politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Hacking trial: Coulson guilty – Brooks cleared. What if
Comments
-
I hope some in the media ask Ms Brooks if she's still in favour of the following
1) Detaining people without trial for 90days
2) Holding trials in secret
3) Holding trials without juries.0 -
I know it caused me a lot of stress at the time, but can you imagine being on trial with your wife, and to find out another defendant had been boffing your wife in the past.0
-
He'll survive the week. Nailed on.edmundintokyo said:
Agree, provided Cameron:MikeSmithson said:
Good point and my guess is that in the medium term the impact will be the same. Almost none.Socrates said:It's fairly amusing Tories on this thread repeatedly remark that no-one cares, when they went on and on and on about Rennard, Huhne etc.
1) Survives the week.
2) Doesn't feel the need to say or do something impactful in order to survive the week.0 -
Probably, the majority of the complaints are vexatious. However, as TSE points out, the police would be criticised if they didn't investigate them.Casino_Royale said:Off topic, this is ridiculous:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27949674
Don't the police have anything better to do? How many of these complaints are from people who've just had somebody aggressively disagree with them?
Ideally, the law would only prohibit threats or the incitement of crime, made on social media.
0 -
If I was Cameron,I won't want to look at the papers,tv news for the next few days.dyedwoolie said:
Like the judgement of Clegg in putting Huhne into cabinet?Tykejohnno said:
It's Cameron's judgement been called into Question,not good for a leader.dyedwoolie said:
Why would he? Did the Labour leader step down when how ever many it was of their MPs went to jail? Did Clegg resign when Huhne did bird?Tykejohnno said:For the Greater good of the Conservative party and himself,cameron should stand down as PM.
Anyone agree ?
His judgement is not in question, he was lied to. If anything, it shows him to be more reasonable in giving someone the benefit of the doubt than he should,
0 -
I accept it did not go wider than the News of the World, but it went right to the top of that business unit. I would have thought that was a fairly extensive corporate conspiracy. The paper had a readership of two and a half million - it was hardly some minor unit. The editor of that paper was certainly a senior position.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, and not a single person has made excuses for him.Socrates said:
How is it not applying? Andy Coulson was an editor of a Murdoch paper, wasn't he?Richard_Nabavi said:
Interesting that your well-known sense of traditional British fair play doesn't apply to this verdict.Socrates said:This thread is full of right wingers trying to bend over backwards to make excuses for the Murdoch press.
Meanwhile, the News International line that there was not an extensive corporate conspiracy, or involvement at a senior level, turns out to have been vindicated, as you will no doubt be pleased to agree.0 -
Test post - From the Betfair forum:
West Coast Eagles • June 24, 2014 12:59 PM BST
12:55 Local Time, 11:55 GMT, 17:25 IST: The covers have been peeled off the field. Play will resume in about 15 minutes.0 -
Dream scenario.
cam resigns as a matter of honour, Tories elect euro sceptic leader and ride the bounce into a majority.
Everybody that matters is happy,0 -
Another off-topic question, can anyone think of any non left-wing (perhaps right-wing would be a bit of a stretch) comedians?
A friend of mine challenged me on this the other day. The thing is, I couldn't think of any. Originally, I thought about saying Hugh Dennis and Andy Parsons. Then I found out they both didn't count.
On the other hand, there are oodles of left-wing ones. Rob Bryne, Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Jack Whitehall, Chris Addison, Micky Flanagan, Al Murray, John Bishop, Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, Russell Howard..
Don't get me wrong, all of them can be funny. But it would be nice to have someone who held alternative views from the established orthodoxy of the media/arts world. Who knows, it might even form a new niche for their comedy.
PS. I really don't want to fall back on Jim Davidson.0 -
Hmm do you blame the victim of the con artist for being conned? I accept that this isn't great for the PM however he was given assurances by Coulson which a jury has concluded were false. Perhaps he should account for what lead him to believe the lies but surely the greater problem isn't for someone caught believing lies but for those caught telling them?Tykejohnno said:
It's Cameron's judgement been called into Question,not good for a leader.dyedwoolie said:
Why would he? Did the Labour leader step down when how ever many it was of their MPs went to jail? Did Clegg resign when Huhne did bird?Tykejohnno said:For the Greater good of the Conservative party and himself,cameron should stand down as PM.
Anyone agree ?
0 -
I always thought the two Ronnies were right-wingers. In general these days if you're not a ludicrous lefty then you don't get on the telly.Casino_Royale said:Another off-topic question, can anyone think of any non left-wing (perhaps right-wing would be a bit of a stretch) comedians?
A friend of mine challenged me on this the other day. The thing is, I couldn't think of any. Originally, I thought about saying Hugh Dennis and Andy Parsons. Then I found out they both didn't count.
On the other hand, there are oodles of left-wing ones. Rob Bryne, Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Jack Whitehall, Chris Addison, Micky Flanagan, Al Murray, John Bishop, Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, Russell Howard..
Don't get me wrong, all of them can be funny. But it would be nice to have someone who held alternative views from the established orthodoxy of the media/arts world. Who knows, it might even form a new niche for their comedy.
PS. I really don't want to fall back on Jim Davidson.0 -
If it helps, I do stand upCasino_Royale said:Another off-topic question, can anyone think of any non left-wing (perhaps right-wing would be a bit of a stretch) comedians?
A friend of mine challenged me on this the other day. The thing is, I couldn't think of any. Originally, I thought about saying Hugh Dennis and Andy Parsons. Then I found out they both didn't count.
On the other hand, there are oodles of left-wing ones. Rob Bryne, Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Jack Whitehall, Chris Addison, Micky Flanagan, Al Murray, John Bishop, Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, Russell Howard..
Don't get me wrong, all of them can be funny. But it would be nice to have someone who held alternative views from the established orthodoxy of the media/arts world. Who knows, it might even form a new niche for their comedy.
PS. I really don't want to fall back on Jim Davidson.0 -
Phone hacking? Oh the horror of it all. They can hack my phone all day for a small sum. The mistake they made was the Milly Dowler episode - that was awful.
But politicians and celebs? Fair game if they are too stupid to understand passwords.
