The story uses up time. The Conservatives need to use the weeks remaining to close the gap between Labour and the Conservatives. The story may not change a single vote. That doesn't matter. The Conservatives are the ones needing to change votes.
A fair point.
What happened to the original antifrank?
He's still around. But on this computer he logs into a different gmail account, so needs a different username.
I thought he had gone away for the summer
I'm flying out of town on Monday. I'll be returning to pb when autumn leaves start to fall.
Are you holing up in Hungary or doing something completely different (no need to say what)?
I shall be flying to Hungary, where I intend to do a lot of fruit picking, cycling and swimming in the country. Within Hungary I shall be visiting the Tokay and Villany wine regions. I shall also be making excursions to Azerbaijan, Austria, Slovenia, north east Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland (north and south), rural Suffolk and Montenegro. There may be other jaunts.
I am not taking a phone with me. In the three months that I'm away, I am intending to go online only to print out plane tickets. I'm taking notebooks instead.
It all sounds very 'pre-prepared' in good antifrank manner. Azerbaijan is a little "brave" though. Interesting food if you avoid the new restaurants trying to be international.
Why not buy a "Vinum Regum, Rex Vinorum" estate when in Tokaj ?
I've always found Azerbaijan fun but working on oil deals is perhaps a bit of a gilded cage. I'm sure some people find Austria interesting but I've always found it a stodgier version of Germany. Slovenia is lovely.
ED Miliband's policy chief has sensationally accused Labour frontbenchers of plotting against their leader. John Cruddas suggested shadow cabinet trio Andy Burnham, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper were positioning themselves to succeed their boss.
Hard to see how any of those three would do better than Ed The Younger...
ED Miliband's policy chief has sensationally accused Labour frontbenchers of plotting against their leader. John Cruddas suggested shadow cabinet trio Andy Burnham, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper were positioning themselves to succeed their boss.
Hard to see how any of those three would do better than Ed The Younger...
I suppose we can all keep our fingers crossed and hope Burnham gets it.
from the way this thread has drifted off topic, I would guess the Coulson /Cameron story will have little interest for anyone except diehead Labour supporters, who will keep on and on about it until they look even more out of touch than they do now. And I say that as someone who doesn't support the Conservatives.
Of the ten sides so far into the second round of the World Cup, five are from South America, two from Europe, two from central America and one from Africa.
The European numbers will rise with France, Germany and Belgium all likely or certain to progress while South America only have Ecuador left with a chance. Algeria and Ghana give Africa a chance for more teams.
Rupert Murdoch’s money flooded that courtroom. It flowed into the defence of Rebekah Brooks, because he backed her; and to the defence of Andy Coulson, because Coulson had sued and forced him to pay. Lawyers and court reporters who spend their working lives at the Old Bailey agreed they had never seen anything like it, this multimillion-pound Rolls-Royce engine purring through the proceedings. Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.
Rupert Murdoch’s money flooded that courtroom. It flowed into the defence of Rebekah Brooks, because he backed her; and to the defence of Andy Coulson, because Coulson had sued and forced him to pay. Lawyers and court reporters who spend their working lives at the Old Bailey agreed they had never seen anything like it, this multimillion-pound Rolls-Royce engine purring through the proceedings. Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.
Two points:
The cost one is complete bollocks. That's the same newspaper which has spent no little time bemoaning legal aid cuts as they weight the system wholly in favour of prosecutors.
The final sentence in the actual article is priceless. The criminal trial system is marvellous until it isn't.
Very much inclined to agree with Mike on this, except that I'm not even sure it will have a short-term impact. I'm not convinced anyone outside the inner media cares a less. England's exit from the world cup is probably of more damage to Cameron, although that too will be short-term.
I'm not sure they've done it quite right. Foreign inns and taverns seem to need to have a preposition, usually at or in. So Au Cygne Blanc not Le Cygne Blanc, A la Jonction, etc
ED Miliband's policy chief has sensationally accused Labour frontbenchers of plotting against their leader. John Cruddas suggested shadow cabinet trio Andy Burnham, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper were positioning themselves to succeed their boss.
ED Miliband's policy chief has sensationally accused Labour frontbenchers of plotting against their leader. John Cruddas suggested shadow cabinet trio Andy Burnham, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper were positioning themselves to succeed their boss.
Or Cruddas launches leadership bid by accusing front runners of jointly wielding a knife with which they are plotting the dicing, slicing and toppling of Ed.
Would you have the BBC suppress the information and investigation ?
Nothing of the sort. Just saying here we go, as predicted we would have a special and there would be things coming out of the woodwork, which will keep the story going for many days yet.
What does annoy me is we don't get the full context, Operation Motorman, the widespread hacking of companies, etc etc etc. Ask anybody in the street about the wider stuff, no clue. Operation what.
The Indy is the only one to their credit that has been running wider stuff than Celeb X got hacked.
Would you have the BBC suppress the information and investigation ?
Nothing of the sort. Just saying here we go, as predicted we would have a special and there would be things coming out of the woodwork, which will keep the story going for many days yet.
Days to come you say. This scandal and associated trials will rumble on for years to come.
No, no, no. We've all just misunderstood them. It's a religion of peace after all.
