Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

Jon as you well know, the whole Coulson thing was way before the perjury trial, and I never said anything of the sort re his appearance as a witness, again as you well know. The fact that Cameron recruited this man who had a very chequered history before he got the very senior post in the Tory party, shows bad judgement. The fact that he continued to support him, despite the numerous allegations that were being thrown around showed nothing but more bad judgement on his part. The fact that he didn't want him to resign, again bad judgement.

You said there was no story, it seems you were wrong

[tonyh29]

Wonder if bad judgement will result in Coulsen being brought back into government 2 more times before sabotaging his own parties election campaign as well ?

[peterms]

My post above was just ponting out that comparing a commerical newspaper bugging individuals to a sitting President bugging political rivals and burgling their offices is nonsense - because it is.

Jon, you have previously made many points over many threads which demonstrate that you care deeply about national security, defence of the realm, and so on.

Are you aware that the list of people whose names show up in the documents and records of the convicted hacker as "targets" and whose voicemails the first police inquiry had found had been accessed without authority include eight members of the military; the deputy PM; the Home Secretary; and senior members of the police - this at a time when the country was at war. Mentioned here.

There's a temptation to see this as no more than tabloid snooping on minor celebrities for the purpose of finding out who's shagging who. Actually, it seems to be more like an institutionalised practice of snooping on anyone and everyone, combined with a well orchestrated effort to bury the truth by paying people off, threatening others, giving strong hints about where their best interests lie and so on. It is endemic, institutional corruption conducted for profit by the most powerful news organisation in the world, and they don't stop short of bugging senior politicians, police and military figures, if we are to believe what is emerging despite their efforts at concealment.

And while this is going on, there is a clear effort by the people responsible to suborn those making decisions, from the Prime Minister downwards, using the usual combination of social links, informal pressure, giving or withholding support through the press, while at the same time attempting to extend the vast degree of control of the press that this despicable outfit already possesses.

It's a matter of constitutional importance, not something on the level of "Hello". It is on the level of bugging political opponents, but actually goes beyond that, to bugging several arms of the state, not just a campaign headquarters. In that respect, the scale of the enterprise goes far, far beyond Watergate.

[peterms]

There seems to be a rearguard action to obscure the simple fact that Cameron had dinner with Rebekah Brooks and Murdoch's son, shortly after relieving Vince Cable of the job of deciding whether News Internatiional should be allowed to gobble up the rest of BSkyB.

I wonder why it's such a secret, if nothing untoward took place?

Since it emerged that David Cameron dined with News International executives James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks over Christmas, Downing Street has danced around the details.

There has been no official confirmation that Cameron and his wife were guests with Murdoch, the Europe and Asia chairman of News Corp, at the dinner hosted by Brooks, chief executive of News International, and her husband, Charlie, a racehorse trainer, at their Oxfordshire home. It is said to have taken place just days after Cameron stripped Vince Cable of his powers over media takeovers and passed them to Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary.

Yesterday the Guardian asked No 10 several questions about the social gathering, its timing, and the table talk. The questions were: What was the date of the dinner? Who was present? Was phone hacking discussed? Was the BSkyB takeover discussed? Was Andy Coulson's position in Downing Street discussed? What dates over the Christmas holiday period was Cameron in his constituency? The response was a refusal to answer any of them. "We haven't got any details on this. Meetings and details of meetings are published in the usual way, which is quarterly for official meetings," said a spokesman.

Extracting information has been a tortuous process. The Guardian approached Downing Street 11 days ago to respond to information given to the newspaper that Cameron had dined with Brooks at her home on the evening of Christmas Day. No 10 came back with a categoric denial that the prime minister had been a Christmas Day guest at Brooks's home.

The Guardian rephrased the question. Had Cameron been a guest at a dinner hosted by Brooks over the Christmas period? This time Downing Street refused to confirm or deny the information.

Then a story appeared on the rightwing political blog Guido Fawkes. It referred to Guardian "hacks" planning a story on the dinner, in the context of the Guardian "waging a war" against News International and Coulson over phone hacking, and the "slight matter of the government imminently taking a crucial decision" about the Murdoch takeover of BSkyB. It pointed out "Dave and Sam" often socialised with "Rebekah and her husband 'Champagne Charlie' Brooks", as they were near neighbours in Oxfordshire. Sunday lunches "chez Cameron" were not unknown.