I've no doubt they were all at it anyway.0 -
Probably not. But the, if I were ed I wouldn't want to look in the mirror for the next few years lest Wallace were staring back at me, with a bacon sarnie.Tykejohnno said:
If I was Cameron,I won't want to look at the papers,tv news for the next few days.dyedwoolie said:
Like the judgement of Clegg in putting Huhne into cabinet?Tykejohnno said:
It's Cameron's judgement been called into Question,not good for a leader.dyedwoolie said:
Why would he? Did the Labour leader step down when how ever many it was of their MPs went to jail? Did Clegg resign when Huhne did bird?Tykejohnno said:For the Greater good of the Conservative party and himself,cameron should stand down as PM.
Anyone agree ?
His judgement is not in question, he was lied to. If anything, it shows him to be more reasonable in giving someone the benefit of the doubt than he should,0 -
Mr. Johnno, not so sure.
The Mail, for example, might well report this as indicating the 'pervasive bad culture' of journalists was a myth, and that Leveson reforms are an assault on freedom of the press conjured up by phantom charges (most people have been found innocent).
If it (for example) went on the evil of Coulson and Cameron's misjudgement that would severely undermine that case. Depends what the paper (and I'm picking it as perhaps the single most important non-Murdoch paper) considers more important.0 -
Is Ricky Gervais left-wing?0
-
The Dowler texts were auto-deleted.CD13 said:Phone hacking? Oh the horror of it all. They can hack my phone all day for a small sum. The mistake they made was the Milly Dowler episode - that was awful.
But politicians and celebs? Fair game if they are too stupid to understand passwords.
I've no doubt they were all at it anyway.0 -
Sure, and everyone accepts that. However, the Guardian/Tom Watson/HackedOff etc line was that it went much further than that. NOTW was one newspaper out of hundreds of Murdoch business units worldwide, and it seems that a few individuals at that newspaper (and not even the management at that newspaper generally) were involved. That is bad enough, of course, but it's a lot less bad than was being claimed by the Murdoch-haters.Socrates said:I accept it did not go wider than the News of the World, but it went right to the top of that business unit. I would have thought that was a fairly extensive corporate conspiracy. The paper had a readership of two and a half million - it was hardly some minor unit. The editor of that paper was certainly a senior position.
0 -
My theory is that plenty of comedians might be right-wing/whatever, but they all feed off each other to appear the same liberally/left type to get jobs at the BBC.Casino_Royale said:Another off-topic question, can anyone think of any non left-wing (perhaps right-wing would be a bit of a stretch) comedians?
A friend of mine challenged me on this the other day. The thing is, I couldn't think of any. Originally, I thought about saying Hugh Dennis and Andy Parsons. Then I found out they both didn't count.
On the other hand, there are oodles of left-wing ones. Rob Bryne, Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Jack Whitehall, Chris Addison, Micky Flanagan, Al Murray, John Bishop, Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, Russell Howard..
Don't get me wrong, all of them can be funny. But it would be nice to have someone who held alternative views from the established orthodoxy of the media/arts world. Who knows, it might even form a new niche for their comedy.
PS. I really don't want to fall back on Jim Davidson.
Michael Macintyre doesn't appear that political...might be one.
0 -
Do you have a link to where the Guardian etc claimed it went much further?Richard_Nabavi said:
Sure, and everyone accepts that. However, the Guardian/Tom Watson/HackedOff etc line was that it went much further than that. NOTW was one newspaper out of hundreds of Murdoch business units worldwide, and it seems that a few individuals at that newspaper (and not even the management at that newspaper generally) were involved. That is bad enough, of course, but it's a lot less bad than was being claimed by the Murdoch-haters.Socrates said:I accept it did not go wider than the News of the World, but it went right to the top of that business unit. I would have thought that was a fairly extensive corporate conspiracy. The paper had a readership of two and a half million - it was hardly some minor unit. The editor of that paper was certainly a senior position.
0 -
ToryJim said:
Hmm do you blame the victim of the con artist for being conned? I accept that this isn't great for the PM however he was given assurances by Coulson which a jury has concluded were false. Perhaps he should account for what lead him to believe the lies but surely the greater problem isn't for someone caught believing lies but for those caught telling them?Tykejohnno said:
It's Cameron's judgement been called into Question,not good for a leader.dyedwoolie said:
Why would he? Did the Labour leader step down when how ever many it was of their MPs went to jail? Did Clegg resign when Huhne did bird?Tykejohnno said:For the Greater good of the Conservative party and himself,cameron should stand down as PM.
Anyone agree ?
Wasn't Cameron warned not to hire Coulson and Cameron went against the advise ?
0 -
I agree that the criminals are culpable as they chose to breach the law. The fact though is that the desire to know about the inner workings of celebs lives, this cultural voyeurism, is what fuelled the ever greater lengths to which people went to gain scoops of this nature. We are rightly hammering people for breaching the law but neglecting to criticise the culture in which this form of behaviour was tolerated is inviting similar in future.Socrates said:
No. Blame lies with the criminals, not with the general public. Those creating demand for a product are not responsible for the illegal means to get that product. That applies to celebrity gossip as much as it does to anything else. Just because you and I don't really like the product in question doesn't stop that basic logic.ToryJim said:
In general yes, however it was obvious to any but the chronically brain dead that the ever greater demand for celeb gossip would lead to ever greater intrusion, sharp practice, dubious journalism if not outright illegality to furnish supply. Yes it was wrong to engage in those practices but blame has to be apportioned and some of it has to lie with those who created the demand with their desire for windows into the lives of the famous.Socrates said:
Oh, give me a break. It's not unreasonable to expect the companies you buy stuff from are operating legally. If a multinational company breaks a law, the fault lies with that company, not the working class plumber in Salford. This thread is full of right wingers trying to bend over backwards to make excuses for the Murdoch press.ToryJim said:This whole hacking thing has shown the utter hypocrisy of the tabloid reading class who were more than content to read salacious gossip about celebs without questioning how it was come by.
0 -
I agree. Direct threats, inciting crime and harassment (as Socrates says) are all worthy of investigation. But there have been examples of MPs reporting each other for remarks they disagree with on twitter - the "pikey" post by Harman's husband being but one example.Sean_F said:
Probably, the majority of the complaints are vexatious. However, as TSE points out, the police would be criticised if they didn't investigate them.Casino_Royale said:Off topic, this is ridiculous:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27949674
Don't the police have anything better to do? How many of these complaints are from people who've just had somebody aggressively disagree with them?
Ideally, the law would only prohibit threats or the incitement of crime, made on social media.
I think it's futile to try and policy every single personal insult online, even when these might pick on a (perceived or actual) person's gender, race or sexual orientation.