The World Wont Listen
The refusal to acknowledge the danger of Islamic extremism, and the refusal to make the distinction between Islam and other religions in terms of terrorism will be to blame for next lot of bloodshed here
All around the world people are dying because of it, but mention this and you get a vicar on a bicycle compared to a blood thirsty torturer
Would you have the BBC suppress the information and investigation ?
Nothing of the sort. Just saying here we go, as predicted we would have a special and there would be things coming out of the woodwork, which will keep the story going for many days yet.
What does annoy me is we don't get the full context, Operation Motorman, the widespread hacking of companies, etc etc etc. Ask anybody in the street about the wider stuff, no clue. Operation what.
The Indy is the only one to their credit that has been running wider stuff than Celeb X got hacked.
Companies? There were law firms involved in this too.
I'd like to know why so little was done to get to the bottom of this, whilst the previous government were in power.
Wasn't one police investigation wound up? What was the deal there?
from the way this thread has drifted off topic, I would guess the Coulson /Cameron story will have little interest for anyone except diehead Labour supporters, who will keep on and on about it until they look even more out of touch than they do now. And I say that as someone who doesn't support the Conservatives.
MrsB, lovely to see you posting again, hope all is well.
Rupert Murdoch’s money flooded that courtroom. It flowed into the defence of Rebekah Brooks, because he backed her; and to the defence of Andy Coulson, because Coulson had sued and forced him to pay. Lawyers and court reporters who spend their working lives at the Old Bailey agreed they had never seen anything like it, this multimillion-pound Rolls-Royce engine purring through the proceedings. Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.
That's a disgusting argument. Why shouldn't defendants be entitled to defend themselves to the best of their ability? The Guardian should be ashamed to run such an article.
Rupert Murdoch’s money flooded that courtroom. It flowed into the defence of Rebekah Brooks, because he backed her; and to the defence of Andy Coulson, because Coulson had sued and forced him to pay. Lawyers and court reporters who spend their working lives at the Old Bailey agreed they had never seen anything like it, this multimillion-pound Rolls-Royce engine purring through the proceedings. Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.
That's a disgusting argument. Why shouldn't defendants be entitled to defend themselves to the best of their ability? The Guardian should be ashamed to run such an article.
The Guardian are only interested in justice, if the trial verdict is one of which they approve.
They've paid millions to the best lawyers they can buy over the years -,perhaps it's time they stopped doing so?
Still think it will make no difference but just to say the "Cameron under fire" story leads tonight's Standard.
Can't see anyone actually reading it on this Tube though :-o
What do you think we do on the Tube - discuss the finer points of French impressionism or consider the merits of Hegel as a philosopher ? To be fair, the purgatory that is the short hop from Bank to Mile End is just about survival - from Mile End it's much more civilised and I can peruse the Standard in reasonable comfort.
The story uses up time. The Conservatives need to use the weeks remaining to close the gap between Labour and the Conservatives. The story may not change a single vote. That doesn't matter. The Conservatives are the ones needing to change votes.
A fair point.
What happened to the original antifrank?
He's still around. But on this computer he logs into a different gmail account, so needs a different username.
I thought he had gone away for the summer
I'm flying out of town on Monday. I'll be returning to pb when autumn leaves start to fall.
That's my wife's strategy - she's off to Socal from Tuesday through Labor Day*
Rupert Murdoch’s money flooded that courtroom. It flowed into the defence of Rebekah Brooks, because he backed her; and to the defence of Andy Coulson, because Coulson had sued and forced him to pay. Lawyers and court reporters who spend their working lives at the Old Bailey agreed they had never seen anything like it, this multimillion-pound Rolls-Royce engine purring through the proceedings. Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.
That's a disgusting argument. Why shouldn't defendants be entitled to defend themselves to the best of their ability? The Guardian should be ashamed to run such an article.
Totally agree with you Sean, however. I am entirely unsurprised by the Guardian's stance.
Rupert Murdoch’s money flooded that courtroom. It flowed into the defence of Rebekah Brooks, because he backed her; and to the defence of Andy Coulson, because Coulson had sued and forced him to pay. Lawyers and court reporters who spend their working lives at the Old Bailey agreed they had never seen anything like it, this multimillion-pound Rolls-Royce engine purring through the proceedings. Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.
That's a disgusting argument. Why shouldn't defendants be entitled to defend themselves to the best of their ability? The Guardian should be ashamed to run such an article.
Totally agree with you Sean, however. I am entirely unsurprised by the Guardian's stance.
Having read the whole article I am struggling to understand the claim that The Guardian is saying defendants should not spend what they want to defend themselves. It says no such thing. It looks to me like some posters on here are just wishing that's what The Guardian had said. In fact, it has also published this article in broad support of Brooks:
Rupert Murdoch’s money flooded that courtroom. It flowed into the defence of Rebekah Brooks, because he backed her; and to the defence of Andy Coulson, because Coulson had sued and forced him to pay. Lawyers and court reporters who spend their working lives at the Old Bailey agreed they had never seen anything like it, this multimillion-pound Rolls-Royce engine purring through the proceedings. Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.
That's a disgusting argument. Why shouldn't defendants be entitled to defend themselves to the best of their ability? The Guardian should be ashamed to run such an article.
Totally agree with you Sean, however. I am entirely unsurprised by the Guardian's stance.
Having read the whole article I am struggling to understand the claim that The Guardian is saying defendants should not spend what they want to defend themselves. It says no such thing.
"Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector."
Everything through the prism of state good, private money bad.
Rupert Murdoch’s money flooded that courtroom. It flowed into the defence of Rebekah Brooks, because he backed her; and to the defence of Andy Coulson, because Coulson had sued and forced him to pay. Lawyers and court reporters who spend their working lives at the Old Bailey agreed they had never seen anything like it, this multimillion-pound Rolls-Royce engine purring through the proceedings. Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.
That's a disgusting argument. Why shouldn't defendants be entitled to defend themselves to the best of their ability? The Guardian should be ashamed to run such an article.
Totally agree with you Sean, however. I am entirely unsurprised by the Guardian's stance.
Having read the whole article I am struggling to understand the claim that The Guardian is saying defendants should not spend what they want to defend themselves. It says no such thing.
"Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector."
Everything through the prism of state good, private money bad.
In a criminal prosecution the state brings the case. That's how it works. There is no prism, it's just fact that the defence was better funded than the prosecution.
Rupert Murdoch’s money flooded that courtroom. It flowed into the defence of Rebekah Brooks, because he backed her; and to the defence of Andy Coulson, because Coulson had sued and forced him to pay. Lawyers and court reporters who spend their working lives at the Old Bailey agreed they had never seen anything like it, this multimillion-pound Rolls-Royce engine purring through the proceedings. Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.
That's a disgusting argument. Why shouldn't defendants be entitled to defend themselves to the best of their ability? The Guardian should be ashamed to run such an article.
The bad thing is that this case is so forgettable that it wont make comedy sketches like Thorpe's trial.
from the way this thread has drifted off topic, I would guess the Coulson /Cameron story will have little interest for anyone except diehead Labour supporters, who will keep on and on about it until they look even more out of touch than they do now. And I say that as someone who doesn't support the Conservatives.
This is PB, an infamous Tory hangout, I wouldn't take it as representative of the country!
Since we are talking about the outcome of the trial, I do remember that there where trials which the judge refused the verdict of the jury and forced them to reconsider their verdict until he was satisfied with it. Unfortunately I don't remember which ones, though one was in the last 10 years.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
PB Tories make big play about civil liberties. For them if the State listens in to your conversations or voicemails - it is terrible. If the Murdoch empire does it however, it doesn't matter. Just because the dirty old b*gger supports the Tories !
from the way this thread has drifted off topic, I would guess the Coulson /Cameron story will have little interest for anyone except diehead Labour supporters, who will keep on and on about it until they look even more out of touch than they do now. And I say that as someone who doesn't support the Conservatives.
This is PB, an infamous Tory hangout, I wouldn't take it as representative of the country!
You'll need to up your game to be a successful troll on here.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
PB Tories make big play about civil liberties. For them if the State listens in to your conversations or voicemails - it is terrible. If the Murdoch empire does it however, it doesn't matter. Just because the dirty old b*gger supports the Tories !
What utter hypocrisy ?
Last line second para. Sometimes supports would be accurate
BBC One - Panorama, Hacking: Power, Corruption and Lies.
Robert Peston investigates. - "Did politicians of all parties and police help to cover-up the hacking scandal for years because of their own close relationships with Rupert Murdoch's News International?
“All parties” ffs? - So called 'hacking; was made illegal in 2000 - as 'Operation Motorman' exposed in 2006, when most of the 'hacking' had taken place and when the first conviction was made, it was obviously wide spread amongst the tabloids, Piers Morgan had even revealed to the BBC in 2002 how it was done.
The findings of ‘Op Motorman’ were first sat on sat on in 2006 and again in 2009 – I wonder which party the son of a Labour Lord is most likely find most responsible? – After all, there was only one party in Government at the time and which was supported by the Murdoch press?
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
PB Tories make big play about civil liberties. For them if the State listens in to your conversations or voicemails - it is terrible. If the Murdoch empire does it however, it doesn't matter. Just because the dirty old b*gger supports the Tories !
What utter hypocrisy ?
It's politics, actually its fanatical politics like football hooligans or religious zealots. Sometimes people say or do things because they are team fans not because its right or wrong, it is found in every country in every part of society in various degrees.
By the way I found a nice piece about the misuse of power of Judges in jury trials from the CATO institute.
BBC One - Panorama, Hacking: Power, Corruption and Lies.
Robert Peston investigates. - "Did politicians of all parties and police help to cover-up the hacking scandal for years because of their own close relationships with Rupert Murdoch's News International?
“All parties” ffs? - So called 'hacking; was made illegal in 2000 - as 'Operation Motorman' exposed in 2006, when most of the 'hacking' had taken place and when the first conviction was made, it was obviously wide spread amongst the tabloids, Piers Morgan had even revealed to the BBC in 2002 how it was done.
The findings of ‘Op Motorman’ were first sat on sat on in 2006 and again in 2009 – I wonder which party the son of a Labour Lord is most likely find most responsible? – After all, there was only one party in Government at the time?
from the way this thread has drifted off topic, I would guess the Coulson /Cameron story will have little interest for anyone except diehead Labour supporters, who will keep on and on about it until they look even more out of touch than they do now. And I say that as someone who doesn't support the Conservatives.
Says someone, who politically speaking, sleeps with the Conservatives !
BBC One - Panorama, Hacking: Power, Corruption and Lies.
