Cameron should fall on his sword

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

......
Cameron absolutely knew about Coulson before he hired him.

Oh yes the old faithful we was prevented from telling what we knew line



There is absolutely no evidence that Cameron knew Coulson had been involved in illegal activity before he hired him.

Even the police with their investigative powers ( powers Cameron did not and does not have) are not able at this stage to say Coulson has committed any crime - hence the fact he has not been able to be charged with any offence.

Yet apprently miraculously Cameron somehow knew this years ago

Jackanory













It may have been a foolish decision to employ coulson.

It is not the case that Cameron has done anything wrong or did anything wrong in employing Coulson.

rick_chasey

*facepalm*

spen666

AidanR wrote:

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.

He was forced to resign over soomething he may have done in the past.

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

There is absolutely no evidence that Cameron knew Coulson had been involved in illegal activity before he hired him.

I just gave you two pieces of evidence.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

The 'it's only a few celebs' angle is a bit misleading (it's also partly why the thing wasn't investigated properly the first time round IMO) - it seems like it was pretty much routine procedure for any story, so a lot more than just one case where they 'overstepped the mark'. Plus, if it's wrong to hack Milly Dowler's voicemail, or a 7/7 victim, then it's wrong to hack Hugh Grant's phone too. McMullan tried to make the argument that celebrities 'deserved' it and it was all part of the game, and it's a pretty thin argument when you say it out loud.

As for the question: is this really important news? No, not compared with the east African drought, or sovereign debt, but it's still pretty significant that a media group that liked to think that it had a big say in how the country was run for the last 30 years has lost it's biggest selling paper, a buyout of BSkyB and several senior figures in a couple of weeks.

AidanR

spen666 wrote:

AidanR wrote:

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.

He was forced to resign over soomething he may have done in the past.

No, he was forced to resign from the News of the World after two of his staff were jailed for phone hacking. If you honestly think David Cameron simply hired him because he had a good CV then you either view Cameron through rose-tinted glasses, or are just very naive.

bails87

Just read elsewhere:

It's only a really big story that's going to distract everyone from Cameron's troubles now. I'd bet he's round at Mrs Thatcher's house even now, putting rollerskates on the staircase and a toaster next to the bath

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

There is absolutely no evidence that Cameron knew Coulson had been involved in illegal activity before he hired him.

I just gave you two pieces of evidence.

Evidence or hearsay?

i repeat that at the time of Coulson being appointed and up until after he resigned there was no EVIDENCE.

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

There is absolutely no evidence that Cameron knew Coulson had been involved in illegal activity before he hired him.

I just gave you two pieces of evidence.

Evidence or hearsay?

i repeat that at the time of Coulson being appointed and up until after he resigned there was no EVIDENCE.

*sighs*

There was - it wasn't investigated by the police, which is what one of the inquiries is about.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

There is absolutely no evidence that Cameron knew Coulson had been involved in illegal activity before he hired him.

I just gave you two pieces of evidence.

So what if Coulson was "linked" to someone who was acquitted of a murder?

There is no offence in being linked (whatever that means) to an innoccent person.



If that is what you call evidence, then you have adifferent version to most normal people

Also we only have Rusbridger's word he said this. Now when you add into the equation that he edits/ edited a left wing newspaper, it is not surprising he is trying to bring down a tory politician.

MonkeyMonster

I'm slightly bamboozled by you guys questioning Mr Lawyer about a legal situation...

In more important news - it's raining

I also have a banana

AidanR

This isn't law. It's politics. Whether it was evidence or hearsay is, up to a point, moot. He was told multiple times not to touch the guy. Yet he still hired him... why? As I said before, he must have had a Very Good Reason, and that reason is likely not in the public interest.

spen666

MonkeyMonster wrote:

I'm slightly bamboozled by you guys questioning Mr Lawyer about a legal situation...

In more important news - it's raining

I also have a banana

Was just about to say this will have to wait as I'm offto ride my bike in the rain

bails87

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

There is absolutely no evidence that Cameron knew Coulson had been involved in illegal activity before he hired him.

