New depths?

[Verbal]

You are right and is no different to the various Labour ministers who cosied up to private industry when in power and as soon as they could took up lucrative postions with them - gone on since time began and will continue to do so.

 

You seem to have ever so slightly missed the point.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Seems strange that nobody has posted that the Sun are running that Gordon Brown basically lied.

 

Just seen the news and it’s all over their front page, story obtained from another parent, and Brown authorised the story. As he attended Brook’s wedding as well as inviting her to Chequers, this makes more sense. There is no way they would run a front page splash like this, without being absolutely sure of their ground.

 

We’ll have to wait and see if Brown now takes some sort of legal action over today’s Sun story. Dragging your child’s health into a lie, to gain revenge because you lost the support of a paper is pretty low ,in my opinion

[dubai_phil]

Seems strange that nobody has posted that the Sun are running that Gordon Brown basically lied.

 

Just seen the news and it’s all over their front page, story obtained from another parent, and Brown authorised the story. As he attended Brook’s wedding as well as inviting her to Chequers, this makes more sense. There is no way they would run a front page splash like this, without being absolutely sure of their ground.

 

We’ll have to wait and see if Brown now takes some sort of legal action over today’s Sun story. Dragging your child’s health into a lie, to gain revenge because you lost the support of a paper is pretty low ,in my opinion

 

Statement from News Int yesterday on Skynews website alleged the same thing, of course as it came from NI nobody gave it any credence

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/The-Sun-Fights-Back-And-Interviews-Source-Of-Story-On-Cystic-Fibrosis-Of-Gordon-Browns-Son-Fraser/Article/201107216029360?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_16029360_The_Sun_Fights_Back_And_Interviews_Source_Of_Story_On_Cystic_Fibrosis_Of_Gordon_Browns_Son_Fraser

 

 

Meanwhile the end game starts to take shape.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8633453/Phone-hacking-axe-murder-detective-to-sue.html

 

Hacked for investigating possibility that an NI employee was a murder suspect - oops - oh and how bright were they? Investigated to see if he was having an affair - with his WIFE - lol

 

According to the info yesterday possibly as many as 12,000 people affected, 3870 definites and 170 contacted by police. Average out of court damages so far seem to have been around 100,000. Better start selling shares in NI & NC

 

As I posted previously, US Legislators now getting interested. SOX rules on Invoices payments and financial records but also the FCPA - that one WILL burn them, Yanks hate the idea of Bribery - look at the pressure they put on BAe in Saudi.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8633406/Phone-hacking-pressure-in-United-States-to-investigate-News-Corporation.html

 

Attacks beginning on Keith Vaz - that paragon of virtue - (suspended for misleading The House Standards & Ethics Committee) for piling in to John Yates. He seemed to forget yesterday that Yates was told simply to read the Guardian Report to see if it showed any new evidence. He WASN'T asked to review the entire case. The story in that is not Yates' competence, it was WHO asked him that question THAT way.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8633075/The-wrong-target.html

[franny]

Erm taking a bribe off someone you are supposed to be prosecuting not to do so is slightly different

 

A "bribe" could be a back hander now or could be a job down the line - no differnce to me. I was not disagreeing with you simly pointing out it goes on in many differnet guises and yes the current crop in power will I ma sure follow the same tendencies as the previos crop.

[ecuk268]

Seems strange that nobody has posted that the Sun are running that Gordon Brown basically lied.

 

Just seen the news and it’s all over their front page, story obtained from another parent, and Brown authorised the story. As he attended Brook’s wedding as well as inviting her to Chequers, this makes more sense. There is no way they would run a front page splash like this, without being absolutely sure of their ground.

 

We’ll have to wait and see if Brown now takes some sort of legal action over today’s Sun story. Dragging your child’s health into a lie, to gain revenge because you lost the support of a paper is pretty low ,in my opinion

 

If you take the trouble to read Brown's statement, he says that he's not making any allegations, but that he was upset that these details were being made public. The Sun told him that they were going to publish it and that there was not much that he could do about it. I suppose they took the fact that they had told him as "authorization".

 

 

Interesting article by Lord Ashcroft sympathizing with Brown and saying that the going rate for obtaining someone's medical records is about £200.

[dubai_phil]

If you take the trouble to read Brown's statement, he says that he's not making any allegations, but that he was upset that these details were being made public. The Sun told him that they were going to publish it and that there was not much that he could do about it. I suppose they took the fact that they had told him as "authorization".

