Jump to content

New depths?


bridge too far

Recommended Posts

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.

 

It's not really just guilt by association anymore. He has been arrested and there are emails showing he authorised payments to police.

 

Even if this evidence didn't exist, which it does, you still have to also wonder what the **** he was doing when this stuff was happening systematically under his editorship.

 

Edit: Ignore that post, I misread yours.

Edited by Saintandy666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really just guilt by association anymore. He has been arrested and there are emails showing he authorised payments to police.

 

Even if this evidence didn't exist, which it does, you still have to also wonder what the **** he was doing when this stuff was happening systematically under his editorship.

 

Sorry, I wasn't referring to Coulson's "guilt" or otherwise, I meant that Millibean seems intent on trying to get some of that guilt to rub off on Cameroon.

 

There's no evidence, as far as I'm aware that Coulson did anything dodgy in Downing Street (certainly compared to his predecessors). And we don't know what information was available to Cameron.

 

Was it an error by Cameron - yes, clearly it was, but Millibean seems to think it is something devastating when, frankly, it isn't and it isn't a problem exclusive to Cameron or the Conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I wasn't referring to Coulson's "guilt" or otherwise, I meant that Millibean seems intent on trying to get some of that guilt to rub off on Cameroon.

 

There's no evidence, as far as I'm aware that Coulson did anything dodgy in Downing Street (certainly compared to his predecessors). And we don't know what information was available to Cameron.

 

Was it an error by Cameron - yes, clearly it was, but Millibean seems to think it is something devastating when, frankly, it isn't and it isn't a problem exclusive to Cameron or the Conservatives.

 

Yer, I just saw that, sorry.

 

I think the real issue is how much did Cameron know, because allegedly he was warned by many people, including Nick Clegg that this appointment should not be pursued. He is Prime Minister/Leader of the Opposition and should so take extra care with the people he places next to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yer, I just saw that, sorry.

 

I think the real issue is how much did Cameron know, because allegedly he was warned by many people, including Nick Clegg that this appointment should not be pursued. He is Prime Minister/Leader of the Opposition and should so take extra care with the people he places next to him.

 

Yes, I agree entirely with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

The editor whose wedding brown attended 3 years later and who was invited to spend a weekend with Mrs Brown?

 

Had me and Mrs Duck been so disressed about something that we were in tears, if anyone ran a story about our children after getting their medical records, I would not go to their wedding and I certainly would not let Mrs Duck invite her over for the weekend.

 

Brown saw the oppurtunity to try and repay NI for abandoning him.

 

The Sun would not have run this Brown is wrong splash in the present climate without being 100% sure Brown was lieing.

 

The broader issue of press being muzzled because of a few criminal journo's is perfectly shown in this Brown episode. When he went from studio to studio telling this tale of woe, why wasn't he asked some searching questions? The first question should surely have been; If you were so upset by this, why did you attend Brook's wedding? and the second question should be; As a Govt minister and then PM surely you should have reported any illegal activety to the police, why wait 5 years to bring it up?

 

Lets hope that this whole sorry hacking affair does not mean our politcians of all colours get a free ride.Lets not forget it was our free press that caught them all with their noses in the trough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lets hope that this whole sorry hacking affair does not mean our politcians of all colours get a free ride.Lets not forget it was our free press that caught them all with their noses in the trough.

 

Indeed. You only had to look at the appalling Select Committee yesterday to see the malignant intent dripping off some of those politicians. Yes, two of the MET individuals were pathetic and risible, but so were the likes of Vaz. Bit of revenge for "cash for questions"... yes please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I wonder if he donated his, no doubt hefty, payment for the story to a cystic fibrosis charity. And what gives him the right to decide whether someone else's son's medical condition is splashed across the media?

 

As for the question about why the Browns then went to Brooks' wedding and other social engagements after the story was released, well it was political. If he or she hadn't gone then the NI papers would have had it in for them even more than they did at the end of Brown's reign. As Peter Mandleson wrote yesterday, it was all to do with fear, and no doubt this was personal and political fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if he donated his, no doubt hefty, payment for the story to a cystic fibrosis charity.

 

No idea. All The Sun says about the charity side of things in relation to this story is:

 

Sun readers helped Britain's top cystic fibrosis charity nearly double its donations in the wake of our story about Fraser. We highlighted the Cystic Fibrosis Trust's website in the following months. Accounts show that individual donations amounted to £600,000 in 2006 - but jumped to £1,124,000 a year later.

 

And what gives him the right to decide whether someone else's son's medical condition is splashed across the media?

 

Nothing gives him that right. It was wrong. Perhaps having a very ill son affected his state of mind? We'll probably never know enough to make a wholely informed judgement of his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the question about why the Browns then went to Brooks' wedding and other social engagements after the story was released, well it was political. If he or she hadn't gone then the NI papers would have had it in for them even more than they did at the end of Brown's reign. As Peter Mandleson wrote yesterday, it was all to do with fear, and no doubt this was personal and political fear.