Robert Peston investigates. - "Did politicians of all parties and police help to cover-up the hacking scandal for years because of their own close relationships with Rupert Murdoch's News International?
“All parties” ffs? - So called 'hacking; was made illegal in 2000 - as 'Operation Motorman' exposed in 2006, when most of the 'hacking' had taken place and when the first conviction was made, it was obviously wide spread amongst the tabloids, Piers Morgan had even revealed to the BBC in 2002 how it was done.
The findings of ‘Op Motorman’ were first sat on sat on in 2006 and again in 2009 – I wonder which party the son of a Labour Lord is most likely find most responsible? – After all, there was only one party in Government at the time?
Son of a Labour Lord, indeed!
Shame that his steady stream of exclusives disappeared after the last election. Unfortunate coincidence for him.
Nick Palmer shows his anxiety by quoting the daily opinion poll within a nanosecond of it being released.
Normally multiple posters will post a tweet reporting opinion polls within a few seconds of it being on twitter. This isn't any different, and should be expected for a site full of polling anoraks.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
PB Tories make big play about civil liberties. For them if the State listens in to your conversations or voicemails - it is terrible. If the Murdoch empire does it however, it doesn't matter. Just because the dirty old b*gger supports the Tories !
What utter hypocrisy ?
Actually, to their discredit, it actually seems that some PBTories are quite consistent in their views. They seem to be happy with both the State and the press hacking into our conversations. Certainly people like Nabavi have spent a lot of time defending the mass trawling of emails and facebook that is now routinely done by the State.
'I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken'
Cut the sanctimonious crap ,you were claiming last night that Cameron had employed a criminal when at the time of being hired by No 10 Coulson had been convicted of diddly-squat.
It's certainly true that children, without fail, always share the political beliefs of their parents. There has, quite literally, never been an instance where kids develop their own perspectives on the world. They always think as their Mum and Dad did. That's why the Liberals have stayed in power for so long and why no constituencies ever change hands at general election time.
BBC One - Panorama, Hacking: Power, Corruption and Lies.
Robert Peston investigates. - "Did politicians of all parties and police help to cover-up the hacking scandal for years because of their own close relationships with Rupert Murdoch's News International?
“All parties” ffs? - So called 'hacking; was made illegal in 2000 - as 'Operation Motorman' exposed in 2006, when most of the 'hacking' had taken place and when the first conviction was made, it was obviously wide spread amongst the tabloids, Piers Morgan had even revealed to the BBC in 2002 how it was done.
The findings of ‘Op Motorman’ were first sat on sat on in 2006 and again in 2009 – I wonder which party the son of a Labour Lord is most likely find most responsible? – After all, there was only one party in Government at the time and which was supported by the Murdoch press?
Did they? How shocking, I tell you i'm shocked really shocked, as shocked as when I found it was raining last summer and snowing this winter.
'I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken'
Cut the sanctimonious crap ,you were claiming last night that Cameron had employed a criminal when at the time of being hired by No 10 Coulson had been convicted of diddly-squat.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
PB Tories make big play about civil liberties. For them if the State listens in to your conversations or voicemails - it is terrible. If the Murdoch empire does it however, it doesn't matter. Just because the dirty old b*gger supports the Tories !
What utter hypocrisy ?
Actually, to their discredit, it actually seems that some PBTories are quite consistent in their views. They seem to be happy with both the State and the press hacking into our conversations. Certainly people like Nabavi have spent a lot of time defending the mass trawling of emails and facebook that is now routinely done by the State.
Under David Cameron's Tories and given recent events it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between the state and "the press".
It's certainly true that children, without fail, always share the political beliefs of their parents. There has, quite literally, never been an instance where kids develop their own perspectives on the world. They always think as their Mum and Dad did. That's why the Liberals have stayed in power for so long and why no constituencies ever change hands at general election time.
Opinions change over time but over generations or by a change in the life style, see Shetlands inner cities and shires. The lower the population density and higher the income the more conservative you are.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
It's kind of you to initially exonerate me but then you convict me as a "PB Tory".
Not guilty M'lud. I support the Coalition government but specifically neither whole individual party within it.
Rupert Murdoch’s money flooded that courtroom. It flowed into the defence of Rebekah Brooks, because he backed her; and to the defence of Andy Coulson, because Coulson had sued and forced him to pay. Lawyers and court reporters who spend their working lives at the Old Bailey agreed they had never seen anything like it, this multimillion-pound Rolls-Royce engine purring through the proceedings. Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.
That's a disgusting argument. Why shouldn't defendants be entitled to defend themselves to the best of their ability? The Guardian should be ashamed to run such an article.
Totally agree with you Sean, however. I am entirely unsurprised by the Guardian's stance.
Having read the whole article I am struggling to understand the claim that The Guardian is saying defendants should not spend what they want to defend themselves. It says no such thing.
"Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector."
Everything through the prism of state good, private money bad.
In a criminal prosecution the state brings the case. That's how it works. There is no prism, it's just fact that the defence was better funded than the prosecution.
If only the CPS had more money they would have got a "result" eh ?
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
It's kind of you to initially exonerate me but then you convict me as a "PB Tory".
Not guilty M'lud. I support the Coalition government but specifically neither whole individual party within it.
So you are not an ancient Tory from the Highlands ? You certainly caught me there.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
It's kind of you to initially exonerate me but then you convict me as a "PB Tory".