 

 

Interesting article by Lord Ashcroft sympathizing with Brown and saying that the going rate for obtaining someone's medical records is about £200.

 

Yes, but re-reading things again, Gord's choice of words are one thing, but there is one VERY damming statement from News Int, which begs a question (again) _IF quotes from Brown advisors were used in the original story, WHY the comment from Brown about Illegal Means NOW?

 

News Int

In a statement, the paper said: "The story originated from a member of the public whose family has also experienced cystic fibrosis.

"He came to The Sun with this information voluntarily because he wanted to highlight the cause of those afflicted by the disease.

"The individual has provided a written affidavit to a lawyer confirming this.

"On receipt of the information, The Sun approached Mr Brown and discussed with his colleagues how best to present it.

"Those colleagues provided quotes which were used in the published piece which indicated his consent to it."

 

Brown

I'm shocked, I'm genuinely shocked, to find that this happened because of their links with criminals, known criminals, who were undertaking this activity, hired by investigators with the Sunday Times

 

It's a small footnote in this whole sorry saga but Gord's comment could be deemed to be disingenious at least and IF his advisors knew and made quotes - downright wrong. Equally IF that data had been obtained illegally, The Sun have their asses very firmly covered and a Lawyer & the member of Public will be in very deep sh1t

 

However none of this actual condones the fact that papers should print stories about sick children, OR condone t he fact that the Great British Public would want to READ stories like that.

[trousers]

[bridge too far]

 

It's a small footnote in this whole sorry saga but Gord's comment could be deemed to be disingenious at least and IF his advisors knew and made quotes - downright wrong. Equally IF that data had been obtained illegally, The Sun have their asses very firmly covered and a Lawyer & the member of Public will be in very deep sh1t

 

However none of this actual condones the fact that papers should print stories about sick children, OR condone t he fact that the Great British Public would want to READ stories like that.

 

I think his comments about the criminal underworld relate to the fact that someone tried to blag info about his bank accounts etc., not his son's medical records TBF

[OldNick]

I think his comments about the criminal underworld relate to the fact that someone tried to blag info about his bank accounts etc., not his son's medical records TBF

 

I dont think that is how it has been portrayed BTF. It has been very much the case that the Sun got that info illegally and Brown knew nothing about it,

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Good to see The Sun jump at the chance to splash big headlines that Brown (in their view) was "WRONG". They were a little quiet when the News of the World was revealed to have hacked Milly Dowlers (and others) phone. The Sun and the NotW are two cheeks of the same arse.

[OldNick]

Good to see The Sun jump at the chance to splash big headlines that Brown (in their view) was "WRONG". They were a little quiet when the News of the World was revealed to have hacked Milly Dowlers (and others) phone. The Sun and the NotW are two cheeks of the same arse.

True, but I would have been amazed if they had done it differently. I suspect they are trying to save the Sun now.

[trousers]

I think his comments about the criminal underworld relate to the fact that someone tried to blag info about his bank accounts etc., not his son's medical records TBF

 

Correct. With regards the medical records, it wasn't an overt accusation, it was more implied...

 

From his interview yesterday:

 

BBC Reporter: "The Sun say they got the information (about his son) legitimately"

 

Brown: "Well, they will have to explain themselves. I can't think of any way that the medical condition of someone's child can be put into the public arena legitimately"

 

He was much more direct with his accusations about the hacking into his bank account, tax records, etc.

Edited 13 July, 2011 by trousers

[bridge too far]

Correct. It wasn't an overt accusation, it was more implied.....

 

From his interview yesterday:

 

BBC Reporter: "The Sun say they got the information (about his son) legitimately"

 

Brown: "Well, they will have to explain themselves. I can't think of any way that the medical condition of someone's child can be put into the public arena legitimately"

 

Quite - but it does still beg the question how did the informant (a father with a son with the same condition) get to know about GB's son's condition? Of course, it could be something as simple as a health worker telling this father that GB's son had the same problem. I think GB's son was only 4 months old at the time.

[KMondo]

Do they say anything about the editor phoning him up to threaten him into giving them the exclusive on his son's condition? Pretty distasteful, if not actually illegal.

[dubai_phil]

True, but I would have been amazed if they had done it differently. I suspect they are trying to save the Sun now.