 

She stayed at Chequers after an invite from Mrs Brown, are you saying that Brown was so scared of NI that he had to invite her to his house for the weekend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She stayed at Chequers after an invite from Mrs Brown, are you saying that Brown was so scared of NI that he had to invite her to his house for the weekend?

 

No doubt it will all come out in one of the enquiries. I'm sure some politicians of all shades will be bricking it right now, since the enquiries can demand they testify on oath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt it will all come out in one of the enquiries. I'm sure some politicians of all shades will be bricking it right now, since the enquiries can demand they testify on oath.

 

No they're complete and utter shysters. If they can get through the expenses scandal with only a few low profile "victims", they will worm their way out of this.

 

They are all such hypocrites. When the public were calling for an election in light of the expenses scandal the line was that "they needed to stay to clear the mess up". When NI say that Brook's needs to stay to clear the mess up, they're all up in arms over it. They all bent over and let Murdoch screw them, but now are all showing us how independent they are (with a few notable exceptions)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That can't be right. Phil says Murdoch is the arch plotter and is always a step ahead of everyone else.

 

Yawn.

 

This can also be construed as a victory for whoever (in Saints Lore terms) could be called "Dark Forces" by NI who have acted and managed to get the bid canned.

 

It's a conspiracy, everyone is conspiring - at the moment to cover their asses (Cameron, NI and the Police)

 

It will keep coming, this is the beginning, plenty more scandal to be released.

Edited by dubai_phil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be a fit & proper persons test, but I'm uncomfortable with politicans dictating who should own media companies. I hope this isn't the start of more meddling because after the expenses scandal, they're not exactly fit and proper people themselves.

 

Shouldn't there also be an FAPP for Politicians?

 

Journalists.

 

Policemen.

 

Medical Records Keepers.

 

8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn.

 

This can also be construed as a victory for whoever (in Saints Lore terms) could be called Dark Forces by NI who have acted and managed to get the bid canned.

 

It's a conspiracy, everyone is conspiring - at the moment to cover their asses (Cameron, NI and the Police)

 

It will keep coming, this is the beginning, plenty more scandal to be released.

 

Who on earth in NI could have had an interest in canning the BSkyB takeover? That's absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's just forgotten to put a comma in the first sentence after 'NI'. It makes more sense that way.

 

Okay, tried that, but still puzzled. Are we back to Mormons or Masons or whoever Phil was rambling on about before?

 

Thanks for acting as the human babelfish by the way. I struggle to understand a lot of Phil's dollops of text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good showing by Millibean in his moment of glory with his opening remarks. Well done to him, and he apologised for not acting when in power.

 

For the witch-hunt, Sky flashed up a timeline which asks another little question. 21 Dec 2010 EU gave approval for the takeover.

 

Hmm the cynic would ask "What did NI hold over them?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's just forgotten to put a comma in the first sentence after 'NI'. It makes more sense that way.

 

Changed it for you BTF

 

Oh interesting interview comment by Millibean congratulating people on the success of this campaign............

 

(I guess he meant to get the Takeover stopped)

 

So this was all a campaign?

 

BTF

 

The status is

 

NI passed papers to the Police in January.

 

Why?

 

If they were worried about the impact on the proposed takeover that seemed rather dumb.

 

If they wanted to get their information out there before somebody else published then it was rather smart, but a glorious FAIL

 

If it was a damage limitation exercise then ROFL.

 

Verbal is and always has been a massive addition to every thread and debate he posts on, always full of comments quotes and ideas.

 

But everything I post and every question I have asked, there has still not been one response or opinion or conjecture to the question of timing.

 

I am glad Verbal lives in a workd where co-incidence is an everyday occurence and you are a punctuation specialist. My spooling his always been rubbish on here.

 

Anyway I'm also glad that Millibean has just said - There is still worse to come - plenty of time for more people to wish they had put a sock in it in their reactions

Edited by dubai_phil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fox News and News Corps in the US is where the next action is apparently. The US regulatory authorities are preparing to take them to the cleaners.

 

The death of Fox News would be just wonderful.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100096708/murdoch-withdraws-bid-for-bskyb-did-parliament-force-this-or-the-us-senate/

 

Now that would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, great speech by Gordon right now.

 

Doesn't tally with what Ben Bradshaw said on The Daily Politics, he said that they didn't want a enquiry because Brown was already seen as a weak PM and they didn't want to annoy NI.

 

Also why, if things were so bad did he have Brookes to Chequers and attend her wedding. At least Milliband was man enough to adress the past. Brown is in denial...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Video of Jon Stewart, the arch enemy of Fox News, on the NOTW hacking scandal on the Daily Show this week:

 

http://gawker.com/5820243/jon-stewart-tackles-the-news-of-the-world-scandal

 

Brilliant. The whole saga sounds even more ridiculous when people from other countries discuss it.