We have to get the threshold right. It's no excuse, but a lot of people who are socially isolated and mentally unbalanced post personal abuse under the cloak of anonymity. I'm not sure it's a good use of public money to have officers spending a lot of time investigating and then arresting them.
0 -
Quite. people suck, they don't like it being pointed out to them. It gets in the way of their diet of reality trash and casual bigotry.ToryJim said:
I agree that the criminals are culpable as they chose to breach the law. The fact though is that the desire to know about the inner workings of celebs lives, this cultural voyeurism, is what fuelled the ever greater lengths to which people went to gain scoops of this nature. We are rightly hammering people for breaching the law but neglecting to criticise the culture in which this form of behaviour was tolerated is inviting similar in future.Socrates said:
No. Blame lies with the criminals, not with the general public. Those creating demand for a product are not responsible for the illegal means to get that product. That applies to celebrity gossip as much as it does to anything else. Just because you and I don't really like the product in question doesn't stop that basic logic.ToryJim said:
In general yes, however it was obvious to any but the chronically brain dead that the ever greater demand for celeb gossip would lead to ever greater intrusion, sharp practice, dubious journalism if not outright illegality to furnish supply. Yes it was wrong to engage in those practices but blame has to be apportioned and some of it has to lie with those who created the demand with their desire for windows into the lives of the famous.Socrates said:
Oh, give me a break. It's not unreasonable to expect the companies you buy stuff from are operating legally. If a multinational company breaks a law, the fault lies with that company, not the working class plumber in Salford. This thread is full of right wingers trying to bend over backwards to make excuses for the Murdoch press.ToryJim said:This whole hacking thing has shown the utter hypocrisy of the tabloid reading class who were more than content to read salacious gossip about celebs without questioning how it was come by.
0 -
There will always be naysayers for any appointment at that level.Tykejohnno said:ToryJim said:
Hmm do you blame the victim of the con artist for being conned? I accept that this isn't great for the PM however he was given assurances by Coulson which a jury has concluded were false. Perhaps he should account for what lead him to believe the lies but surely the greater problem isn't for someone caught believing lies but for those caught telling them?Tykejohnno said:
It's Cameron's judgement been called into Question,not good for a leader.dyedwoolie said:
Why would he? Did the Labour leader step down when how ever many it was of their MPs went to jail? Did Clegg resign when Huhne did bird?Tykejohnno said:For the Greater good of the Conservative party and himself,cameron should stand down as PM.
Anyone agree ?
Wasn't Cameron warned not to hire Coulson and Cameron went against the advise ?0 -
Will Cameron make a statement to the House?
0 -
Anecdote alert
From my Labour supporting colleague, who doesn't like Dave at all, I paraphrase
"As much as I want Cameron's misjudgement on Coulson to see Dave and the coalition go, it's not as big as invading Iraq is it?"0 -
I suppose TSE might count.dyedwoolie said:
If it helps, I do stand upCasino_Royale said:Another off-topic question, can anyone think of any non left-wing (perhaps right-wing would be a bit of a stretch) comedians?
A friend of mine challenged me on this the other day. The thing is, I couldn't think of any. Originally, I thought about saying Hugh Dennis and Andy Parsons. Then I found out they both didn't count.
On the other hand, there are oodles of left-wing ones. Rob Bryne, Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Jack Whitehall, Chris Addison, Micky Flanagan, Al Murray, John Bishop, Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, Russell Howard..
Don't get me wrong, all of them can be funny. But it would be nice to have someone who held alternative views from the established orthodoxy of the media/arts world. Who knows, it might even form a new niche for their comedy.
PS. I really don't want to fall back on Jim Davidson.0 -
The Guardian helped Cammo... interesting point.
Stephen Tall@stephentall·8 mins
One political observation on Coulson hacking convictn: if Gdn pressure hadn't forced his resignation as Cam's Dir of Comms in Jan 2011 (1/2)
Stephen Tall@stephentall·7 mins
Then consequences for Cameron of his later arrest would have been much more serious. (2/2)0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15660023Socrates said:Do you have a link to where the Guardian etc claimed it went much further?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/observer-editorial-phone-hacking-murdoch
and hundreds more
0 -
Sky say he's recording a statement now. I expect Ed will raise it as PMQs tomorrow.GIN1138 said:Will Cameron make a statement to the House?
0 -
The simple answer is to ban all media coverage of anybody's private life. It's simply none of the nosey gits in this country's business who bonks who, up what orifice or how often.Socrates said:@CD13
At what is the level of fame you need to get to where you move from being an ordinary person who deserves privacy to being a celebrity that doesn't? Being on the TV once?
0 -
I did do stand up once, I was a success.Casino_Royale said:
I suppose TSE might count.dyedwoolie said:
If it helps, I do stand upCasino_Royale said:Another off-topic question, can anyone think of any non left-wing (perhaps right-wing would be a bit of a stretch) comedians?
A friend of mine challenged me on this the other day. The thing is, I couldn't think of any. Originally, I thought about saying Hugh Dennis and Andy Parsons. Then I found out they both didn't count.
On the other hand, there are oodles of left-wing ones. Rob Bryne, Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Jack Whitehall, Chris Addison, Micky Flanagan, Al Murray, John Bishop, Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, Russell Howard..
Don't get me wrong, all of them can be funny. But it would be nice to have someone who held alternative views from the established orthodoxy of the media/arts world. Who knows, it might even form a new niche for their comedy.
PS. I really don't want to fall back on Jim Davidson.0 -
He did what any reasonable person would do and sought to gain reassurance for himself. Advice isn't Holy Writ.Tykejohnno said:ToryJim said:
Hmm do you blame the victim of the con artist for being conned? I accept that this isn't great for the PM however he was given assurances by Coulson which a jury has concluded were false. Perhaps he should account for what lead him to believe the lies but surely the greater problem isn't for someone caught believing lies but for those caught telling them?Tykejohnno said:
It's Cameron's judgement been called into Question,not good for a leader.dyedwoolie said:
Why would he? Did the Labour leader step down when how ever many it was of their MPs went to jail? Did Clegg resign when Huhne did bird?Tykejohnno said:For the Greater good of the Conservative party and himself,cameron should stand down as PM.
Anyone agree ?