Not guilty M'lud. I support the Coalition government but specifically neither whole individual party within it.
So you are not an ancient Tory from the Highlands ? You certainly caught me there.
Naah. He's a Jacobite from the good old days before 1689 ... or so I suspect. While Tories were some sort of Irish cattle thief I believe. But, like the Scottish crossbill and the Scottish primrose, he does at least add to our cultural and civic diversity.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
It's kind of you to initially exonerate me but then you convict me as a "PB Tory".
Not guilty M'lud. I support the Coalition government but specifically neither whole individual party within it.
So you are not an ancient Tory from the Highlands ? You certainly caught me there.
If I'd have caught you in the Highlands you'd have been the subject of Scottish culinary delight.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
It's kind of you to initially exonerate me but then you convict me as a "PB Tory".
Not guilty M'lud. I support the Coalition government but specifically neither whole individual party within it.
Been reading PB for ages. You're as Tory as they come. As are most on here.
from the way this thread has drifted off topic, I would guess the Coulson /Cameron story will have little interest for anyone except diehead Labour supporters, who will keep on and on about it until they look even more out of touch than they do now. And I say that as someone who doesn't support the Conservatives.
Says someone, who politically speaking, sleeps with the Conservatives !
If you knew who MrsB was you'd realise what a silly mistake that was.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
It's kind of you to initially exonerate me but then you convict me as a "PB Tory".
Not guilty M'lud. I support the Coalition government but specifically neither whole individual party within it.
So you are not an ancient Tory from the Highlands ? You certainly caught me there.
If I'd have caught you in the Highlands you'd have been the subject of Scottish culinary delight.
"Smile"
Surely that was more Galloway way ... Sawney Bean and his ilk. But maybe there was some regional recipe unknown to me, to go alongside kebbock and cranachan. Anyway, it's a lovely time of year up there, so I hope you are enjoying it, and the midgies are not too bad.
BBC One - Panorama, Hacking: Power, Corruption and Lies.
Robert Peston investigates. - "Did politicians of all parties and police help to cover-up the hacking scandal for years because of their own close relationships with Rupert Murdoch's News International?
“All parties” ffs? - So called 'hacking; was made illegal in 2000 - as 'Operation Motorman' exposed in 2006, when most of the 'hacking' had taken place and when the first conviction was made, it was obviously wide spread amongst the tabloids, Piers Morgan had even revealed to the BBC in 2002 how it was done.
The findings of ‘Op Motorman’ were first sat on sat on in 2006 and again in 2009 – I wonder which party the son of a Labour Lord is most likely find most responsible? – After all, there was only one party in Government at the time?
Son of a Labour Lord, indeed!
Shame that his steady stream of exclusives disappeared after the last election. Unfortunate coincidence for him.
I must be the only person here who has had to investigate whether the said son of a Labour Lord received confidential information about one of his so-called "exclusives" from someone breaching their duties by revealing such information. No moral difference between that and hacking. In the former, you're inducing someone to breach their contractual obligations.
It's what all journalists do and there are a lot of people, politicians and other journalists, being incredibly and ludicrously po-faced about how stories are obtained.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
It's kind of you to initially exonerate me but then you convict me as a "PB Tory".
Not guilty M'lud. I support the Coalition government but specifically neither whole individual party within it.
Been reading PB for ages. You're as Tory as they come. As are most on here.
Then your reading age is matched only by your IQ that is turn is as poor as your feeble trolling.
It's certainly true that children, without fail, always share the political beliefs of their parents. There has, quite literally, never been an instance where kids develop their own perspectives on the world. They always think as their Mum and Dad did. That's why the Liberals have stayed in power for so long and why no constituencies ever change hands at general election time.
Opinions change over time but over generations or by a change in the life style, see Shetlands inner cities and shires. The lower the population density and higher the income the more conservative you are.
Are there two 'Shetlands'? - I lived in the Shetlands north of Scotlandshire for two years - there are no 'cities' in Shetland, there are no 'shires' - there is Lerwick, which is the capital, but in reality a small town, parochial and covered in seagull poo.
Their Lib Dem MP is Alistair Carmichael and he is likely to remain so.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
PB Tories make big play about civil liberties. For them if the State listens in to your conversations or voicemails - it is terrible. If the Murdoch empire does it however, it doesn't matter. Just because the dirty old b*gger supports the Tories !
What utter hypocrisy ?
The dirty old b*gger has supported Labour over more years and more elections than he has the Conservatives...
However, I would say that at the outset (2011) Labour (well Gordon Brown and his "Forces From Hell") did politicize this very badly and that has probably made this more partisan than it should be.
But as far as hacking goes, I can only speak for myself when I say that I just don't think phone hacking of celebrity voice mail messages is a big deal. It's not something I can get upset and excited about - That was the case in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,2010, 2011 (I was shocked about Milly Dowler) 2012,2013 and 2014. My opinion has remained broadly the same whoever has been in power and whoever the dirty b*gger has been supporting.
For me, the hacking of phone messages by journalists looking to see who Jude Law or Prezza or Steve Coogan are sh*gging is a civil matter, no more, no less.
It's certainly true that children, without fail, always share the political beliefs of their parents. There has, quite literally, never been an instance where kids develop their own perspectives on the world. They always think as their Mum and Dad did. That's why the Liberals have stayed in power for so long and why no constituencies ever change hands at general election time.