I just gave you two pieces of evidence.

So what if Coulson was "linked" to someone who was acquitted of a murder?

There is no offence in being linked (whatever that means) to an innoccent person.



If that is what you call evidence, then you have adifferent version to most normal people

Also we only have Rusbridger's word he said this. Now when you add into the equation that he edits/ edited a left wing newspaper, it is not surprising he is trying to bring down a tory politician.

Ah, it was all the evil leftists wot dunnit.

Paddy Ashdown also claims he warned him. I've heard no denial from Cameron, maybe it hasn't been 'put out', but if the marxists at the Guardian said they'd warned him when they hadn't really, don't you think Cameron would have denied it?*


I'm aware this will be called 'hearsay' but frankly, this is a cycling forum, not a courtroom, so I don't give a stuff.

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

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!

The Police have been massively pissed off at the cuts. Massively. And here are some of the Met's finest doing things that put pressure on Cameron. Who'd have thunk?

I wonder, do these Met lads have a handful of non-exec private sector directorships lined up? And perhaps some consulting roles? On top of a Met pension? I wonder.

Recruiting Coulson was very likely a stupid thing to do in hindsight (possibly at the time too; I don't know). But this is politics. Find the spot soft and exploit it ruthlessly.

sketchley

Call me a cynic if you wish, but there's nothing like a good old fashioned witch hunt to distract the public from the real issues at hand. Such as the national debt, public service cuts and the euro crisis, all of which are ever so slightly more important than Millie Dolwer's phone messages getting hacked.

bails87

Sketchley
I think it's more the underlying culture that's been ever so slightly exposed that's the worrying thing. The messy entanglement between press, police and politicians. If a morrally corrupt press is being allowed to break the law by a corrupt police force, and is then deciding where, and how deeply, (to take an example from your post) the cuts will fall because the government is too scared to do something 'unpopular', then we have a situation where a free press reduces the freedom of our democracy.



In my opinion....

AidanR

Those are all vitally important things, and I agree that this is a bit of a media frenzy. You can feel the orgasmic shudder from the Guardian at each new revelation. But that needn't mean it's a witch hunt. If handled properly it could make a genuine difference to corruption in the media, government and police - corruption most didn't know existed until recently. I'm possibly being rather optimistic, but there's a better chance of that happening now than a few weeks ago...

Edit: or what Bails87 said!

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

As for the question: is this really important news? No, not compared with the east African drought, or sovereign debt, but it's still pretty significant that a media group that liked to think that it had a big say in how the country was run for the last 30 years has lost it's biggest selling paper, a buyout of BSkyB and several senior figures in a couple of weeks.

+1

notsoblue

bails87 wrote:

Sketchley
I think it's more the underlying culture that's been ever so slightly exposed that's the worrying thing. The messy entanglement between press, police and politicians. If a morrally corrupt press is being allowed to break the law by a corrupt police force, and is then deciding where, and how deeply, (to take an example from your post) the cuts will fall because the government is too scared to do something 'unpopular', then we have a situation where a free press reduces the freedom of our democracy.

In my opinion....

I totally agree with this. At first glance this may not look like an important issue at all, but when you consider the fact that the people who run this country only managed to get into that position by fostering an inappropriate relationship with someone like Rupert Murdoch then the true gravity of the issue becomes clear. Its pretty astonishing how many people will come out of this covered in sh1t.

dilemna

Cameron should fall on his sword like Stephenson and Yates fell on their truncheons or batons . But of course Dave won't.

mybreakfastconsisted

We know for example that Cameron had 26 meetings with News International executives in his first year in office - contrast that with the couple of meetings with The Guardian or the nine meetings with The Telegraph.

We know also that Guto Harri was lined-up for the job but Brooks intervened and Cameron then offered the role to Coulson.

We know that Cameron's office had repeatedly been warned about Coulson from multiple sources - yet Cameron went ahead with employing Coulson "My decision. My decision alone."