 

Such a pity Have I Got News For You isn't on at the moment. I wonder if the BBC thought of bringing it back for a phone hacking special?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't tally with what Ben Bradshaw said on The Daily Politics, he said that they didn't want a enquiry because Brown was already seen as a weak PM and they didn't want to annoy NI.

 

Also why, if things were so bad did he have Brookes to Chequers and attend her wedding. At least Milliband was man enough to adress the past. Brown is in denial...........

 

I actually think that says more about the power that NI had over politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think that says more about the power that NI had over politicians.

 

Exactly, but that included Brown. From his speech (which was well delivered) you would have thought he had nothing to do with NI. He tried to make out he wanted an enquiry into NI, but was stopped by everybody else, whereas Bradshaw said in the week that it was a political decision not to have one. ALL govt's have been too close to NI for 35 years, including Brown's, he can not try to claim otherwise now. At least Tony Blair has kept quiet, perhaps Brown would have been advised to do the same. Perhaps this need for revenge is one of the "psychological flaws" that Campbell spoke about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched all the rozzers on the BBC website. They got a serious grilling and Hayman made Dellboy Totter look kosher!

 

Clarke looked composed and answered everything in a honest and open manner.

 

I'd like to change my opinion of Hayman.

 

At the time I thought he might be genuine, but since then found out he'd had meals payed for by NI and then went to work for them.

 

That's really unprofessional at best and very dodgy at worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, but that included Brown. From his speech (which was well delivered) you would have thought he had nothing to do with NI. He tried to make out he wanted an enquiry into NI, but was stopped by everybody else, whereas Bradshaw said in the week that it was a political decision not to have one. ALL govt's have been too close to NI for 35 years, including Brown's, he can not try to claim otherwise now. At least Tony Blair has kept quiet, perhaps Brown would have been advised to do the same. Perhaps this need for revenge is one of the "psychological flaws" that Campbell spoke about.

 

News Corp under fire in the US. Quelle surprise. Fox has upset the entire "left of Centre" and done more to undermine Obama than Obama himself.

 

TBH I really don't give a damn unless it stops Avatar 2 from being released, then I may just become a tad disgruntled.

 

Murdoch is 15 years past his sell by date, Wall Street wanted a succession plan that was independent. The fun is only just beginning over there and good riddance.

 

Although comment on Sky tonight was fair - without Murdoch, BSB may never have come into being and sport (well football mainly) would never have had a golden age.

 

Which means we could have competed. Burn the witch, burn the witch.

 

Next totally stupid idea? Watch Abu Dhabi launch a bid for BSkyB so they can protect their Man City investment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to change my opinion of Hayman.

 

At the time I thought he might be genuine, but since then found out he'd had meals payed for by NI and then went to work for them.

 

That's really unprofessional at best and very dodgy at worst.

 

My missus watched it on the news last night, blissfully unaware on the background of the rozzers. After watching Hayman her 1st comment was "what a slimey, lying t**t".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My missus watched it on the news last night, blissfully unaware on the background of the rozzers. After watching Hayman her 1st comment was "what a slimey, lying t**t".

 

It breaks my heart to say this, but Keith Vaz is very good as chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

News Corp under fire in the US. Quelle surprise. Fox has upset the entire "left of Centre" and done more to undermine Obama than Obama himself.

 

TBH I really don't give a damn unless it stops Avatar 2 from being released, then I may just become a tad disgruntled.

 

Murdoch is 15 years past his sell by date, Wall Street wanted a succession plan that was independent. The fun is only just beginning over there and good riddance.

 

Although comment on Sky tonight was fair - without Murdoch, BSB may never have come into being and sport (well football mainly) would never have had a golden age.

 

Which means we could have competed. Burn the witch, burn the witch.

 

Next totally stupid idea? Watch Abu Dhabi launch a bid for BSkyB so they can protect their Man City investment

 

Good call!

 

Golden Age of football my a**. Big bucks for the few top clubs and players, practically a decline for the national teams. Meanwhile every other club is losing money or close to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good call!

 

Golden Age of football my a**. Big bucks for the few top clubs and players, practically a decline for the national teams. Meanwhile every other club is losing money or close to it.

 

Agree with this this. Before SKY you'd occasionally get a small club doing well in the top flight. E.G Ispwich and us in the 80's. That'll never happen again without a sugar daddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn.

 

This can also be construed as a victory for whoever (in Saints Lore terms) could be called "Dark Forces" by NI who have acted and managed to get the bid canned.

 

It's a conspiracy, everyone is conspiring - at the moment to cover their asses (Cameron, NI and the Police)

 

It will keep coming, this is the beginning, plenty more scandal to be released.

 

Nick Illingsworth!!??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...