Opinions change over time but over generations or by a change in the life style, see Shetlands inner cities and shires. The lower the population density and higher the income the more conservative you are.
Are there two 'Shetlands'? - I lived in the Shetlands north of Scotlandshire for two years - there are no 'cities' in Shetland, there are no 'shires' - there is Lerwick, which is the capital, but in reality a small town, parochial and covered in seagull poo.
Their Lib Dem MP is Alistair Carmichael and he is likely to remain so.
Alistair Carmichael is forever to be covered in seagull poo ?!?!?!?!?!?!?
. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
PB Tories make big play about civil liberties. For them if the State listens in to your conversations or voicemails - it is terrible. If the Murdoch empire does it however, it doesn't matter. Just because the dirty old b*gger supports the Tories !
What utter hypocrisy ?
If you are going to accuse me of hypocrisy on a completely false basis, given that I have the courage to post under my real name and you do not, I'd be grateful for if you would kindly let us know:
(a) Where did I 'purr with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.' ?
It's certainly true that children, without fail, always share the political beliefs of their parents. There has, quite literally, never been an instance where kids develop their own perspectives on the world. They always think as their Mum and Dad did. That's why the Liberals have stayed in power for so long and why no constituencies ever change hands at general election time.
Opinions change over time but over generations or by a change in the life style, see Shetlands inner cities and shires. The lower the population density and higher the income the more conservative you are.
Are there two 'Shetlands'? - I lived in the Shetlands north of Scotlandshire for two years - there are no 'cities' in Shetland, there are no 'shires' - there is Lerwick, which is the capital, but in reality a small town, parochial and covered in seagull poo.
Their Lib Dem MP is Alistair Carmichael and he is likely to remain so.
I suspect there was a comma missing in the original post after "Shetland" (correct form, as you evidently know). And Lerwick is rather more cosmopolitan than that. But I still don't understand the original comment - they've been voting Liberal since the 1830s never mind the 1980s (with a spell in the 1940s-ish as I find on checking).
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
It's kind of you to initially exonerate me but then you convict me as a "PB Tory".
Not guilty M'lud. I support the Coalition government but specifically neither whole individual party within it.
So you are not an ancient Tory from the Highlands ? You certainly caught me there.
Naah. He's a Jacobite from the good old days before 1689 ... or so I suspect. While Tories were some sort of Irish cattle thief I believe. But, like the Scottish crossbill and the Scottish primrose, he does at least add to our cultural and civic diversity.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
PB Tories make big play about civil liberties. For them if the State listens in to your conversations or voicemails - it is terrible. If the Murdoch empire does it however, it doesn't matter. Just because the dirty old b*gger supports the Tories !
What utter hypocrisy ?
The dirty old b*gger has supported Labour over more years and more elections than he has the Conservatives...
However, I would say that at the outset (2011) Labour (well Gordon Brown and his "Forces From Hell") did politicize this very badly and that has probably made this more partisan than it should be.
But as far as hacking goes, I can only speak for myself when I say that I just don't think phone hacking of celebrity voice mail messages is a big deal. It's not something I can get upset and excited about - That was the case in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,2010, 2011 (I was shocked about Milly Dowler) 2012,2013 and 2014. My opinion has remained broadly the same whoever has been in power and whoever the dirty b*gger has been supporting.
For me, the hacking of phone messages by journalists looking to see who Jude Law or Prezza or Steve Coogan are sh*gging is a civil matter, no more, no less.
Intrusion is intrusion. If you grew famous, for whatever reason, and someone hacked your phone would you hold the same view?
ED Miliband's policy chief has sensationally accused Labour frontbenchers of plotting against their leader. John Cruddas suggested shadow cabinet trio Andy Burnham, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper were positioning themselves to succeed their boss.
It's behind the paywall, and I don't subscribe to these evil Murdoch rags, so can someone tell us whether Jon Cruddas is unhappy because the trio are plotting, or because they are plotting unsuccessfully?
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
PB Tories make big play about civil liberties. For them if the State listens in to your conversations or voicemails - it is terrible. If the Murdoch empire does it however, it doesn't matter. Just because the dirty old b*gger supports the Tories !
What utter hypocrisy ?
The dirty old b*gger has supported Labour over more years and more elections than he has the Conservatives...
However, I would say that at the outset (2011) Labour (well Gordon Brown and his "Forces From Hell") did politicize this very badly and that has probably made this more partisan than it should be.
But as far as hacking goes, I can only speak for myself when I say that I just don't think phone hacking of celebrity voice mail messages is a big deal. It's not something I can get upset and excited about - That was the case in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,2010, 2011 (I was shocked about Milly Dowler) 2012,2013 and 2014. My opinion has remained broadly the same whoever has been in power and whoever the dirty b*gger has been supporting.
For me, the hacking of phone messages by journalists looking to see who Jude Law or Prezza or Steve Coogan are sh*gging is a civil matter, no more, no less.
Intrusion is intrusion. If you grew famous, for whatever reason, and someone hacked your phone would you hold the same view?
Almost certainly yes.
I would accept that with all the wonderful privileges that go with being famous there will always be a "pay-off" and that "pay-off" will be in form of press scrutiny and in some cases press intrusion.