 

the Sun? Give over, they don't give a rat's arse about their UK operations at the moment, the battle now is to save a US company with $35 BILLION of sales globally. And tied in to that the battle to save a number of banks with exposed Bond positions to that company and then to save the money of a great number of Pension & Investment Funds holding YOUR money.

 

Fox News in the US virtually tells Politicians what to do, their stance against Obama has been embarrassing to say the least. Plenty of enemies over there

 

Sun? Times? Nowt? mere zits on the backside of News Corp worth mere peanuts

[pap]

My old man claims he's "never had The Sun in his house", and only unwitting students buy it in Liverpool.

 

Showing my age, I remember the Deputy Head of our school holding up a 1986 edition of the "paper", just ahead of the England vs Argentina game. The headline? "It's war, Senor". The Deputy Head went a bit mental, decrying the whole paper as trash. He wasn't wrong then, and still isn't wrong now.

[trousers]

Quite - but it does still beg the question how did the informant (a father with a son with the same condition) get to know about GB's son's condition? Of course, it could be something as simple as a health worker telling this father that GB's son had the same problem. I think GB's son was only 4 months old at the time.

 

Maybe it was as 'innocent' as the other father crossing paths with Brown in the hospital corridor or waiting room or suchlike.

 

Edit: as per my post below, it would seem that the two fathers knew each other in some capacity....

Edited 13 July, 2011 by trousers

[trousers]

Article: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3691926/The-Sun-exposes-the-allegation-that-we-hacked-into-Gordon-Browns-family-medical-records-as-FALSE-and-a-smear.html

Video: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/sun-exclusive/3692038/Source-of-Brown-story-speaks-out.html

 

The dad who told The Sun Mr Brown's son Fraser had cystic fibrosis said yesterday he was horrified by false claims that he saw the lad's medical files.

 

He said: "I have not had access to the medical records of the child at any time. All of which is the truth as I shall answer to God."

 

The dad, whose own son has cystic fibrosis, told The Sun about Fraser because he hoped to give the crippling condition a higher public profile.

 

And he believed the fact that Mr Brown's family was coming to terms with it would do so.

 

He said yesterday: "I felt vindicated in contacting The Sun.

 

"I just felt at the time that we could have made something positive out of the tragedy and I believe the truth would have come out eventually anyway. It is tragic for the Browns like many other people throughout the years who have children diagnosed. But the fact that they are so high profile could have made a difference."

 

The dad, who has links with the Brown family, learned of Fraser's condition in the weeks after he was born.

 

He did not immediately get in touch with The Sun because he fully expected the news to be widely reported.

 

The dad, whose identity we are protecting, said: "I was very surprised it didn't come out before it did. Obviously people get to know about it.

 

"I did it with the best of intentions and I totally stand by that decision. I have no regrets. I just wanted to highlight this. It's happened to many people and it's just sad that it's happening to another family. A very high profile family."

Edited 13 July, 2011 by trousers

[dubai_phil]

Maybe it was as 'innocent' as the other father crossing paths with Brown in the hospital corridor or waiting room or suchlike.

 

And, equally, in this case because they had the cover of a legal afadavit, they finally have some real ammunition to shoot back with. From my view point it just shows again that the whole Stone Throwing mindset that has been prevalent in some quarters really should be tempered. Gordon is probably completely right in what he said, but he threw a stone and it was a wrong one. There is simply so much more still to come and specific bandwagon jumping or attacks are NOT what wise people should be doing right now.

 

Express outrage and ask cynical questions, add facts to the fire, but be VERY careful about expressing ACTUAL opinions just yet.

 

Even Kieth Vaz yesterday has been the target of attacks and NOT from News Int. His "unconvincing" comment about Yates is already being turned back onto him.

 

Let the big picture emerge. Gordon could have had the same impact yesterday IF he had a brain by adding "It would be extremely distressing to find firm evidence that this information was obtained by people with Criminal Connections and would ask more questions about the culture at NI". But he didn't he went for the soundbite. Still he was always a.......

[Verbal]

To his credit, Phil, Brown didn't throw a stone. He didn't want the whole thing dragged over again and has always been pretty consistent in the way he's protected his family.

[trousers]

To his credit, Phil, Brown didn't throw a stone. He didn't want the whole thing dragged over again and has always been pretty consistent in the way he's protected his family.

 

Agree with this. He always seems very sincere about that side of his life.