This speculation prompted the first response from No 10. A source played down the significance of the social engagement and pointed out that Brooks is one of the prime minister's constituents. The source said: "To suggest some kind of impropriety is laughable. The prime minister regularly meets newspaper executives from lots of different companies."

When, on Monday, it emerged that James Murdoch, who is not a constituent of Cameron's, was also at the dinner, again there was no official confirmation. But now the words carefully chosen by sources did not imply a denial. The prime minister did not believe it was necessary to comment on private social engagements during a holiday period.

A spokesman said: "Clearly the prime minister does meet with people from the media from time to time. That is not at all unusual for prime ministers."

The burning question was would such a meeting lead to the prime minister speaking to Murdoch senior, and could any table talk affect the BSkyB takeover. "It would have no bearing on that decision, which is a decision taken by Jeremy Hunt and Jeremy Hunt alone," journalists were told.

Sources yesterday were still refusing to confirm or deny the prime minister's private engagements. But they are giving guidance that the BSkyB bid and phone hacking were not discussed. So, in a very roundabout way, the fact that there was a dinner seems to have been established.

[Awol]

Peter,

No frankly I wasn't aware of the scale of it, and if all you have suggested above is true then hopefully it will go a long way to clipping Murdoch's wings in the UK. He is a dangerous anti-democratic megalomaniac and I dislike him as much as you do. I also agree with Ian that (again, if all of these allegations are proved) it shows a serious error of judgement on Cameron's part by appointing him in the first place. You'd think doing due dilligence on the Downing Street Head of Comm's would happen as a given??! I do however understand Cameron not throwing him to the wolves on the basis of unproven allegations and that shows an element of loyalty in his character that I actually respect.

[leviramsey]

As it happens, one of the central figures in Watergate was Chuck Colson (obligatory disclosure: he's a family friend, though I was born well after he became a Jesus freak; an uncle of mine was a partner in his pre-White House law firm and my dad was recommended to Nixon by Colson as a candidate to be Secretary of Housing & Urban Development)

[blandy]

Coulson was appointed to give Cameron an inside access to the digger, surely?

Suspect it's not just NoTW that was at the hacking.

[Awol]

Suspect it's not just NoTW that was at the hacking.

I read that The Mirror are also under investigation. Maybe that's why Piers Morgan 'fled' to the US TV circuit? Every cloud..

[Gringo]

My post above was just ponting out that comparing a commerical newspaper bugging individuals to a sitting President bugging political rivals and burgling their offices is nonsense - because it is.

sitting President = rupert

political rival = george galloway (well he's the only politician that I can recall was hacked - I know two jabs has made a lot of noise but that was about whether he had been hacked wasn't it?)

As it happens, one of the central figures in Watergate was Chuck Colson (obligatory disclosure: he's a family friend, though I was born well after he became a Jesus freak; an uncle of mine was a partner in his pre-White House law firm and my dad was recommended to Nixon by Colson as a candidate to be Secretary of Housing & Urban Development)

and it was the cover up that did for the govt that time around. The cover up can't do for them this time as they're touring the middle east or writing another book.

[peterms]

Coulson was appointed to give Cameron an inside access to the digger, surely?

Suspect it's not just NoTW that was at the hacking.

Yes to both parts. Though on the first, isn't it odd that someone who had to resign because of the illegal activity of his staff should continue to be on quite such good terms with the company? A couple of people have remarked on this in the press, and I think it's an interesting point.

On the second, I think we will find in due course that most of the press have been doing the same. What sets News International apart is the fact that the police have been sitting on a mass of evidence and have chosen not to investigate it over the course of several years, have chosen not to interview several NoW staff whose names had come up, had requested the DPP to limit the prosecutions for no reason which seems related to the public interest, that the policeman in charge of the investigation was and remains a friend of Coulson, and that NI employed Hayman after he had to resign from the police.

All of that suggests a degree of influence by NI over the police which absolutely requires full and independent investigation.

The rest of the press will no doubt try to maintain close links to the police, because so many of their stories come from being fed information by them, but I've yet to see a suggestion that other press-police relationships are quite as sinister as this one appears.