Nobody is forced to become famous. It's a choice they make, but if you do make those choices to become a multi millionaire actor, flying first class all the way, dining at the best restaurants etc... They must take the rough with the smooth.
Though even then, I do think they should have *some* redress in the civil courts.
Now, when people are thrust into the lime-light through no fault of their own, like the Dowlers were and the landlord of that murdered girl, the way these people are treated by the press is a different matter and one of great concern to me.
It's certainly true that children, without fail, always share the political beliefs of their parents. There has, quite literally, never been an instance where kids develop their own perspectives on the world. They always think as their Mum and Dad did. That's why the Liberals have stayed in power for so long and why no constituencies ever change hands at general election time.
Opinions change over time but over generations or by a change in the life style, see Shetlands inner cities and shires. The lower the population density and higher the income the more conservative you are.
On further reflection I suspect the Shetland case was more to do with the Tory lairds vs Liberal peasants battle as shown in the Free Kirk of 1843 and above all the Crofting Act of the 1880s. No way would the Tories easily recover from that once suffrage became more general, thoug interestingly the Unionists [that is what theu were called] did win in the 30s-40s or so.
I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken on the Coulson conviction - Jack W being one honourable exception. Even the Nabavi who pretends to ride some kind of moral horse was purring with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.
PB Tories make big play about civil liberties. For them if the State listens in to your conversations or voicemails - it is terrible. If the Murdoch empire does it however, it doesn't matter. Just because the dirty old b*gger supports the Tories !
What utter hypocrisy ?
The dirty old b*gger has supported Labour over more years and more elections than he has the Conservatives...
However, I would say that at the outset (2011) Labour (well Gordon Brown and his "Forces From Hell") did politicize this very badly and that has probably made this more partisan than it should be.
But as far as hacking goes, I can only speak for myself when I say that I just don't think phone hacking of celebrity voice mail messages is a big deal. It's not something I can get upset and excited about - That was the case in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,2010, 2011 (I was shocked about Milly Dowler) 2012,2013 and 2014. My opinion has remained broadly the same whoever has been in power and whoever the dirty b*gger has been supporting.
For me, the hacking of phone messages by journalists looking to see who Jude Law or Prezza or Steve Coogan are sh*gging is a civil matter, no more, no less.
Intrusion is intrusion. If you grew famous, for whatever reason, and someone hacked your phone would you hold the same view?
Almost certainly yes.
I would accept that with all the wonderful privileges that go with being famous there will always be a "pay-off" and that "pay-off" will be i form of press scrutiny and in some cases press intrusion.
Nobody is forced to become famous. It's a choice they make, but if you do you must take the rough with the smooth.
Now, when people are thrust into the lime-light through no fault of their own, like the Dowlers were and the landlord of that murdered girl, the way these people are treated by the press is a different matter and one of great concern to me.
Well that is quite simply double standards. And your argument is very, very thin. Say your main talent was acting, you were poor at other things at school but drama was a real strength. You go on to the stage, because that's where you have the skills. You succeed. Have you then chosen to be famous? In any event, the idea that just because someone is well known they don't deserve the legal protections others expect is risible.
I have said before that I do not believe in press regulation. But phone hacking is illegal, and so it should be.
Another set of crossover bets bite the dust? Strange how those who had polling ejaculation during the three days of the PB Hodge crossover orgasm have now gone quiet again on polling crossovers.
Actually, to their discredit, it actually seems that some PBTories are quite consistent in their views. They seem to be happy with both the State and the press hacking into our conversations. Certainly people like Nabavi have spent a lot of time defending the mass trawling of emails and facebook that is now routinely done by the State.
What unmitigated garbage. I have never defended the state hacking into conversations. I have certainly never defended the press doing so.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent me.
Swear there are normally about 5 posters doing it !
Or is that only when the lead is narrow ^^;
The classic night was when it showed a tie and it was posted about 30 times in as many seconds
Ye lol Astroturfers get together gig. I was just pleased the Yougov outlier settled my Paddy Power bet !
I thought the pinnacle of PB Hodge polling ejaculation was when a number of them misread an article headline and thought it said polling crossover, when in fact it was a one point Labour lead. Iv'e never seen so many crossover tissues get put back in their box so fast.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/the-northerner/2014/jun/24/otley-pubs-translate-their-names-into-french-tour-de-france-yorkshire-2014
Of the ten sides so far into the second round of the World Cup, five are from South America, two from Europe, two from central America and one from Africa.
The European numbers will rise with France, Germany and Belgium all likely or certain to progress while South America only have Ecuador left with a chance. Algeria and Ghana give Africa a chance for more teams.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/25/-sp-phone-hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-rupert-murdoch
Rupert Murdoch’s money flooded that courtroom. It flowed into the defence of Rebekah Brooks, because he backed her; and to the defence of Andy Coulson, because Coulson had sued and forced him to pay. Lawyers and court reporters who spend their working lives at the Old Bailey agreed they had never seen anything like it, this multimillion-pound Rolls-Royce engine purring through the proceedings. Soon we found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27905825
The cost one is complete bollocks. That's the same newspaper which has spent no little time bemoaning legal aid cuts as they weight the system wholly in favour of prosecutors.
The final sentence in the actual article is priceless. The criminal trial system is marvellous until it isn't.