Wasn't Cameron warned not to hire Coulson and Cameron went against the advise ?0 -
TOM WATSON, the Labour MP, has blown his top in the Commons culture committee hearing with James Murdoch by accusing him of being a Mafia boss.Socrates said:
Do you have a link to where the Guardian etc claimed it went much further?Richard_Nabavi said:
Sure, and everyone accepts that. However, the Guardian/Tom Watson/HackedOff etc line was that it went much further than that. NOTW was one newspaper out of hundreds of Murdoch business units worldwide, and it seems that a few individuals at that newspaper (and not even the management at that newspaper generally) were involved. That is bad enough, of course, but it's a lot less bad than was being claimed by the Murdoch-haters.Socrates said:I accept it did not go wider than the News of the World, but it went right to the top of that business unit. I would have thought that was a fairly extensive corporate conspiracy. The paper had a readership of two and a half million - it was hardly some minor unit. The editor of that paper was certainly a senior position.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/media/phone-hacking/42261/tom-watson-accuses-james-murdoch-mafia-activities0 -
So it looks like it has always been one rogue editor all along.
The news of the world on this wonderful June day.
Now for Rupe's revenge.0 -
I wouldn't think he should step down, but as I understand it he's believed in assurances that have turned out to be false, and then belligerently backed his faulty judgment. It's not a long-term big deal, but reinforces the impression that he's not very competent, which undermines part of his election strategy ("stick to our solid and capable leader").Tykejohnno said:
It's Cameron's judgement been called into Question,not good for a leader.dyedwoolie said:
Why would he? Did the Labour leader step down when how ever many it was of their MPs went to jail? Did Clegg resign when Huhne did bird?Tykejohnno said:For the Greater good of the Conservative party and himself,cameron should stand down as PM.
Anyone agree ?
A black cygnet, one might say.
0 -
I've done a couple of dozen turns, to varying degrees of hilarityTheScreamingEagles said:
I did do stand up once, I was a success.Casino_Royale said:
I suppose TSE might count.dyedwoolie said:
If it helps, I do stand upCasino_Royale said:Another off-topic question, can anyone think of any non left-wing (perhaps right-wing would be a bit of a stretch) comedians?
A friend of mine challenged me on this the other day. The thing is, I couldn't think of any. Originally, I thought about saying Hugh Dennis and Andy Parsons. Then I found out they both didn't count.
On the other hand, there are oodles of left-wing ones. Rob Bryne, Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Jack Whitehall, Chris Addison, Micky Flanagan, Al Murray, John Bishop, Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, Russell Howard..
Don't get me wrong, all of them can be funny. But it would be nice to have someone who held alternative views from the established orthodoxy of the media/arts world. Who knows, it might even form a new niche for their comedy.
PS. I really don't want to fall back on Jim Davidson.
0 -
You are conflating two different issues:ToryJim said:I agree that the criminals are culpable as they chose to breach the law. The fact though is that the desire to know about the inner workings of celebs lives, this cultural voyeurism, is what fuelled the ever greater lengths to which people went to gain scoops of this nature. We are rightly hammering people for breaching the law but neglecting to criticise the culture in which this form of behaviour was tolerated is inviting similar in future.
(1) Whether the product of celebrity gossip is a bad one
(2) Whether people demanding a product are responsible for criminality involved in supplying it to them
It would be like reacting to the horse meat scandal by saying it was gluttonous and lazy attitudes that created a demand for the pressures to cut corners, and thus supermarket shoppers are partly to blame for it.0 -
The one enduring mental image I'm going to take home with me from this trial is Charlie Brooks drinking a pint of washing up liquid to try and relieve a hangover.
0 -
Only those for whom regular contact with Elvis on the moon is important.Tykejohnno said:For the Greater good of the Conservative party and himself,cameron should stand down as PM.
Anyone agree ?
0 -
Front page of the evening standard
Robin Brant @robindbrant 1m
London evening standard
pic.twitter.com/gKp7GVW2D30 -
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges
One thing Labour should definitely do is send out lots of press releases about Cameron's "judgment". It will be a game changer
0 -
He is a leading supporter of PETA, anti-foxhunting, anti-marriage, an atheist (member of the secular society), a supporter of Obama and has said 'you can't take equality too far'.Socrates said:Is Ricky Gervais left-wing?
He's apolitical in the sense that most comedians in the public eye are non-party political, whilst actually having pretty typical culturally left-wing views.
0 -
It was my "what makes a suicide bomber tick?" bit that had people laughing and feeling guilty.dyedwoolie said:
I've done a couple of dozen turns, to varying degrees of hilarityTheScreamingEagles said:
I did do stand up once, I was a success.Casino_Royale said:
I suppose TSE might count.dyedwoolie said:
If it helps, I do stand upCasino_Royale said:Another off-topic question, can anyone think of any non left-wing (perhaps right-wing would be a bit of a stretch) comedians?
A friend of mine challenged me on this the other day. The thing is, I couldn't think of any. Originally, I thought about saying Hugh Dennis and Andy Parsons. Then I found out they both didn't count.
On the other hand, there are oodles of left-wing ones. Rob Bryne, Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Jack Whitehall, Chris Addison, Micky Flanagan, Al Murray, John Bishop, Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, Russell Howard..
Don't get me wrong, all of them can be funny. But it would be nice to have someone who held alternative views from the established orthodoxy of the media/arts world. Who knows, it might even form a new niche for their comedy.
PS. I really don't want to fall back on Jim Davidson.0 -
Cameron is certainly in for a nervous week or so. For me the threat is less the entirely predictable attacks from Labour, and much more about how the undoubted enemies he has within his own party will react. As Tykejohno points out there were plenty of people who advised him against the Coulson appointment. Will, for example, David Davis see this an opportunity to enter the fray?0
-
That and his porn collection.Pulpstar said:The one enduring mental image I'm going to take home with me from this trial is Charlie Brooks drinking a pint of washing up liquid to try and relieve a hangover.
0 -
Tommy Sheridan will be made up - he'll get an undeserved pay out.0
-
Indeed. One might compare it with the supply of legal drugs such as alcohol or tobacco. If one has puritan views one might disagree with their consumption but that is legal. That does not mean that any and all action taking to supply those products must also be legal. There are many ways in which people supplying a public desire can break the law whilst the product they provide is still legal.Socrates said:
You are conflating two different issues:ToryJim said:I agree that the criminals are culpable as they chose to breach the law. The fact though is that the desire to know about the inner workings of celebs lives, this cultural voyeurism, is what fuelled the ever greater lengths to which people went to gain scoops of this nature. We are rightly hammering people for breaching the law but neglecting to criticise the culture in which this form of behaviour was tolerated is inviting similar in future.
(1) Whether the product of celebrity gossip is a bad one
(2) Whether people demanding a product are responsible for criminality involved in supplying it to them
It would be like reacting to the horse meat scandal by saying it was gluttonous and lazy attitudes that created a demand for the pressures to cut corners, and thus supermarket shoppers are partly to blame for it.0 -
''TOM WATSON, the Labour MP, has blown his top in the Commons culture committee hearing with James Murdoch by accusing him of being a Mafia boss.''
Watson only made that charge under parliamentary privilege. If Murdoch had had any sense or gumption, he would have immediately challenged Watson to repeat his accusation outside the confines of the enquiry, and then sued for libel.
0 -
Were you envious ?TheScreamingEagles said:
That and his porn collection.Pulpstar said:The one enduring mental image I'm going to take home with me from this trial is Charlie Brooks drinking a pint of washing up liquid to try and relieve a hangover.
0 -
Rebekah Brooks definitely not guilty in the court of twitter opinion I see.0
-
Unless I'm missing something, those articles don't claim phone hacking went further - just that the desire to protect their own and limit the information given out went much further.Richard_Nabavi said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15660023Socrates said:Do you have a link to where the Guardian etc claimed it went much further?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/observer-editorial-phone-hacking-murdoch
and hundreds more
0 -
Mr Socrates,
"At what is the level of fame you need to get to where you move from being an ordinary person who deserves privacy to being a celebrity that doesn't?"
It's self-regulating. I'm open offers if anyone wants to hack my phone, but I'm not holding my breath.
Celebrities choose fame and celebrity. I don't care how many whores Hugh Grant has ... how shall I out this delicately? Or what some bimbo I've never heard of has got up to. But there's a market for gormless gossip. How can they complain of lack of privacy when they embrace publicity when it's on their terms.
Individuals who are made newsworthy despite not wanting it should be left alone. Who's been hurt by all of this? The Dowler family and a few more - definitely. The usual tawdry mix of gobshites and politicians? They can get ... see comment on Hugh Grant.0 -
Well done. It's my idea of hell. About 1:10 of my jokes hit the mark, if I'm lucky! The idea of standing in front of a crowd and trying to make them laugh terrifies me.TheScreamingEagles said:
I did do stand up once, I was a success.Casino_Royale said:
I suppose TSE might count.dyedwoolie said:
If it helps, I do stand upCasino_Royale said:Another off-topic question, can anyone think of any non left-wing (perhaps right-wing would be a bit of a stretch) comedians?
A friend of mine challenged me on this the other day. The thing is, I couldn't think of any. Originally, I thought about saying Hugh Dennis and Andy Parsons. Then I found out they both didn't count.
On the other hand, there are oodles of left-wing ones. Rob Bryne, Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Jack Whitehall, Chris Addison, Micky Flanagan, Al Murray, John Bishop, Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, Russell Howard..
Don't get me wrong, all of them can be funny. But it would be nice to have someone who held alternative views from the established orthodoxy of the media/arts world. Who knows, it might even form a new niche for their comedy.
PS. I really don't want to fall back on Jim Davidson.
Being naturally funny and gifted at comedy is a fantastic talent to have.0 -
James Tapsfield @JamesTapsfield
Cameron offers "full and frank apology" for employing Andy Coulson at No10: "It was the wrong decision and I am very clear about that."
0 -
Louise Mensch & Dan Hodges batting for Mrs Brooks on twitter.0
-
@TykeJohnno
"Wasn't Cameron warned not to hire Coulson and Cameron went against the advise ?"
I expect, Tyke, that DC was given high level assurances from News Int'l that Coulson was OK, despite the man's previous record. If that is so, it would have been difficult for him to ignore those assurances.
In this sense if no other, he is entitled to feel he was let down.
0 -
PBTory logic.
Labour have dodgy spindoctor who resigns after not committing offences. Very serious even now years later, calls into question their morals and competence. As aired by Oik in response to Balls in the Commons earlier.
LibDems have a dodgy cabinet minister who insists he didn't do it. Calls into question Clegg's ability to run his party, terrible criminal outrage.
Tories have a dodgy spindoctor who is convicted and soon to be jailed over hacking phones. That the Chancellor recommended him to the Prime Minister, and the PM continually backed him, and the PM will now have to issue a profound apology is clearly an absolute non-story. Non issue, why are we talking about it.0 -
Very probable, but not quite nailed on. The issue is the combination of this with the likely collapse of his EU policy. The latter will probably be OK - as when Boehner finally lost on the government shut-down, the hard-liners will probably appreciate the effort - but you never know; The EU can provoke Tory backbenchers into sudden, unpredictable stampedes.Pulpstar said:
He'll survive the week. Nailed on.edmundintokyo said:
Agree, provided Cameron:MikeSmithson said:
Good point and my guess is that in the medium term the impact will be the same. Almost none.Socrates said:It's fairly amusing Tories on this thread repeatedly remark that no-one cares, when they went on and on and on about Rennard, Huhne etc.
1) Survives the week.
2) Doesn't feel the need to say or do something impactful in order to survive the week.0 -
@NickPalmer
I was thinking, PB Labour conference meet, on the evening of Wednesday 24th of September?
How does that work for you?0 -
Yes, good point. What do you think about the football?RochdalePioneers said:PBTory logic.
Labour have dodgy spindoctor who resigns after not committing offences. Very serious even now years later, calls into question their morals and competence. As aired by Oik in response to Balls in the Commons earlier.
LibDems have a dodgy cabinet minister who insists he didn't do it. Calls into question Clegg's ability to run his party, terrible criminal outrage.
Tories have a dodgy spindoctor who is convicted and soon to be jailed over hacking phones. That the Chancellor recommended him to the Prime Minister, and the PM continually backed him, and the PM will now have to issue a profound apology is clearly an absolute non-story. Non issue, why are we talking about it.
0 -
Lousie Mensch's tweets are platinum grade troll bait
http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2014/06/louise-mensch-trollier-thou0 -
Phone hacking: probably the most boringly milked news story of the last 2-3 years. I would have been bored if Coulson had been found innocent, guilty or no verdict was returned at all. I expect I will be even more bored by the press coverage over the next few days. The only interesting part (because it genuinely worries me) is the possible reactionary spin-off into much tighter press regulation, which I vehemently oppose.
