untenable, and he will have to be replaced by another Tory.

It could very well not continue like this, in which case, he's fine. Odds have him 20/1 to resign, so he'll probably be OK.

MonkeyMonster

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Why should Cameron resign? He has not done anything wrong.


Think you will find Stephenson resigned not for hiring Wallis, but because his position became untenable after taking a 5 week luxuary break at Champneys as a freebie.

Irrespective of who is emoployed or owns Champneys, the police have to be seen to be free of bribes and bungs and what else could a 5 week freebie be considered as other than a bribe or bung

A get well soon present to a mate?

That's the point. Even if that were so and there wasn't anything wrong what so ever it still looks like one in this current atmosphere. Had the current scandal not broken it'd likely never get mentioned ever. It's all by association. I'd like to see a question put to Rebekah along the lines of: So were you so shit you a) didn't know what your high level managers were authorising plus b) so careless to let them do this off their own bat or did you really not know about any of it?

The Rookie

So we call on those where something happens 'on their watch' to resign, anything Andy Collusion did wrong was BEFORE he worked for Cameron, on that basis why should he go?

There may be many reasons for him to go, this is not one of them!

On a related subject, did anyone else listen to the sub commitee grilling John Yates - outrageous, did any of them actually listen to a word he said? They should hang their heads in shame.

Simon

DonDaddyD

DonDaddyD wrote:

How long do you think it will be before Red Ed targets Cameron and calls for him to follow the Rozzers and fall on his sword?

It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks!

It begins:

The rage of Red Ed

rick_chasey

The Beginner wrote:

So we call on those where something happens 'on their watch' to resign, anything Andy Collusion did wrong was BEFORE he worked for Cameron, on that basis why should he go?

But what Coulson did before was illegal, probably, and Cameron was made aware of it.

Thus, you have to question Cameron's judgement, especially given the capacity in which Coulson was employed.

bearfraser

i feel a major TROLL coming on ??????

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

....Every day it appears Cameron knew/knows more about the scandal both about the people he hires and decides to let into #10 and the police, whether that's corruption or illegally influencing the police.

If it continues like this, Cameron as prime minister will become untenable, and he will have to be replaced by another Tory.

It could very well not continue like this, in which case, he's fine. Odds have him 20/1 to resign, so he'll probably be OK.

Really? Lets look at a few facts:

1. Cameron did not hire Yates, nor Hayman, Nor Stephenson - so you can't be referring to any of these people

2. Rebecca Brooks - not hired by Cameron and apart from being a contact, there is NO EVIDENCE of any wrong doing in the relationship between the two. NI is a major player in the media and all political parties have tried to court them. Indeed it seems the most recent political leader to meet Murdoch was Ed Milliband - should he therefore resign

3. Andy Coulson - he did nothing wrong whilst employed by Cameron. Are we saying that someone who may or may not have done something wrong should never be allowed to be employed again. If you are castigating Cameron for employing Coulson, that is effectively what you are saying. At the time Camerion employed Coulson it was not thought by anyone publically that he was involved in the 2006 case. He had not even been arrested or interviewed as a suspect in that inquiry.

There is nothing that has come out that suggests Cameron weas more involved or knew more than 3 months ago or longer.


But hey, in your need to get a lynch mob up, don't let facts worry you

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Thus, you have to question Cameron's judgement, especially given the capacity in which Coulson was employed.

Resigning issue or not - he has rotten taste in friends........

The Rookie

Rick Chasey wrote:

But what Coulson did before was illegal, probably, and Cameron was made aware of it.

You have proof of that? When he was hired in 2006 their was never any suggestion of his involvement in anything illegal, by the time there was any overt suggestion he was he had gone, poor judgment maybe, but not something to resign over.

Simon

bigmat

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

....Every day it appears Cameron knew/knows more about the scandal both about the people he hires and decides to let into #10 and the police, whether that's corruption or illegally influencing the police.

If it continues like this, Cameron as prime minister will become untenable, and he will have to be replaced by another Tory.

It could very well not continue like this, in which case, he's fine. Odds have him 20/1 to resign, so he'll probably be OK.

Really? Lets look at a few facts:

1. Cameron did not hire Yates, nor Hayman, Nor Stephenson - so you can't be referring to any of these people

2. Rebecca Brooks - not hired by Cameron and apart from being a contact, there is NO EVIDENCE of any wrong doing in the relationship between the two. NI is a major player in the media and all political parties have tried to court them. Indeed it seems the most recent political leader to meet Murdoch was Ed Milliband - should he therefore resign

3. Andy Coulson - he did nothing wrong whilst employed by Cameron. Are we saying that someone who may or may not have done something wrong should never be allowed to be employed again. If you are castigating Cameron for employing Coulson, that is effectively what you are saying. At the time Camerion employed Coulson it was not thought by anyone publically that he was involved in the 2006 case. He had not even been arrested or interviewed as a suspect in that inquiry.

There is nothing that has come out that suggests Cameron weas more involved or knew more than 3 months ago or longer.