What does annoy me is we don't get the full context, Operation Motorman, the widespread hacking of companies, etc etc etc. Ask anybody in the street about the wider stuff, no clue. Operation what.
The Indy is the only one to their credit that has been running wider stuff than Celeb X got hacked.
The refusal to acknowledge the danger of Islamic extremism, and the refusal to make the distinction between Islam and other religions in terms of terrorism will be to blame for next lot of bloodshed here
All around the world people are dying because of it, but mention this and you get a vicar on a bicycle compared to a blood thirsty torturer
I'd like to know why so little was done to get to the bottom of this, whilst the previous government were in power.
Wasn't one police investigation wound up? What was the deal there?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27905825
Could the story also infer that there was a form of cash for questions culture elsewhere.
They've paid millions to the best lawyers they can buy over the years -,perhaps it's time they stopped doing so?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4130127.ece
* "u" deliberately excluded to avoid confusion...
I am entirely unsurprised by the Guardian's stance.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/25/rebekah-brooks-journalists-politicians-phone-hacking-trial
Everything through the prism of state good, private money bad.
But minds seem to be made up. The Tory 'core' as it stands won't be bothered, so their support won't suffer.
Cameron should and thankfully probably will lose his job soon though, whether through resignation or the ballot box.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
Unfortunately I don't remember which ones, though one was in the last 10 years.
PB Tories make big play about civil liberties. For them if the State listens in to your conversations or voicemails - it is terrible. If the Murdoch empire does it however, it doesn't matter. Just because the dirty old b*gger supports the Tories !
What utter hypocrisy ?
Sometimes supports would be accurate
Robert Peston investigates. - "Did politicians of all parties and police help to cover-up the hacking scandal for years because of their own close relationships with Rupert Murdoch's News International?
“All parties” ffs? - So called 'hacking; was made illegal in 2000 - as 'Operation Motorman' exposed in 2006, when most of the 'hacking' had taken place and when the first conviction was made, it was obviously wide spread amongst the tabloids, Piers Morgan had even revealed to the BBC in 2002 how it was done.
The findings of ‘Op Motorman’ were first sat on sat on in 2006 and again in 2009 – I wonder which party the son of a Labour Lord is most likely find most responsible? – After all, there was only one party in Government at the time and which was supported by the Murdoch press?
Sometimes people say or do things because they are team fans not because its right or wrong, it is found in every country in every part of society in various degrees.
By the way I found a nice piece about the misuse of power of Judges in jury trials from the CATO institute.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/when-judges-overreach
CON 32 LAB 37 LD 7 UKIP 14
'I am quite taken aback by the position most PBTories have taken'
Cut the sanctimonious crap ,you were claiming last night that Cameron had employed a criminal when at the time of being hired by No 10 Coulson had been convicted of diddly-squat.
The lower the population density and higher the income the more conservative you are.
Not guilty M'lud. I support the Coalition government but specifically neither whole individual party within it.
David Cameron finally being confirmed as a snivelling Murdoch lickspittle, Louise Mensch with a brain cell, will not help him.
"Smile"
It's what all journalists do and there are a lot of people, politicians and other journalists, being incredibly and ludicrously po-faced about how stories are obtained.
Their Lib Dem MP is Alistair Carmichael and he is likely to remain so.
However, I would say that at the outset (2011) Labour (well Gordon Brown and his "Forces From Hell") did politicize this very badly and that has probably made this more partisan than it should be.
But as far as hacking goes, I can only speak for myself when I say that I just don't think phone hacking of celebrity voice mail messages is a big deal. It's not something I can get upset and excited about - That was the case in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,2010, 2011 (I was shocked about Milly Dowler) 2012,2013 and 2014. My opinion has remained broadly the same whoever has been in power and whoever the dirty b*gger has been supporting.
For me, the hacking of phone messages by journalists looking to see who Jude Law or Prezza or Steve Coogan are sh*gging is a civil matter, no more, no less.
(a) Where did I 'purr with delight that the news would be buried with the World Cup, Cricket , Suarez etc.' ?
(b) Who the hell are you?
Swear there are normally about 5 posters doing it !
Or is that only when the lead is narrow ^^;
I would accept that with all the wonderful privileges that go with being famous there will always be a "pay-off" and that "pay-off" will be in form of press scrutiny and in some cases press intrusion.
Nobody is forced to become famous. It's a choice they make, but if you do make those choices to become a multi millionaire actor, flying first class all the way, dining at the best restaurants etc... They must take the rough with the smooth.
Though even then, I do think they should have *some* redress in the civil courts.
Now, when people are thrust into the lime-light through no fault of their own, like the Dowlers were and the landlord of that murdered girl, the way these people are treated by the press is a different matter and one of great concern to me.
Tick Tock Tic Tock
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?day=7&month=5&msg=UK+General+Election&p0=0&year=2015
20-1 I reckon now on those !
Say your main talent was acting, you were poor at other things at school but drama was a real strength.
You go on to the stage, because that's where you have the skills. You succeed. Have you then chosen to be famous? In any event, the idea that just because someone is well known they don't deserve the legal protections others expect is risible.
I have said before that I do not believe in press regulation. But phone hacking is illegal, and so it should be.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent me.
Or how about a bet on what will happen first? Con in front of Lab or LD in front of UKIP
Btw Milly is here to help Basil carry the goalposts.