Next...0 -
Nah.TGOHF said:
Were you envious ?TheScreamingEagles said:
That and his porn collection.Pulpstar said:The one enduring mental image I'm going to take home with me from this trial is Charlie Brooks drinking a pint of washing up liquid to try and relieve a hangover.
0 -
@Socrates
Well in regards to the horse meat scandal there is something to be said for the scenario you lay out. Absolutely criminality is ultimately the responsibility of the criminal, but crime happens within a context. The context of phone hacking is the celebrity obsession and the profitability that stories around that meant that the balance of risk appeared altered. In the same way in respect of food the desire by the public for cheap, limited hassle food lead to the criminal behaviour. Without the underlying demand the risk wouldn't have necessarily been taken, those that took that decision to cross into criminality bear the responsibility for that. However we cannot and should not ignore the surrounding context.0 -
Cameron looks a bit hacked off making his apology...0
-
Dave's good at apologies.0
-
The Prime Minister gave a man a second chance and then stuck with his decision .... will you do the same for Ed Miliband after the general election ?NickPalmer said:
I wouldn't think he should step down, but as I understand it he's believed in assurances that have turned out to be false, and then belligerently backed his faulty judgment. It's not a long-term big deal, but reinforces the impression that he's not very competent, which undermines part of his election strategy ("stick to our solid and capable leader").Tykejohnno said:
It's Cameron's judgement been called into Question,not good for a leader.dyedwoolie said:
Why would he? Did the Labour leader step down when how ever many it was of their MPs went to jail? Did Clegg resign when Huhne did bird?Tykejohnno said:For the Greater good of the Conservative party and himself,cameron should stand down as PM.
Anyone agree ?
A black cygnet, one might say.
0 -
So the court decision validates her view that Brooks was innocent, but she doesn't believe the court decision that Coulson was guilty. Isn't that a text book case of confirmation bias?TGOHF said:Lousie Mensch's tweets are platinum grade troll bait
http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2014/06/louise-mensch-trollier-thou
What a ditzy idiot. How did she ever raise to any station?
Louise Mensch ✔ @LouiseMensch
Follow
I wish I could say that Andy Coulson was my friend. I do say that I always admired him, I admire him now, I hope to work with him one day
Oh, she's a massive ass kisser.0 -
Will it be set to music?TheScreamingEagles said:Dave's good at apologies.
0 -
Do you mind.. copying my posts as well as my bets....TheScreamingEagles said:Dave's good at apologies.
0 -
Personally, I still don't care about phone hacking and I still think it's a "non story" in the sense that I could give a **** that Jude Law, Sienna Miller, David Blunkett, etc.. got hacked.Casino_Royale said:Phone hacking: probably the most boringly milked news story of the last 2-3 years. I would have been bored if Coulson had been found innocent, guilty or no verdict was returned at all. I expect I will be even more bored by the press coverage over the next few days. The only interesting part (because it genuinely worries me) is the possible reactionary spin-off into much tighter press regulation, which I vehemently oppose.
Next...0 -
It's all about delivery, and making people feeling guilty for laughing.Casino_Royale said:
Well done. It's my idea of hell. About 1:10 of my jokes hit the mark, if I'm lucky! The idea of standing in front of a crowd and trying to make them laugh terrifies me.TheScreamingEagles said:
I did do stand up once, I was a success.Casino_Royale said:
I suppose TSE might count.dyedwoolie said:
If it helps, I do stand upCasino_Royale said:Another off-topic question, can anyone think of any non left-wing (perhaps right-wing would be a bit of a stretch) comedians?
A friend of mine challenged me on this the other day. The thing is, I couldn't think of any. Originally, I thought about saying Hugh Dennis and Andy Parsons. Then I found out they both didn't count.
On the other hand, there are oodles of left-wing ones. Rob Bryne, Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Jack Whitehall, Chris Addison, Micky Flanagan, Al Murray, John Bishop, Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, Russell Howard..
Don't get me wrong, all of them can be funny. But it would be nice to have someone who held alternative views from the established orthodoxy of the media/arts world. Who knows, it might even form a new niche for their comedy.
PS. I really don't want to fall back on Jim Davidson.
Being naturally funny and gifted at comedy is a fantastic talent to have.0 -
Will have to stop watching news for next few days if a load of luvvies come on moaning about the press0
-
Piers Morgan ✔ @piersmorgan
So happy for my friends Rebekah and Charlie, so sad for my friend Andy. A good man, who I will always support. #hackingverdicts
I wonder if Morgan is thinking 'There but for the grace of God go I.'0 -
Our bets are going to be a loser!Scrapheap_as_was said:
Do you mind.. copying my posts as well as my bets....TheScreamingEagles said:Dave's good at apologies.
0 -
The defamation (not libel, strictly speaking) case was with him as plaintiff, if that helps resolve the confusion ... but looks as if nothing will happen in public for months.Pulpstar said:
Was he guilty or not guilty of libel or perjury ? Tricky to remember.TGOHF said:Tommy Sheridan will be made up - he'll get an undeserved pay out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27774357
0 -
I like Ed Miliband but I think it's pretty clear that he only gets one shot.JackW said:
The Prime Minister gave a man a second chance and then stuck with his decision .... will you do the same for Ed Miliband after the general election ?NickPalmer said:
I wouldn't think he should step down, but as I understand it he's believed in assurances that have turned out to be false, and then belligerently backed his faulty judgment. It's not a long-term big deal, but reinforces the impression that he's not very competent, which undermines part of his election strategy ("stick to our solid and capable leader").Tykejohnno said:
It's Cameron's judgement been called into Question,not good for a leader.dyedwoolie said:
Why would he? Did the Labour leader step down when how ever many it was of their MPs went to jail? Did Clegg resign when Huhne did bird?Tykejohnno said:For the Greater good of the Conservative party and himself,cameron should stand down as PM.
Anyone agree ?
A black cygnet, one might say.0 -
Coulson gate will make no difference. That's my prediction.0
-
Inevitable perhaps ...TheScreamingEagles said:
Our bets are going to be a loser!Scrapheap_as_was said:
Do you mind.. copying my posts as well as my bets....TheScreamingEagles said:Dave's good at apologies.
Mind you, LONG way to go yet and cashing out for profit of £131 is still there currently...0 -
Why Coulson's conviction for illegally breeching people's privacy is a complete non issue. In Cameron's own words:
1. "It's wrong for newspapers to breach people's privacy with no justification. That is why Andy Coulson resigned as editor of the News of the World two and a half years ago.