[blandy]

Aye, I reckon the police will have details of other papers' activities as well, and they'll be sitting on them just the same.

The number of times the media - tabloids mainly are there when "so and so was taken in for questioning" or whatever is too often to be anything other than police - media - cash - story.

WHen the police are taking money from the press, there's surely an "interest" in protecting their cash cow.

Not good for law, not good for media and not good for the individual on the end of it.

The police are not neutral, the media is mostly driven by making money from sleaze, with added proprietorial influence to protect media empires and business interests, rather than being genuinely "free".

And the politician's know this but lack the balls to do anything about it. When someone does pop their head up (Cable for example) they are swiftly removed from their post by the whole crooked mess.

The Tories will no doubt be desperate to waive through Murdoch's bid for control of Sky, but now it's unravelling in public, I dunno what's going to happen.

Has anyone mentioned BIAD for a while?

[RunRickyRun]

Are the Police taking money for stories?

I always though it was a mutually beneficial relationship where the police/security services would feed information to the press who would regurgitate the story ad nauseam (often straight from the fax machine) with the result that the police would be portrayed in a positive light and the journo would have the rest of the afternoon off in a seedy wine bar.

As for the Cameron / Murdoch relationship. I think it may be a case of "What have you done for me lately?". There was always a power struggle between Coulson and Hilton (newspapers vs online influence). The deal with Murdoch did not win Cameron the election and with NI in a mess, he may be strongly advised to look in another direction.

Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part

[peterms]

Are the Police taking money for stories?

Rebekah Brooks admitted as much to a Commons committee, several years ago. News International quickly moved to "correct" what she had said, because of course such activity is illegal.

As Conservative MPs raised concerns about News International, Murdoch was criticised for promoting Rebekah Brooks after she admitted illegal payments were made to police by the News of the World.

Labour MPs used parliamentary privilege in the commons debate to criticise the chairman and CEO of News Corporation, which owns the newspaper publisher, and his senior executives, who are battling claims that the NoW endorsed the illegal hacking of mobile phones.

Tom Watson, a Labour member of the Commons culture select committee, placed Murdoch in the line of fire by accusing him of appointing Brooks as chief executive of News International knowing that she had admitted that illegal payments had been made to police.

The former minister cited evidence by Brooks to the culture committee in 2003 in which she admitted that the News of the World had paid police officers in the past for stories. This was condemned by the committee and by the Met as illegal.

"When Murdoch appointed Brooks he did so in that knowledge," Watson said of the ruling from the Commons committee. Les Hinton, then chair of News International, later told the committee that Brooks subsequently told him she had "not authorised payments to policemen"; he said her evidence was meant to suggest "there had been payments in the past".

[peterms]

I see the police have arrested a woman for pushing a leaflet through a door, and used CS gas on her friends who objected to the arrest.

There's some bastard who keeps putting leaflets through my door, often several in the same day.

Who should I call to have him dealt with? Is there a special anti-leaflet section of the police, or is it just a case of asking at the nearest station?

[Gringo]

I see the police have arrested a woman for pushing a leaflet through a door, and used CS gas on her friends who objected to the arrest.

There's some bastard who keeps putting leaflets through my door, often several in the same day.

Who should I call to have him dealt with? Is there a special anti-leaflet section of the police, or is it just a case of asking at the nearest station?

Wonder how long it takes for the police to misuse their new anti-gang powers against the protestors.

[tonyh29]

Police said she was arrested for damaging the door which is not quite the same thing as pushing a leaflet through

2 conflicting reports though i suppose we have to accept the words of anarchists over the police these days .

[drat01]

This morning Cameron talked about Doctors and their customers!

[Awol]

2 conflicting reports though i suppose we have to accept the words of anarchists over the police these days .

To be fair the police do tend to lie until video evidence to the contrary is produced - then the CPS cover for them.

[Gringo]

The police, telling porkies to the shamocratically elected peoples representives? What sort of third world country would stand for that, and then defend the police further

[snowychap]

Wonder how long it takes for the police to misuse their new anti-gang powers against the protestors and strikers.

About 2 months (should just about take in March 26th).