Cameron should fall on his sword

sketchley

Clearly Rupert knows nothing...... At least that is the way he is coming across.

MonkeyMonster

Sketchley wrote:

Clearly Rupert knows nothing...... At least that is the way he is coming across.

He's a very old man who is likely far less guilty of wrong doings than James.

mybreakfastconsisted

TailWindHome wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

jedster wrote:

I think this stuff is really serious. Using blackmail and intimidation to stop our elected representatives doing their job is corruption and abuse of power on a grand scale.

It is interesting that people seem so easily persuaded that this affair (which again I believe to be massively over hyped) rests with Murdoch.

Surely the more important issue is how politicians of all shades over the last 3 decades are so quick to sell out to gain public support via the support of The Sun. Now we really know wot won it.

Seems to mean that the public are being duped.

It is impossible to blackmail an honest man.

Do you think it's a trifling matter that NI interfered with at least two murder investigations?

Which two and how?

Without the cut and paste frenzy if you don't mind.

Read a newspaper. Not The Sun.

mybreakfastconsisted

"Why did you enter Number Ten by the back door?"

Is that a euphemism?

spen666

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The Guardian by its persistence has brought this matter to the stage it is in now and deserves credit for that.

I'd love to know why they have persisted with this story. and how they got their information. They have clearly spent a lot of time and money on this story. Did they have access to inside information from NI/ Police/Civil Servants/ Tories.

What is the Guardian's motive for running this story? Exposing the truth/ bringing down the government/ trashing the police/ destroying NI

These last 2 paragraphs do not detract from the fact it was due to the Guardian the story is where it is now and should not be treated as an attempt to deflect from the praise it deserves

Its astonishing that you're questioning the Guardian's motive for running with this story (your disclaimer is a poor figleaf). Surely its self-evident? Its not about bringing down the government or an attack on the police, or even destroying NI. Illegal activity went on that threatened the very essence of democracy in this country.

Anyhoo, apologies for the trolling, I couldn't help it.

Does anyone think that things will be different after all this has run its course? Will it change politics for the better? Or will there just be different players fulfilling the same roles with more insulation?

You sound like Andy Hayman - hoew dare someone ask a question of him or dare to question the Guardian's motives and sources.

I mean we are all looking at the NI motives, actions and sources but we are not allowed to ask the same of the accuser

Orwellian double standards

tailwindhome

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

jedster wrote:

I think this stuff is really serious. Using blackmail and intimidation to stop our elected representatives doing their job is corruption and abuse of power on a grand scale.

It is interesting that people seem so easily persuaded that this affair (which again I believe to be massively over hyped) rests with Murdoch.

Surely the more important issue is how politicians of all shades over the last 3 decades are so quick to sell out to gain public support via the support of The Sun. Now we really know wot won it.

Seems to mean that the public are being duped.

It is impossible to blackmail an honest man.

Do you think it's a trifling matter that NI interfered with at least two murder investigations?

Which two and how?

Without the cut and paste frenzy if you don't mind.

Read a newspaper. Not The Sun.

Sort of hoping you would tell me in your own words.

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

Guardian's motives

Sell newspapers, same as NI

Jedster wrote:

I'm reading the Guardian for the next 6 months at least

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

When you have newspaper reporters trying to intimidate politicians, blackmailing police officers and employing people suspected of murder it goes far beyond matters of freedom of the press. It's corruption.

Not aware of any allegations of
1. Intimidating politicians
2. Blackmailing police officers

by any newspaper.


Oh and it is not illegal to employ someone suspected of a crime. Remember people are innocent until proven guilty - that includes everyone

mybreakfastconsisted

Tailwind, it's Daniel Morgan and Milly Dowler, you could easily look these murder cases up, or barge into a thread and demand everyone drops everything to bring you up to speed on the biggest political scandal since the war, sheesh!

The Morgan (see axe in the head reference above) case was dropped after £50m had been spent because the police shafted the entire case from beginning to end. NI employed people to spy on the officers investigating, Hames and Crook.

The Dowler case I assume you are acquainted with?

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

You sound like Andy Hayman - hoew dare someone ask a question of him or dare to question the Guardian's motives and sources.

I mean we are all looking at the NI motives, actions and sources but we are not allowed to ask the same of the accuser

Orwellian double standards

Well, not really. I said it was astonishing that you were questioning the motives not because the Guardian is beyond reproach, but because of the nature of the investigation itself. You seem to be somehow suggesting that this whole story is a means to an end rather than the end itself.

It was a troll post though, because I know how much you like to polarise issues along ideological lines. I mean, surely its inconceivable that the Guardian would put this much effort into an investigation if it wasn't to simply upset "The Right"?

tailwindhome

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Tailwind, it's Daniel Morgan and Milly Dowler, you could easily look these murder cases up, or barge into a thread and demand everyone drops everything to bring you up to speed on the biggest political scandal since the war, sheesh!