"Of course I knew about that resignation before offering him the job. But I believe in giving people a second chance."
2."Obviously, when he was editor of the News of the World, bad things happened at that newspaper.
"I think there is a danger at the moment that he is effectively being punished twice for the same offence… I gave him a second chance."
3. "Well, obviously I gave him a second chance. I think in life it is right to give someone a second chance. He resigned [for] what went wrong at the News of the World. I would just argue that, working for the government, I think he has done a good job for the government and for the country."
4. "I accept he was an editor of a newspaper where some very bad things happened. Because he'd resigned... it was reasonable to offer him a second chance... People will judge me on that, and I fully understand that.
"When you work with someone for four years as I did and you work closely, you do build a friendship and I became friends with him... so, yes, he became a friend and is a friend."
5. "All these questions relate to the fact that I hired a tabloid editor. I did so on the basis of assurances he gave me that he did not know about the phone-hacking and he was not involved in criminality.
"He gave those self-same assurances to the police, to a select committee of this house and under oath to a court of law.
"If it turns out he lied, it won't just be that he shouldn't have been in government, it will be that he should be prosecuted.
"But I do believe, Mr Speaker, that we must stick to the principle that you are innocent until you are proven guilty."
Where I think Cameron's embarrasment is most acute is this: He stated repeatedly that he knew about "bad thing happening" causing Coulson's resignation. Coulson has now been convicted of these "bad things" once their full extent was uncovered.
The problem is Cameron's judgement in giving the benefit of the doubt to Coulson's assurances over phone hacking. Are we to believe that when vetted Coulson was completely squeaky clean? That Cameron had no possible conception that anything bad had happened when "bad things" happened at NOTW? That politically its perfectly safe and OK to have this man run the Downing Street press machine at the heart of government?
Cameron either had suspicions (or warnings via vetting) which he chose to ignore. Or he was utterly naieve and a fool. Will be interesting to see which his "profound apology" refers to.0 -
Take it.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Inevitable perhaps ...TheScreamingEagles said:
Our bets are going to be a loser!Scrapheap_as_was said:
Do you mind.. copying my posts as well as my bets....TheScreamingEagles said:Dave's good at apologies.
Mind you, LONG way to go yet and cashing out for profit of £131 is still there currently...
It's getting spicy out there, Steve Davis & Billy Bowden had to turn into peacekeepers.0 -
vs Iraq.RochdalePioneers said:Why Coulson's conviction for illegally breeching people's privacy is a complete non issue. In Cameron's own words:
1. "It's wrong for newspapers to breach people's privacy with no justification. That is why Andy Coulson resigned as editor of the News of the World two and a half years ago.
"Of course I knew about that resignation before offering him the job. But I believe in giving people a second chance."
2."Obviously, when he was editor of the News of the World, bad things happened at that newspaper.
"I think there is a danger at the moment that he is effectively being punished twice for the same offence… I gave him a second chance."
3. "Well, obviously I gave him a second chance. I think in life it is right to give someone a second chance. He resigned [for] what went wrong at the News of the World. I would just argue that, working for the government, I think he has done a good job for the government and for the country."
4. "I accept he was an editor of a newspaper where some very bad things happened. Because he'd resigned... it was reasonable to offer him a second chance... People will judge me on that, and I fully understand that.
"When you work with someone for four years as I did and you work closely, you do build a friendship and I became friends with him... so, yes, he became a friend and is a friend."
5. "All these questions relate to the fact that I hired a tabloid editor. I did so on the basis of assurances he gave me that he did not know about the phone-hacking and he was not involved in criminality.
"He gave those self-same assurances to the police, to a select committee of this house and under oath to a court of law.
"If it turns out he lied, it won't just be that he shouldn't have been in government, it will be that he should be prosecuted.
"But I do believe, Mr Speaker, that we must stick to the principle that you are innocent until you are proven guilty."
Where I think Cameron's embarrasment is most acute is this: He stated repeatedly that he knew about "bad thing happening" causing Coulson's resignation. Coulson has now been convicted of these "bad things" once their full extent was uncovered.
The problem is Cameron's judgement in giving the benefit of the doubt to Coulson's assurances over phone hacking. Are we to believe that when vetted Coulson was completely squeaky clean? That Cameron had no possible conception that anything bad had happened when "bad things" happened at NOTW? That politically its perfectly safe and OK to have this man run the Downing Street press machine at the heart of government?
Cameron either had suspicions (or warnings via vetting) which he chose to ignore. Or he was utterly naieve and a fool. Will be interesting to see which his "profound apology" refers to.
0 -
Sadly for Labour, electorally Ed is firing blanks.edmundintokyo said:
I like Ed Miliband but I think it's pretty clear that he only gets one shot.JackW said:
The Prime Minister gave a man a second chance and then stuck with his decision .... will you do the same for Ed Miliband after the general election ?NickPalmer said:
I wouldn't think he should step down, but as I understand it he's believed in assurances that have turned out to be false, and then belligerently backed his faulty judgment. It's not a long-term big deal, but reinforces the impression that he's not very competent, which undermines part of his election strategy ("stick to our solid and capable leader").Tykejohnno said:
It's Cameron's judgement been called into Question,not good for a leader.dyedwoolie said:
Why would he? Did the Labour leader step down when how ever many it was of their MPs went to jail? Did Clegg resign when Huhne did bird?Tykejohnno said:For the Greater good of the Conservative party and himself,cameron should stand down as PM.
Anyone agree ?
A black cygnet, one might say.
0 -
@RochdalePioneers
A good post. When Cameron employed Coulson, he must have known he was either (a) guilty in being involved or (b) hapless in not knowing what his immediate staff were doing.
It was obviously a huge negative in recruiting him, and Coulson's talents don't seem to be so much larger than any other spin doctor in making up for it. The obvious conclusion is that there were other advantages in recruiting Coulson, namely the good favour of Rupert Murdoch.0 -
Pulpstar,
"The Dowler texts were auto-deleted."
Then what's all the fuss about?
I've no time for journalists; in my view, they even rank below below politicians. But a free press comes with collateral damage. If the collateral damage is to celebs who are so far up their own orifice, you'd only hear a muffled conversation, then who cares?
Cammo has a lot of faults but giving someone a second chance, and ignoring gossip/scandal about them, isn't a real fault. I'd have said the same if he'd hired Damian McBride. If Coulson went on to commit similar offences from Number 10, then the judgement call would have some bearing.