We also know that subsequent to the arrival of Murdoh's ex-exployee that there were a number of significant changes to the Conservative party's media policy.

We are all aware that Cameron for instance openly and specifically trashed Ofcom after - singling them out for rubbishing - after Coulson arrived.

We are also aware that at the same time James Murdoch was rubbishing the BBC at the Edinburgh that Cameron was drawing-up plans to cut BBC funding.

We now know that there was every intention for the BSkyB takeover to be nodded-through and but for this scandal (and the fit and proper test being applied) that Murdoch would in a few short weeks have full control of BSkyB.

We also know from Stephenson's resignation that he was unable to give Cameron specific operational information because of his relationship with Coulson.

Stephenson knows that Coulson is no longer in government - what he was saying adds up to a position in which he cannot trust the PM on this issue.

Cameron far from being a steadfast friend brought into the heart of government people with an extremely dubious background, was parroting the Murdoch agenda, and was compromised by his friendships with these people to such an extent that The Head of The Met judged it prudent not to give him information which would have readily been passed to any other prime minister.

What we still don't know was what was the degree of reciprocity.

How can you be sure that Cameron has not profitted from information which may have been obtained illegally?

Grauniad live link.

notsoblue

dilemna wrote:

Cameron should fall on his sword like Stephenson and Yates fell on their truncheons or batons . But of course Dave won't.

Well to be fair to Cameron, theres no reason why he should "fall on his sword". As far as I know he hasn't done anything illegal. He's just associated himself with some pretty odious people. That these people are now under investigation is just (very) bad PR. And it gives the opposition an edge to attack him.

mybreakfastconsisted

Milliband is deliberately going easy on Cameron because he knows Tory knives are out for him.

notsoblue

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

We know for example that Cameron had 26 meetings with News International executives in his first year in office - contrast that with the couple of meetings with The Guardian or the nine meetings with The Telegraph.

Out of interest though, do we know how many times Blair met with NI? I'm not sure I see a reason to single out Cameron on this issue if courting NI was simply the done thing.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Cameron should fall on his sword like Stephenson and Yates fell on their truncheons or batons . But of course Dave won't.

Well to be fair to Cameron, theres no reason why he should "fall on his sword". As far as I know he hasn't done anything illegal. He's just associated himself with some pretty odious people. That these people are now under investigation is just (very) bad PR. And it gives the opposition an edge to attack him.

It came about because of the thinly veiled accusation by the policeman who resigned, who basically said "If I have to resign because I hired a shady person, so should Cameron"

mybreakfastconsisted

notsoblue wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

We know for example that Cameron had 26 meetings with News International executives in his first year in office - contrast that with the couple of meetings with The Guardian or the nine meetings with The Telegraph.

Out of interest though, do we know how many times Blair met with NI? I'm not sure I see a reason to single out Cameron on this issue if courting NI was simply the done thing.

I think perhaps the difference is Blair didn't employ someone with close links to, and who had employed, a man suspected of killing his partner by sticking an axe in his head.

Cameron did.

daviesee

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Milliband is deliberately going easy on Cameron because he knows Tory knives are out for him.

Or it could be because Labour sucked up to Murdoch just as much.

I don't support Cameron, I despise all politicians equally.

mybreakfastconsisted

10.39am: A Labour MP has written to Sir Gus O'Donnell asking for an investigation into the allegation that David Cameron broke the ministerial code, the Daily Telegraph reports. John Mann has suggested that, in having dinner with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks on 23 December last year (when the government was still considering News Corporation's bid for BSkyB), Cameron broke the section of the code saying that "ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests".

Number 10 has an independent adviser on ministerial interests who can investigate complaints of this kind. But, as the Telegraph points it, it is the prime minister himself who decides if a complaint merits investigation. Cameron will have to rule on himself.


I think we can predict what he will say.

The Rookie

All irrelevant as the ministers have no say in Offcoms decision on the BskyB takeover, so where was the conflict? To throw mud, you need to find a sensible target first!

Simon