The Morgan (see axe in the head reference above) case was dropped after £50m had been spent because the police shafted the entire case from beginning to end. NI employed people to spy on the officers investigating, Hames and Crook.

The Dowler case I assume you are acquainted with?

I wouldn't characterise either of these as inferrring with a murder case.

Possibly in the Dowler case, at a stretch, if the mobile hacking mislead the investigation or destroyed evidence. While grossly insensitive and in very poor taste it doesn't consititute 'interferring' with a murder case. Certainly not in the way you infer.

barge into a thread and demand everyone drops everything to bring you up to speed on the biggest political scandal since the war

You asked me a question, I asked you to expand, hardly 'barging in'

Biggest scandal since the war? You hardly mean WII do you?

mybreakfastconsisted

Tailwind, if journalists are deleting a murdered girl's messages on her mobile phone and giving her parents' and the police hope that she is alive, you seriously don't believe this is interfering with the investigation?

MonkeyMonster

1527:
Rupert Murdoch says each newspaper has an editorial manager who has to approve expenses claims for every reporter. Reports have "no authority" to do so on their own.

So reading into that Rebekah Brooks was authorising the payments in question...

mybreakfastconsisted

With the Morgan investigation, again, I'd suggest you read up on it. It is widely accepted that police corruption ruined the investigation and that Hames and Crook were spied upon, hacked and trailed. You don't want me to copy and paste anything so go take a look.

Google "Rees Fillery Morgan"

rick_chasey

The Guardian naturally has an agenda. It's a liberal left - anti-murdoch agenda.

However, given it's readership and its editorial policy, it doesn't really compete with Murdoch papers, since it operates in a different spectrum.

As such, it has less to lose going after News international.



The Guardian, beyond getting the scoop for the first paper to the scene, doesn't gain a huge lot in business terms from the collapse of a tabloid right-of-centre paper.

MonkeyMonster

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Guardian naturally has an agenda. It's a liberal left - anti-murdoch agenda.

However, given it's readership and its editorial policy, it doesn't really compete with Murdoch papers, since it operates in a different spectrum.

As such, it has less to lose going after News international.

The Guardian, beyond getting the scoop for the first paper to the scene, doesn't gain a huge lot in business terms from the collapse of a tabloid right-of-centre paper.

perhaps it was actualy following the normal premise that newspapers give us news worthy on importance?

daviesee

The Guardian may or may not have a motive but one of it's reporters has a bee in his bonnet.

"1546: Guardian journalist Paul Lewis tweets: Whittingdale needs to take command quick or the Murdochs will slip away unharmed "

The Rookie

MonkeyMonster wrote:

1527:
Rupert Murdoch says each newspaper has an editorial manager who has to approve expenses claims for every reporter. Reports have "no authority" to do so on their own.

So reading into that Rebekah Brooks was authorising the payments in question...

Editorial manager is not the same as Editor, it may be, but not necesarily, most papers have a number of sub editors who I would imagine (in common with most businesses) have a certain sign off level and only refer expences up the tree when a claim exceeds that level.

I don't have to bother my CEO for claims under £100, (local manger), or £10K (first line) only for over £10K. We are a business of 260 so similar in size to the NotW.

Simon

rick_chasey

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Guardian naturally has an agenda. It's a liberal left - anti-murdoch agenda.

However, given it's readership and its editorial policy, it doesn't really compete with Murdoch papers, since it operates in a different spectrum.

As such, it has less to lose going after News international.

The Guardian, beyond getting the scoop for the first paper to the scene, doesn't gain a huge lot in business terms from the collapse of a tabloid right-of-centre paper.

perhaps it was actualy following the normal premise that newspapers give us news worthy on importance?

I tend to think it does. It's difficult to separate (to critics anyway) lefty high-ground and genuine high ground. I think in this case, the Guardian has taken the latter.

MonkeyMonster

The Beginner wrote:

I don't have to bother my CEO for claims under £100, (local manger), or £10K (first line) only for over £10K. We are a business of 260 so similar in size to the NotW.

Simon

I'd have thought some of these payments would be higher than a few K and necessary to be authorised by a certain level of competency or knowledge... Anyway - it's speculation on my half here but I've always found the idea of a newspaper owner not knowing what was going on to get all these stories. She's either stupid or lying and I don't think she would like to admit the former.

spen666

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

You sound like Andy Hayman - hoew dare someone ask a question of him or dare to question the Guardian's motives and sources.