I wonder what the current Spads get up to?0 -
Surely the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party will be delighted if the Junkers episode goes against Cameron.edmundintokyo said:
Very probable, but not quite nailed on. The issue is the combination of this with the likely collapse of his EU policy. The latter will probably be OK - as when Boehner finally lost on the government shut-down, the hard-liners will probably appreciate the effort - but you never know; The EU can provoke Tory backbenchers into sudden, unpredictable stampedes.Pulpstar said:
He'll survive the week. Nailed on.edmundintokyo said:
Agree, provided Cameron:MikeSmithson said:
Good point and my guess is that in the medium term the impact will be the same. Almost none.Socrates said:It's fairly amusing Tories on this thread repeatedly remark that no-one cares, when they went on and on and on about Rennard, Huhne etc.
1) Survives the week.
2) Doesn't feel the need to say or do something impactful in order to survive the week.
It will move him along the route in a direction that is steering towards the Eurosceptic side of the divide.0 -
@Socrates
The only fair way to judge this is subsidy as a proportion of passenger revenue. Read, and learn...
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpayer_subsidy_train_network_nationalisation-33910 -
Probably, but they'll think they're due another concession, and may be upset if they don't get it.philiph said:
Surely the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party will be delighted if the Junkers episode goes against Cameron.edmundintokyo said:
Very probable, but not quite nailed on. The issue is the combination of this with the likely collapse of his EU policy. The latter will probably be OK - as when Boehner finally lost on the government shut-down, the hard-liners will probably appreciate the effort - but you never know; The EU can provoke Tory backbenchers into sudden, unpredictable stampedes.Pulpstar said:
He'll survive the week. Nailed on.edmundintokyo said:
Agree, provided Cameron:MikeSmithson said:
Good point and my guess is that in the medium term the impact will be the same. Almost none.Socrates said:It's fairly amusing Tories on this thread repeatedly remark that no-one cares, when they went on and on and on about Rennard, Huhne etc.
1) Survives the week.
2) Doesn't feel the need to say or do something impactful in order to survive the week.
It will move him along the route in a direction that is steering towards the Eurosceptic side of the divide.0 -
Is Iraq more serious than Coulson? Absolutely. But politically the difficulty was always that the Tories gave Blair and the war their full support. Hard to turn it party political when both sides thought it was a good idea. And Blair hasn't committed a crime.MarkHopkins said:
vs Iraq.
And the bad judgement of Blair (negated by the bad judgement of the Tories supporting him) negates the bad judgement of Cameron how?
Coulson was vetted. Cameron either knew enough to know that at best believing Coulson's assurance was high political risk. Or he chose to ignore all the warnings so that he could say "how was I supposed to know". Either way his judgement is appalling.
0 -
BobaFett said:
@Socrates
The only fair way to judge this is subsidy as a proportion of passenger revenue. Read, and learn...
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpayer_subsidy_train_network_nationalisation-3391
So the largest public subsidising happened under Labour. it's now decreasing and the main recipient of this subsidy is Network Rail which is effectively itself a public body rather than the private TOCs.0 -
Bad judgement based on information that was less than economical with the truth, it bore no resemblance to the truth.RochdalePioneers said:
Is Iraq more serious than Coulson? Absolutely. But politically the difficulty was always that the Tories gave Blair and the war their full support. Hard to turn it party political when both sides thought it was a good idea. And Blair hasn't committed a crime.MarkHopkins said:
vs Iraq.
And the bad judgement of Blair (negated by the bad judgement of the Tories supporting him) negates the bad judgement of Cameron how?
Coulson was vetted. Cameron either knew enough to know that at best believing Coulson's assurance was high political risk. Or he chose to ignore all the warnings so that he could say "how was I supposed to know". Either way his judgement is appalling.
If a crime was committed, then AC & TB are guilty in spades in relative terms. (where AC = Campbell and TB = Blair).
Cameron believing Coulsons innocence, Coulsons crimes compared to going to war on a false prospectus.
I think I can work out the serious issue there.
0 -
What are you going on about? The Coulson business will have precisely zero impact amongst Conservative MPs. and is in the price anyway. And in what conceivable world is Cameron's EU policy likely to collapse in the near future? OK, a candidate who he doesn't want (and nor do Miliband and Clegg) might get appointed, but so what? That just goes to show that we need renegotiation, and, if we don't make progress, that we might have to consider leaving. Juncker is a side-show in that, most especially because the negotiations haven't started yet. At worst, the negotiation will fail and the BOOers will get a better chance in the subsequent referendum than they otherwise would.edmundintokyo said:
Very probable, but not quite nailed on. The issue is the combination of this with the likely collapse of his EU policy. The latter will probably be OK - as when Boehner finally lost on the government shut-down, the hard-liners will probably appreciate the effort - but you never know; The EU can provoke Tory backbenchers into sudden, unpredictable stampedes.0 -
many would argue Blair has committed heinous crimes and should stand trial for it.RochdalePioneers said:
Is Iraq more serious than Coulson? Absolutely. But politically the difficulty was always that the Tories gave Blair and the war their full support. Hard to turn it party political when both sides thought it was a good idea. And Blair hasn't committed a crime.MarkHopkins said:
vs Iraq.
And the bad judgement of Blair (negated by the bad judgement of the Tories supporting him) negates the bad judgement of Cameron how?
Coulson was vetted. Cameron either knew enough to know that at best believing Coulson's assurance was high political risk. Or he chose to ignore all the warnings so that he could say "how was I supposed to know". Either way his judgement is appalling.
Lying to secure the support of IDS is a minor matter compared to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
0 -
Even up Sri Lanka and Draw profits ?Scrapheap_as_was said:
Inevitable perhaps ...TheScreamingEagles said:
Our bets are going to be a loser!Scrapheap_as_was said:
Do you mind.. copying my posts as well as my bets....TheScreamingEagles said:Dave's good at apologies.
Mind you, LONG way to go yet and cashing out for profit of £131 is still there currently...0 -
The jury are still deliberating on two further charges faced by Andy Coulson and one charge faced by the News of the World's former royal editor Clive Goodman.
The judge has given jurors a majority direction, meaning they can return with a verdict that is not unanimous.
However, the judge has indicated he will not take any verdicts between 1pm and 2pm.
Well at least the judiciary have their priorities sorted.0