[ecuk268]

NI have their backs against the wall and will try any trick in the book the discredit their critics and try to shift attention elsewhere.

 

At long last both Labour and Tory politicians see the chance to rid themselves of Murdoch's influence, and it's also spreading to the US where corporate wrongdoing is taken a lot more seriously than here.

 

I was amused listening to copper Andy Hayman being grilled by the Select Committee. When asked why he didn't investigate NI more thoroughly in 2006, he said that they didn't co-operate (so he gave up?). I hope that's not how he treats all suspects in major crimes. He also saw nothing wrong in having dinner with the people he was supposed to be investigating.

[Viking Warrior]

Sorry if politicians are going to use their children for photo shoots etc then they are setting themselves up for the press to intrude into family life. whether it is david cameron or Gordan brown . they both appear to have used the media to share their grief and Highlight the conditions that took their children. Good on them for being high profile on their childrens conditions.

[bridge too far]

Sorry if politicians are going to use their children for photo shoots etc then they are setting themselves up for the press to intrude into family life. whether it is david cameron or Gordan brown . they both appear to have used the media to share their grief and Highlight the conditions that took their children. Good on them for being high profile on their childrens conditions.

 

I think that's a very unfair observation, quite frankly. Both Cameron and Brown went to great lengths to shield their children from media intrusion. However, when a Prime Minister / very senior Cabinet member becomes a father, the press will take photos whenever they can. I don't think either politician has gone for the pity line at all.

 

I think it says more about the gossipy nature of the population that the papers would think we'd want to know this sort of personal information.

[dubai_phil]

To his credit, Phil, Brown didn't throw a stone. He didn't want the whole thing dragged over again and has always been pretty consistent in the way he's protected his family.

 

So he did not make a comment? Of course he did. He's a politician, they NEVER open their mouths without a reason on any subject

 

Sorry, again, this is possibly the biggest scandal to hit the UK since forever. Police Corruption, Criminal Company Directors, Multi-National Corporations employing criminals and making payments that do not appear to have had an audit trail? Alleged Criminals working as the Personal Advisor to the Prime Minister? It is a massive Conspiracy and Gordon for one (among many on all sides) is under scrutiny for NOT pushing for/strongly demanding an Inquiry when he was PM.

 

It is a media firestorm. Anything that anybody SAYS is going to be micro-analysed. If he did not intend to "throw a stone" why did he so forcibly say "Criminal Activity"? He could have chosen less provacative words.

 

Sorry, he is as much a part of this ongoing mess as anyone else, and not just as a victim.

 

Of COURSE he had the right to be outraged and to make a comment. But FFS he is not a media amateur, he knows that you have to choose words carefully. Of COURSE he has the right to protect his family & to be concerned about Tax Information Bank Details etc being hacked.

 

BUT the FACT remains that HIS choice of words in an interview have given ammunition for people to attack him. is he (and you) REALLY so naive to think that the bad guys would not take ANY chance to divert attention? Hell, even the Police have said "deflection" or "diverting attention" is what is going on. If he was a simple member of the public who was wronged - then fair play, but it wasn't a carefully worded statement it was a TV interview. How many of those has he actually given since getting canned? Even the Dowler family have been very careful in their statements.

 

Again, while I defend his right to state his case it was HIM that put HIS words so strongly and without a single caveat - Christ he's a POLITICIAN FFS - they never make a clear statement on anything!

 

A cynic would suggest that questions have been asked about Gordon's decisions on this issue while he was PM. It would not be a great leap to imagine that bringing "Family, tears and Sorrow" into the public domain was not a lame attempt to win back some moral high ground in the light of those questions. THAT is not what I have been getting at, but I am sure you will see that written somewhere in the media pretty soon.

 

My point remains it wasn't about Brown's right to defend his family matters per se, but simply as I stated before - everybody in this mess has to be VERY careful about what they say.

 

One stupid or wrong comment could undermine the Investigations. hell in this case IF The Sun has legal PROOF, then Gordon may well be in trouble or even accused of making False Accusations with possible legal implications.

[Verbal]

So he did not make a comment? Of course he did. He's a politician, they NEVER open their mouths without a reason on any subject

 

Much blather snipped

 

No. He did not raise the issue.

[trousers]

I think that's a very unfair observation, quite frankly. Both Cameron and Brown went to great lengths to shield their children from media intrusion. However, when a Prime Minister / very senior Cabinet member becomes a father, the press will take photos whenever they can. I don't think either politician has gone for the pity line at all.

 

I think it says more about the gossipy nature of the population that the papers would think we'd want to know this sort of personal information.

 

This!

 

(I could get used to this agreeing malarkey!) :-)

[dubai_phil]

No. He did not raise the issue.

 

And where did anyone say that?

 

He gave a TV interview after the news broke.

 

He used the interview to make his feelings known and give information.

[bridge too far]

............

 

My point remains it wasn't about Brown's right to defend his family matters per se, but simply as I stated before - everybody in this mess has to be VERY careful about what they say.

 

One stupid or wrong comment could undermine the Investigations. hell in this case IF The Sun has legal PROOF, then Gordon may well be in trouble or even accused of making False Accusations with possible legal implications.

 

He didn't accuse the Sun of illegal practices with regard to his son's medical condition. He referred to criminal activity only with regard to his personal financial information.

 

I know I'm repeating myself, but it begs the question of how the 'informant' knew about the boy's medical condition. And what gave HIM the right to pass this information to the press.

[Verbal]

And where did anyone say that?

 

He gave a TV interview after the news broke.

 

He used the interview to make his feelings known and give information.

 

On this issue, of a small child's terminal illness, a little circumspection wouldn't go amiss.

 

And actually who has libelled whom here? Brown didn't say the information was hacked, nor did The Guardian.

Edited 13 July, 2011 by Verbal

[trousers]

I know I'm repeating myself, but it begs the question of how the 'informant' knew about the boy's medical condition. And what gave HIM the right to pass this information to the press.

 

According to The Sun....the father of the other boy "has links with the Brown family", so would have known as a matter of normal inter-family discussions I would venture.

 

And, his justification for passing the information to The Sun was because he wanted to raise the profile of the terrible condition that his son had been struck down by.

 

Now, with a rational mind we can all see that is not the most moral of methods to go about raising the profile, but if my son had been struck down with such a dreadful condition, I doubt whether I would be acting 100% rationally either.

 

I'm not saying what he did was right but I can see how a distraught father might make a mis-judgement like this.

Edited 13 July, 2011 by trousers

[bridge too far]

According to The Sun....the father of the other boy "has links with the Brown family", so would have known as a matter of normal inter-family discussions I would venture.

 

And, his justification for passing the information to The Sun was because he wanted to raise the profile of the condition that his son had been struck down by. Now, with a rational mind we can all see that is not the most moral of tactics to go about raising the profile but if my son had been struck down with such a condition I doubt whether I would be acting 100% rationally. I'm not saying what he did was right but I can see how a distraught father might make a mis-judgement like this.

 

I would have thought, though, that common courtesy would have dictated a conversation with GB before going to the press?

[trousers]

I would have thought, though, that common courtesy would have dictated a conversation with GB before going to the press?

 

Agree. That's what a man of rational mind would do....

 

We don't know this man's state of mind at the time.

[Verbal]

Agree. That's what a man of rational mind would do....

 

We don't know this man's state of mind at the time.

 

How irrational do you have to be to blurt out the personal details of someone else's child to The Sun?

[dubai_phil]

He didn't accuse the Sun of illegal practices with regard to his son's medical condition. He referred to criminal activity only with regard to his personal financial information.

 

I know I'm repeating myself, but it begs the question of how the 'informant' knew about the boy's medical condition. And what gave HIM the right to pass this information to the press.

 

Guys FFS.

 

Will you get off on the not reading what I said line. Gordon gave a TV interview, I POSTED a comment IN QUOTES that he made in that interview. I did not at any time refer to what that was in connection about - kids or money. He gave ONE interview where he said

 

"I'm shocked, I'm genuinely shocked, to find that this happened because of their links with criminals, known criminals, who were undertaking this activity, hired by investigators with the Sunday Times "

 

Do not see any mention of the word hacked there Verbal. Kindly stop putting words I have not used into responses.

 

He gave ammunition to News Int.

 

Surely he is not so naive at this time to think an attack on a NI publications would not be responded to.

Other media sources also appear to have made false allegations as to how the medical records have been obtained. No doubt lawyers are dissecting all of those articles as we type.

 

Look obviously it is a far to simple concept for you BTF & Verbal.