I mean we are all looking at the NI motives, actions and sources but we are not allowed to ask the same of the accuser

Orwellian double standards

Well, not really. I said it was astonishing that you were questioning the motives not because the Guardian is beyond reproach, but because of the nature of the investigation itself. You seem to be somehow suggesting that this whole story is a means to an end rather than the end itself.

It was a troll post though, because I know how much you like to polarise issues along ideological lines. I mean, surely its inconceivable that the Guardian would put this much effort into an investigation if it wasn't to simply upset "The Right"?

So we are not allowed to ask what people's motives are?

I am obviously capable of multi tasking that you are not

I can deal with the fall out of this story AND also query the motivation behind the story

You seem to believe the Guardian do everything in this case out of a purely altruistuic motive

You also ignore where and how the Guardian came by the information in this case


Neither of these issues cast any doubt on the validity of the information It does raise lots of other issues.

Try reading private eye occassionally and seeing the number of times the various media organisations have "no attacks on each other agreements". Here we have one media organisation seemingly savaging one of its rivals. It is of interest to me why this has happened. What has caused the Guardian to attack the NI stable? Was it meant as an attack on NI, or the police orr the government

The investigation done and the research is huge and obviously very costly. They wouldn't do this simply to tell a story- it may have been to increase sales, it may have been to bring down a rival or to bring down a government or even to get back for a slight actual or perceived.

I am interested in the story and the story behind the story.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Tailwind, if journalists are..... giving her parents' and the police hope that she is alive, you seriously don't believe this is interfering with the investigation?

No, this is not interfering with a murder investigation.




The deleting the messages is a different issue

tailwindhome

MonkeyMonster wrote:

1527:
Rupert Murdoch says each newspaper has an editorial manager who has to approve expenses claims for every reporter. Reports have "no authority" to do so on their own.

So reading into that Rebekah Brooks was authorising the payments in question...

We need a Spoiler Alert in the thread title. Some of us are working and don't want to know what happens before we see the highlights.......

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Guardian naturally has an agenda. It's a liberal left - anti-murdoch agenda.

However, given it's readership and its editorial policy, it doesn't really compete with Murdoch papers, since it operates in a different spectrum.

As such, it has less to lose going after News international.

The Guardian, beyond getting the scoop for the first paper to the scene, doesn't gain a huge lot in business terms from the collapse of a tabloid right-of-centre paper.

perhaps it was actualy following the normal premise that newspapers give us news worthy on importance?

I tend to think it does. It's difficult to separate (to critics anyway) lefty high-ground and genuine high ground. I think in this case, the Guardian has taken the latter.

+1 Well said chaps.

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Tailwind, if journalists are..... giving her parents' and the police hope that she is alive, you seriously don't believe this is interfering with the investigation?

No, this is not interfering with a murder investigation.




The deleting the messages is a different issue

FOUL

notsoblue

Whoa, talk about burying news: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... ompetition

spen666

TailWindHome wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Tailwind, if journalists are..... giving her parents' and the police hope that she is alive, you seriously don't believe this is interfering with the investigation?

No, this is not interfering with a murder investigation.




The deleting the messages is a different issue

FOUL

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

mybreakfastconsisted

You've just blatantly dishonestly tampered with my post. Your earlier insults have been deleted, you're now lying about what I posted and editing my posts. We have no idea what was in the messages NOTW employees deleted, they could even have been messages from the murderer or a witness. They are blatantly interfering with a murder investigation, quite apart from giving false hope to the family of the murdered girl.

Don't you ever again dishonestly misrepresent what I've posted. Apart from anything else your use of a girl's death in order to perpetuate your silly feud with me is pretty disgusting.

MonkeyMonster

notsoblue wrote:

Whoa, talk about burying news: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... ompetition

Indeed. [and primary care psychological therapies for adults – will be open for "competition on quality not price"]

My gf only recently found out about this (3 weeks ago) when she worked as a nhs therapist [escaped luckily to research). The level of expertise necessary to be an nhs mental health worker is far more (atm) than the level at which the competing companies and charities workers will be expected to be at. I for one do not want to use the services that get replaced in this competition rounds until its known how badly they've been effected - though of course some may get better...

mybreakfastconsisted

I am really looking forward to hearing Cameron explain this -

John -(Yates)

Thanks - all well.

On the other matters that have caught your attention this week, assuming we are thinking of the same thing, I am sure you will understand that we will want to be able to be entirely clear, for your sake and ours, that we have not been in contact with you about this subject.

So I don't think it would really be appropriate for the PM, or anyone else at No 10, to discuss this issue with you, and would be grateful if it were not raised please.

But the PM looks forward to seeing you, with Peter Ricketts and Jonathan Evans, purely on [redacted: national security] matters at 1230.

With best wishes,

Ed


Get out of that, bumface, and your wife who looks like a horse that's been fired through a Boden's sale.