But hey, in your need to get a lynch mob up, don't let facts worry you

This, I feel, is being a little generous. It was bad judgment by Cameron, first employing him and then not getting rid at the first sign of trouble. He'll only have himself to blame if things get worse from here on in. In which case, roll on Prime Minister Boris :shock: :roll:

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Really? Lets look at a few facts:

1. Cameron did not hire Yates, nor Hayman, Nor Stephenson - so you can't be referring to any of these people

No. I'm not.

spen666 wrote:

2. Rebecca Brooks - not hired by Cameron and apart from being a contact, there is NO EVIDENCE of any wrong doing in the relationship between the two. NI is a major player in the media and all political parties have tried to court them. Indeed it seems the most recent political leader to meet Murdoch was Ed Milliband - should he therefore resign

I never said there was.

spen666 wrote:

3. Andy Coulson - he did nothing wrong whilst employed by Cameron. Are we saying that someone who may or may not have done something wrong should never be allowed to be employed again. If you are castigating Cameron for employing Coulson, that is effectively what you are saying. At the time Camerion employed Coulson it was not thought by anyone publically that he was involved in the 2006 case. He had not even been arrested or interviewed as a suspect in that inquiry.

It's absolutely true that Cameron was informed by many people about Coulson and his background (to do with phone tapping) before Coulson was employed. Given the capacity in which Coulson was employed, i.e. media relations etc, it's relevant, especially given what appears to be a close bribery relationship between NOTW when Coulson was editor and the police. Given the likely proximity of Coulson to said bribery, or at the very least, illegal phone tapping, (of which Cameron was made known) it should have been a political no brainer to not take Coulson into #10.

spen666 wrote:

There is nothing that has come out that suggests Cameron weas more involved or knew more than 3 months ago or longer.

Stuff has, just not in the papers you read! The Guardian (who has done the majority of the investigating to break the case so far) been going on about this for over a year.


[/quote]

fidbod

Was hiring Coulson a bad decision - probably not too bad. If you are going to have an ex-tabloid journo managing your communications office you may as well have a good (ethically bad) one. Blair applied the same principle in employing Campbell. And I am sure milliband applied the same principle with Tom Baldwin

I am sure that if you apply a 'whiter than white' principle pretty much all tabloid journos are going to come out looking more than a bit grubby.

so in short - should Cameron fall on his sword, no. not unless Milliband is going to as well.

tailwindhome

Any attacks on Cameron from either Ed or Nick will be faux punches only.

They're more interested in attacking the newspapers than each other. Can't think why.


Am I the only one who doesn't really give a sh!t about this 'scandal'. I really don't care if the NOTW hack into celebs voicemails to get stories. Really couldn't care less. Especially when I see the likes of Hugh Grant complaining.

Fair enough the hacking into Milly Dowler's phone crossed a line of 'taste and decency' but did anyone really expect the tabloid press to display taste or decency. It probably was a criminal offence, perverting the course of justice or something but not really worth filling every fucking news broadcast for 2 solid weeks.

Breath.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

So we call on those where something happens 'on their watch' to resign, anything Andy Collusion did wrong was BEFORE he worked for Cameron, on that basis why should he go?

But what Coulson did before was illegal, probably, and Cameron was made aware of it.

Thus, you have to question Cameron's judgement, especially given the capacity in which Coulson was employed.

You do except - there was no evidence what Coulson did was illegal (at the time Cameron appointed him) and there certainly was no evidence Cameron was aware of any illegal activity

But as i've said before, never let facts and truth get in the way of a lynch mob

will3

TailWindHome wrote:

Am I the only one who doesn't really give a sh!t about this 'scandal'. I really don't care if the NOTW hack into celebs voicemails to get stories. Really couldn't care less. Especially when I see the likes of Hugh Grant complaining.

Fair enough the hacking into Milly Dowler's phone crossed a line of 'taste and decency' but did anyone really expect the tabloid press to display taste or decency. It probably was a criminal offence, perverting the course of justice or something but not really worth filling every ******* news broadcast for 2 solid weeks.

Breath.

No, you're not alone. It appears to be a press story about the press, which is probably why the press seem to be most interested in it.
"Hacks caught hacking" shock horror.

Meanwhile there's a famine in Africa, a looming sovereign debt crisis, etc etc.

dilemna

Apparently when it was revealed Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked, Cameron was partying with Rebekah and James and plod et al . Which gives them all time to hatch an exit strategy.

As events unfold Rebekah looks more and more like a Lady MacBeth figure and Murdoch senior Mr Burns.

Cameron could be Mr Smithers?

PC Paul Stevens could be Chief Wiggam?

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

....
It's absolutely true that Cameron was informed by many people about Coulson and his background (to do with phone tapping) before Coulson was employed. ...

Really and your proof of this?

You are making allegations that are not backed up by anyone with any evidence.

You like others are mud throwing

spen666 wrote:

There is nothing that has come out that suggests Cameron weas more involved or knew more than 3 months ago or longer.

Stuff has, just not in the papers you read! The Guardian (who has done the majority of the investigating to break the case so far) been going on about this for over a year.

[/quote]

And here is a great example of you spouting more bollocks. I do read the Grauniad as well as most other papers . It is actually part of my job

There is no evidence ( plenty of slander and bluster though) that Cameron knew of Coulson's involvement in any criminal activity- indeed we do not even know if coulson was involved

AidanR

I'm sorry, but Cameron's insistence that he was giving Coulson a "second chance" is weak and just won't wash. I'm not suggesting that you never give people second chances in life, but Cameron's the PM - he has to have a bloody good reason to take on such a potentially politically-explosive adviser. I don't believe he did it out of the goodness of his heart. Instead, it speaks of the closeness of the upper echelons of the media and government. I can't know the exact reasons behind Cameron's decision, but I will speculate that favours, back-scratching and a more direct line into News International were involved. This may not be the most obvious form of corruption, but the most dangerous types often aren't. I don't think Cameron will resign over it - the game is more to blame than the player - but I do hope it leads to some serious changes, and some safeguards to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

bigmat

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

So we call on those where something happens 'on their watch' to resign, anything Andy Collusion did wrong was BEFORE he worked for Cameron, on that basis why should he go?

But what Coulson did before was illegal, probably, and Cameron was made aware of it.

Thus, you have to question Cameron's judgement, especially given the capacity in which Coulson was employed.

You do except - there was no evidence what Coulson did was illegal (at the time Cameron appointed him) and there certainly was no evidence Cameron was aware of any illegal activity

But as i've said before, never let facts and truth get in the way of a lynch mob

Hey, there's no lynch mob here! It was bad judgment, people have been noting this for months now, its always looked like something that might come back and bite him and now that might be happening. He'll probably get away with it, but really, really bad judgment. I mean, its pretty ruddy obvious that a control freak editor would have an idea idea what the source of his headline stories were. Its similarly implausible that Cameron / his advisers had no inkling that Coulson might have had that knowledge, in spite of his (public) denials.

spen666

AidanR wrote:

I'm sorry, but Cameron's insistence that he was giving Coulson a "second chance" is weak and just won't wash. I'm not suggesting that you never give people second chances in life, but Cameron's the PM - he has to have a bloody good reason to take on such a potentially politically-explosive adviser. ....

He did, Coulson was good at his job

dilemna

Cleggers for PM!!!!!

......... or Vince Cable.

AidanR

spen666 wrote:

AidanR wrote:

I'm sorry, but Cameron's insistence that he was giving Coulson a "second chance" is weak and just won't wash. I'm not suggesting that you never give people second chances in life, but Cameron's the PM - he has to have a bloody good reason to take on such a potentially politically-explosive adviser. ....

He did, Coulson was good at his job

So good he was forced to resign from it.

ketsbaia

fidbod wrote:

so in short - should Cameron fall on his sword, no. not unless Milliband is going to as well.

I'd take that, tbh.

fidbod

will3 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Am I the only one who doesn't really give a sh!t about this 'scandal'.

Breath.

No, you're not alone. It appears to be a press story about the press,

Meanwhile there's a famine in Africa, a looming sovereign debt crisis, etc etc.

Yep and that is all kicking off big style today. The Euro financial crisis is moving glacially but sooner or later it is going to go off with a serious bang. Italy is having all sorts of problems today :twisted:

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

So we call on those where something happens 'on their watch' to resign, anything Andy Collusion did wrong was BEFORE he worked for Cameron, on that basis why should he go?

But what Coulson did before was illegal, probably, and Cameron was made aware of it.

Thus, you have to question Cameron's judgement, especially given the capacity in which Coulson was employed.

You do except - there was no evidence what Coulson did was illegal (at the time Cameron appointed him) and there certainly was no evidence Cameron was aware of any illegal activity

But as i've said before, never let facts and truth get in the way of a lynch mob

But there was. Plenty of people knew - but they were not allowed to publish it. They let Cameron know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/ju ... dy-ashdown
To take an example.

Another example, on Newsnight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 533577.stm

Cameron absolutely knew about Coulson before he hired him.

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

Any attacks on Cameron from either Ed or Nick will be faux punches only.

They're more interested in attacking the newspapers than each other. Can't think why.


Am I the only one who doesn't really give a sh!t about this 'scandal'. I really don't care if the NOTW hack into celebs voicemails to get stories. Really couldn't care less. Especially when I see the likes of Hugh Grant complaining.

Fair enough the hacking into Milly Dowler's phone crossed a line of 'taste and decency' but did anyone really expect the tabloid press to display taste or decency. It probably was a criminal offence, perverting the course of justice or something but not really worth filling every ******* news broadcast for 2 solid weeks.

Breath.

The issue is the police corruption. Not only was the NOTW hacking people, bad enough, but they were bribing the police to get away with it. Furthermore, a former aid to Cameron (who resigned as part of the same scandal) was editor during the time this hacking and bribery (probably) occurred, and Cameron was told about it before he hired Coulson.

It's big political news.