 

People should be careful what they say at this time. Brown said xxxxx Attention is now diverted because the Sun says we have proof of YYY.

 

And yet you've gone off on a "save the poor little children" defence. It is nothing to do with that

 

BTF, the issue is NOT about defending Brown & his kids it is about BEING CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY. - It is a line I have been consistent with since day one of this, Keith Vaz is under attack - so far about the only person with enough brains to be careful in his attacks has been Milliband

[dubai_phil]

I would have thought, though, that common courtesy would have dictated a conversation with GB before going to the press?

 

Ah the naivety.

 

But Rebekha Brooks has already admitted having a conversation with Gordon before going to press.

 

The same Sun Article states that Gordon's advisors made comments in the article which implied his consent.

 

In a court of law RB DID talk to Gord.

 

Of course I think everybody on the planet with a brain knows what she ACTUALLY said, but I doubt it is recorded in Gordon's files

[bridge too far]

Ah the naivety.

 

But Rebekha Brooks has already admitted having a conversation with Gordon before going to press.

 

The same Sun Article states that Gordon's advisors made comments in the article which implied his consent.

 

In a court of law RB DID talk to Gord.

 

Of course I think everybody on the planet with a brain knows what she ACTUALLY said, but I doubt it is recorded in Gordon's files

 

Something along the lines of 'look Gordon, we've got this stuff about your boy. We're going to publish it regardless, but I thought I'd give you the heads up before we do'?

[um pahars]

Guys FFS.

 

Will you get off on the not reading what I said line. Gordon gave a TV interview, I POSTED a comment IN QUOTES that he made in that interview. I did not at any time refer to what that was in connection about - kids or money. He gave ONE interview where he said

 

And the "I'm shocked" line was in the context of referring to accessing of his building society account:

 

"I think that what happened pretty early on in government is that the Sunday Times appear to have got access to my building society account.

 

"They got access to my legal files, there is some question mark about what happened to other files - documentation, tax and everything else.

 

"I'm shocked, I'm genuinely shocked, to find that this happened because of their links with criminals, known criminals, who were undertaking this activity, hired by investigators with the Sunday Times."

[Verbal]

And the "I'm shocked" line was in the context of referring to accessing of his building society account:

 

"I think that what happened pretty early on in government is that the Sunday Times appear to have got access to my building society account.

 

"They got access to my legal files, there is some question mark about what happened to other files - documentation, tax and everything else.

 

"I'm shocked, I'm genuinely shocked, to find that this happened because of their links with criminals, known criminals, who were undertaking this activity, hired by investigators with the Sunday Times."

 

Exactly. And we all know on here which 'criminal' he had in mind.

[benjii]

PMQ's on now. Should be fun.

 

Millibean using the Dowlers as cheap political capital. Nice one Miilibean.

[benjii]

John Bercow is such a bellend!

 

[benjii]

Cameron is beating Milliband up.

[bridge too far]

PMQ's on now. Should be fun.

 

Millibean using the Dowlers as cheap political capital. Nice one Miilibean.

 

Only Miliband? Get real

[trousers]

Cameron is beating Milliband up.

 

Until the Coulson question.....

[benjii]

Christ almighty - the LibDem MP for Bradford is an utter retard!

 

[benjii]

Until the Coulson question.....

 

 

Not really. Millibean is silly to bang on and on about Coulson. Until there is actually some evidence that Coulson did someting bad in office then it is just a side show. And if he wants to pursue some sort of guilt-by-association argument then he is going to end up hoist by his own petard.

[benjii]

Only Miliband? Get real

 

Well, they were pretty much the first thing to come out of his mouth. Having said that, he wasn't being too obnoxious... I just wanted to get things going!

[bridge too far]

Well, they were pretty much the first thing to come out of his mouth. Having said that, he wasn't being too obnoxious... I just wanted to get things going!

 

Because he gets the first go at asking questions once the PM has told us all what he's been doing and will be doing.

[benjii]

Because he gets the first go at asking questions once the PM has told us all what he's been doing and will be doing.

 

Er, yes.....?

[trousers]

Not really. Millibean is silly to bang on and on about Coulson. Until there is actually some evidence that Coulson did someting bad in office then it is just a side show. And if he wants to pursue some sort of guilt-by-association argument then he is going to end up hoist by his own petard.

 

Fair point. But I still get the feeling this will come back to haunt Cameron in the future.