CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 How much did he get paid to grace Leveson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 Andy Coulson to 'vigorously contest' Sheridan trial perjury charge Prime Minister David Cameron's former director of communications Andy Coulson is to "vigorously contest" a perjury charge over the Tommy Sheridan trial. Mr Coulson, 44, was detained at his home in London on Wednesday, taken for questioning to Glasgow, then formally charged and arrested that evening. The charge related to evidence he gave at the perjury trial of former MSP Tommy Sheridan in 2010. Mr Coulson's lawyer said he would fight the allegations if they went to trial. A statement from DLA Piper said: "Andy Coulson will vigorously contest the perjury allegations made against him yesterday by Strathclyde Police should they ever result in a trial. Hacking probe "We have no further comment at this stage." ...more on link Listening to Hunt's claim that Michel's was a little pushy and that the text during wimbledon was Michel 'just looking for any opportunity he could to establish contact of one sort or another'. As he knew that his SPAD (with whom he was very close) was the contact with NewsCorp and that Michel was the pushy bugger from NewsCorp, isn't it rather implausible that Hunt didn't ask Smith what his level of contact with Michel was - even if it was just something like asking him whether he was also being pestered a lot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 31, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 31, 2012 Louise Mensch has become even more insufferable over the last few days on this. She apparently has whitewash on her vocal cords for how much she's trying to defend the government from increasingly worrisome findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Andy Coulson to 'vigorously contest' Sheridan trial perjury charge Did he by any chance say "If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today. Thank you and good afternoon."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Louise Mensch has become even more insufferable over the last few days on this. She apparently has whitewash on her vocal cords for how much she's trying to defend the government from increasingly worrisome findings. Jeremy seems to have implicated Osborne and Cameron in the plot to give Murdoch what he wanted: Hunt texted George Osborne saying "seriously worried we are going to screw this up" minutes after Vince Cable's anti-Murdoch remarks were made public. Osborne replied "hope you like the solution" – a reference to No 10 handing Hunt responsibility for the controversial takeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 Andy Coulson to 'vigorously contest' Sheridan trial perjury charge Did he by any chance say "If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today. Thank you and good afternoon."? That rings a bell. Who was that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Having watched the vast majority of today's evidence, it's the basic grasp of the most fundamental principles of ethics from Hunt that has left me baffled. It's the sort of ethics an office junior in accounts would be familiar with. For me he is answerable on two main counts: 1 - His lack of objectivity before he became the responsible for the decision and his failure to fully declare his prior position once he was given the quasi judicial role (which clearly could be seen to affect his objectivity). 2 - The conduct of his special advisor who he is wholly responsible for and the lack of safeguards (if any) he set up once he was given the quasi judicial role (so any ethical violations by his advisor can be attributed directly to him). I don't think he appreciates this point at all. How many of the seven Nolan Principles has he breached? I think it could be argued it's as high as five. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 31, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2012 He also seems to have been rather cavalier about ignoring Civil service advice about contact with the Murdochs and their underlings. It's also instructive how much contact there was between Murdoch inc and Gov't compared to the other side (against the Sky takeover) and the Gov't. Totally imbalanced. That says a lot, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 That rings a bell. Who was that? Jonathan Aitken. Another lying scumbag who did time for his lies. He completely denied everything up to the point the Guardian produced documentary evidence. At that point, the press all got very agitated about how the Guardian journos had got hold of the evidence by subterfuge, as this was a gross breach of the code of honour which they all followed unwaveringly, and how this should be a much bigger issue than a slight misremembering on the part of the sainted Mr Aitken. How interesting to see them all paraded in front of Leveson, explaining on oath the details of when and how they themselves decide when it is permissible to use subterfuge, or indeed outright criminality, in pursuit of the public interest, like stories about which celeb is shagging who or what. But Leveson has explained to them, gently as you would to a child, the interest of the public is not the same as the public interest. It is just so right, and so poetic, to see these vermin and the hacks who defend them, dragged blinking into the daylight to explain their sorry existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 That rings a bell. Who was that? Jonathan Aitken. Ah, so it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Having watched the vast majority of today's evidence, it's the basic grasp of the most fundamental principles of ethics from Hunt that has left me baffled. It's the sort of ethics an office junior in accounts would be familiar with. For me he is answerable on two main counts: 1 - His lack of objectivity before he became the responsible for the decision and his failure to fully declare his prior position once he was given the quasi judicial role (which clearly could be seen to affect his objectivity). 2 - The conduct of his special advisor who he is wholly responsible for and the lack of safeguards (if any) he set up once he was given the quasi judicial role (so any ethical violations by his advisor can be attributed directly to him). I don't think he appreciates this point at all. How many of the seven Nolan Principles has he breached? I think it could be argued it's as high as five. He affects not to understand much at all. At one point he claimed that being given the DCMS brief and the Newscorpse decision was the first time he'd come across the concept of a "quasi judicial decision". As Chris Bryant MP has pointed out, every councillor in the land is familiar with it, and his position is literally incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 31, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2012 Same as with JRM at the parliamentary thing - I guess they calculate that looking ignorant or incompetent is better than being seen to be a crook. It's the "I didn't know..." defence - no excuse, but long term less damaging than "I knew very well what was going on and hid it" or "I encouraged it" or "I did it" or "you got me, I was at it and have been caught". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Same as with JRM at the parliamentary thing - I guess they calculate that looking ignorant or incompetent is better than being seen to be a crook. Yes. But it's amusing that they think the choice is one or the other, when many people find that both descriptions clearly apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 A sketch from the Torygraph today. The minister who rejected his own resignation Interesting, isn’t it, this insistence by Jeremy Hunt that he was able to “put to one side” his support of News Corp when he was deciding whether News Corp should be allowed to take over BSkyB. Imagine if a football referee made a similar claim. “Yes, I freely admit that I support Manchester United. However, I’m happy to assure you that I put that support to one side when I refereed United’s recent 17-0 defeat of Liverpool. “I’m aware that some Liverpool fans have in particular called into question the 12th of the penalty kicks I awarded to United, but in fact I judged it with scrupulous fairness. The same goes for all six of Liverpool’s red cards. “None the less, I appreciate that a perception of bias has been created. As a result, one of the ball boys has honourably agreed to resign.” Today the Culture Secretary appeared before the Leveson Inquiry. For a man so certain of his own spotless integrity, he seemed oddly nervous. He took deep breaths. He ummed. He ahed. He drank a lot of water. He seemed to have chosen a jacket that was much too big for him. Perhaps he was hoping to retreat inside it. Still, he did his best to defend himself stoutly. At times, this made watching him all the more excruciating. Robert Jay QC reminded him of the evening when, on the way to a James Murdoch drinks party, he’d spotted a journalist (Telegraph blogger Iain Martin), and hidden behind a tree. According to Mr Hunt, there was a perfectly innocent explanation. As he’d had “no time for an impromptu interview” with the journalist, he’d simply “moved to a different part of the quadrangle”. Behind a tree? “There may or may not have been trees…” More embarrassingly still, it emerged that, mere hours before he was given responsibility for the BSkyB deal, he’d sent a text to James Murdoch congratulating him on how well the bid was going. He also complained to George Osborne that Vince Cable might “screw up” the bid. The Chancellor’s reply: “I hope you like our solution!” The solution was the replacement of Dr Cable with Mr Hunt. Surely one of Mr Hunt’s main mistakes was the forced resignation of his adviser, Adam Smith. Instantly, people thought, “A sacrificial offering! Blatant guilt!” Today Mr Hunt made a show of feeling sorry for his ex-underling, who was "the most decent, honourable person”. If that’s true, you wonder why he had to go, rather than his boss. Mr Hunt said he’d considered that. “I did think about my own position, but I’d conducted the bid scrupulously fairly, so I decided it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to go.” Translation: I offered myself my resignation but after careful thought I decided not to accept it. Of course, it’s easy to despise Mr Hunt – not least because he threw a panicking lackey under a bus to save his own career – but there’s something we shouldn’t lose sight of. Mr Hunt didn’t appoint himself to the BSkyB role. Someone more senior appointed him – even though that senior figure knew how keen Mr Hunt was on the bid. David Cameron appears before Leveson next month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted May 31, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2012 I don't think we are even scratching the surface of the stuff that has been going on, I really hope a number of people see some jail time for what they've been up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 31, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2012 The thing is though that Jeremy is one of the "Chaps" and of course, chaps don't do that sort of thing. And if a chap was to have done something, well, then, of course, a chap can be forgiven the odd innocent mistake, we're all human after all and people are being frightfully beastly about one or two of the chaps, which is very unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The thing is though that Jeremy is one of the "Chaps" and of course, chaps don't do that sort of thing. And if a chap was to have done something, well, then, of course, a chap can be forgiven the odd innocent mistake, we're all human after all and people are being frightfully beastly about one or two of the chaps, which is very unfair. Cameron has announced that he has decided not to refer Hunt to the independent adviser on the ministerial code. That seems to be exactly an example of chaps deciding whether other chaps have done wrong, rather than letting some damned oik put their oar in. But Mr C appears to have failed to "get it", again. It's out of his hands. Out of control. It's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 31, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 31, 2012 It's fairly clear that Cameron has decided that Hunt is the last line of defence for him and that this issue needs to go away, hence Mr Hunt not being referred on breaking ministerial code, hence Mensch being such a vocal defendant (although she's feathering her own nest too, she can taste a cabinet job her tongue is so far up the Tory head honchoes collective arses), hence a reversal of the trying to bury tax u-turns with bigger news instead attempting to bury bad news with a tax u-turn, and so on. Hunt is untouchable until a proper fire is seen for the heavy smoke we've got. He should have gone on the back of that smoke (indeed many would argue it constitutes a true fire, for sure), but things are too close to the PM. Hunt'll be shuffled away when things die down. If it does come to pass that they simply must sack him, they will try to bury this with him. Some of Hunts comments today are simply astounding. He was asked about Smiths 'resignation' - 'I carefully considered my own position on this... and regretfully accepted his resignation'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It's fairly clear that Cameron has decided that Hunt is the last line of defence for him and that this issue needs to go away, hence Mr Hunt not being referred on breaking ministerial code, hence Mensch being such a vocal defendant (although she's feathering her own nest too, she can taste a cabinet job her tongue is so far up the Tory head honchoes collective arses), hence a reversal of the trying to bury tax u-turns with bigger news instead attempting to bury bad news with a tax u-turn, and so on. Hunt is untouchable until a proper fire is seen for the heavy smoke we've got. He should have gone on the back of that smoke (indeed many would argue it constitutes a true fire, for sure), but things are too close to the PM. Hunt'll be shuffled away when things die down. If it does come to pass that they simply must sack him, they will try to bury this with him. Some of Hunts comments today are simply astounding. He was asked about Smiths 'resignation' - 'I carefully considered my own position on this... and regretfully accepted his resignation'! Yes he is the last line of defence, no he's not untouchable. It's beyond defending, and the longer Cameron tries to do this, the more damage he ships, as his tory mates are telling him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 1, 2012 Perhaps Hunt has a few cards up his sleeve that Cameron doesn't want him to play, there has to be a reason that he is taking this stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts