trousers Posted 29 July, 2011 Share Posted 29 July, 2011 And there's this little nugget http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/murdochs-were-given-secret-defence-briefings-2326517.html Wot no pyjama parties? Shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 29 July, 2011 Author Share Posted 29 July, 2011 Also slightly worrying http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/07/murdoch-news-education Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 29 July, 2011 Share Posted 29 July, 2011 verbal I agree with your comments It's a great shame that the Select Committee didn't ask Brooks the direct question: what instructions did you give Mulcaire? I guess we'll have to wait for the trial But is it possible they could ask a direct question due to the police investigation. but then look who is chairing that committee. Mr Whiter than white Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 16 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 16 August, 2011 More mileage in this, methinks http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/16/phone-hacking-now-reporter-letter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 17 August, 2011 Share Posted 17 August, 2011 More mileage in this, methinks http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/16/phone-hacking-now-reporter-letter Yep http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8705731/Phone-hacking-letter-that-blows-apart-the-wall-of-silence-in-Wapping.html The smoking gun trail begins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 22 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 22 August, 2011 Uh oh! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14624167 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 August, 2011 Share Posted 22 August, 2011 Uh oh! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14624167 However complicated and murky this affair gets, the one anchor is that Coulson seems to be at the centre of it all. And this makes Cameron look even worse than I thought was possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 August, 2011 Share Posted 22 August, 2011 However complicated and murky this affair gets, the one anchor is that Coulson seems to be at the centre of it all. And this makes Cameron look even worse than I thought was possible. A realist can see this ending very badly for Cameron, A conspiracist can see someone stitching him up. Which maybe his only escape. Whether it exists or not is another matter of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Many people have a "financial relationship" with their previous employer, typically a pension. I have a 20 year staff pension fund with my previous employer. I therefore have a significant vested interest in the performance of my previous employer. Does this mean my current company (a competitor to my previous company) shouldn't have employed me? Ok, I know this isn't comparing apples with apples at the tangible level, but the principle of a "financial relationship" is comparable. Just because you're receiving a deferred and staggered severance payment doesn't automatically mean you're going to extract favours for your previous employer. As much as the sensationalist Mr Peston would like to believe it could. Over to SWF thought police to throw accusations of naivity my way. Not that there's any predictability in the pattern of debate on here... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 23 August, 2011 The most worrying aspect, Trousers, is that the Conservative bigwigs 'apparently' were unaware of this arrangement. Oh and BTW, I fly to the moon this afternoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Uh oh! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14624167 This sort of deal is pretty common at the higher end of business. It probably comprised of something like a year's notice, pension contributions, foregone bonuses, pay up of share options under a good leaver clause plus a sum to make sure that he didn't sue them for wrnogful dismissal or any other cause. Why do you think these CEOs who are sacked get big pay off? It is the same thing. The fact that the payments happened after he had joined the government is purely down to timing. Lawyers get involved in these things as it can often take an age to hammer out the details. This is not to say it is right, but it certainly doesn't suggest wrongdoing on either Coulson or NI's part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I know from experience (though not legally allowed to go into details) that a compromise agreement is basically the company paying you extra and you agree not to sue them for wrongful dismissal and the like. Given his situation I suspect that the agreement was legit (i.e. he could well have had a good case saying that people above him knew about it before and did nothing then) but the odd part is that it was paid in instalments so it overlapped with his employment by cameron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 23 August, 2011 The bit at the bottom of this Guardian article is shocking! It implies that Coulson lied to MPs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/23/andy-coulson-news-international-tories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Can't understand why this latest tit bit, is getting so much air time. It's almost standard practice, especially at the higher end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Can't understand why this latest tit bit, is getting so much air time. It's almost standard practice, especially at the higher end. I agree BUT......... There are two important and different points. 1. The Conservative party either was lied to by Coulson or did, in fact, know of this arrangement but is denying it. 2. Coulson lied to the Select Committee. There is also a question as to whether his payments whilst being employed by No.10 amounted to a donation to the Conservative party that had not been declared. Donations can be in 'kind' as well as in cash. I can understand the salary in lieu and the pension arrangements but I struggle to see how continued health insurance and a company car paid for by News International can be construed as payment in lieu. When I was paid 3 months' salary in lieu, I still had to give up my company car and I think this is normal practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8714211/Phone-hacking-David-Camerons-love-letters-to-Rebekah-Brooks.html . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Can't understand why this latest tit bit, is getting so much air time. It's almost standard practice, especially at the higher end. I agree with the practice regarding compromise agreements and the fact that payments are often staggered over future months (and then often mitigated when the individual finds new employment). So that in itself is a bit of a non story. However, the part that makes it interesting are the various denials given by individuals (Senior Conservative Officials and News International Officials) over the last few years, including one or two to the Select Committee that payments weren't being made. Trying to hide something, ignorant & ill informed or not doing their homework (i.e. why wasn't all this found out during security vetting). The other part I was interested in is how after honourably resigning and taking the flak for underhand behaviour during his tenure as Editor, Coulson then walks away with a huge pay off. Even Andrew Neil was under the impression he wouldn't have got much, but then again you often find that when Senior Execuitves and Directors get the boot, they still pocket their handsome pay offs, even if they've been found wanting!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I agree BUT......... There are two important and different points. 1. The Conservative party either was lied to by Coulson or did, in fact, know of this arrangement but is denying it. 2. Coulson lied to the Select Committee. There is also a question as to whether his payments whilst being employed by No.10 amounted to a donation to the Conservative party that had not been declared. Donations can be in 'kind' as well as in cash. I can understand the salary in lieu and the pension arrangements but I struggle to see how continued health insurance and a company car paid for by News International can be construed as payment in lieu. When I was paid 3 months' salary in lieu, I still had to give up my company car and I think this is normal practice. I have been close to a situation where the value of all of the benefits in the notice period were totalled and added to the comp out including life, health, company car (or allowance in that case). Perhaps they agreed that he could keep the car on lease as it was more beneficial to do this for everyone. At the end of the day, at that level it is how well you negotiate that determines was is in and what isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I agree BUT......... There are two important and different points. 1. The Conservative party either was lied to by Coulson or did, in fact, know of this arrangement but is denying it. 2. Coulson lied to the Select Committee. There is also a question as to whether his payments whilst being employed by No.10 amounted to a donation to the Conservative party that had not been declared. Donations can be in 'kind' as well as in cash. I can understand the salary in lieu and the pension arrangements but I struggle to see how continued health insurance and a company car paid for by News International can be construed as payment in lieu. When I was paid 3 months' salary in lieu, I still had to give up my company car and I think this is normal practice. This is why 'gardening leave' is often taken - to avoid even the hint of a conflict of interests. But to have a senior executive from a media group notorious for its manipulation of British politics to be paying large sums to one of their former own while they take up a position in the highest office of the land is deeply corrupt. If Cameron knew about it, which he almost certainly did, he is a party to that corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Coulson recieved staggered payments from NI. Nothing to read there standard practice even including the Medical Insurance etc - all comes down to individual negotiating skills at the time. BUT in my (fairly wide) experience of these matters they are ALWAYS covered by an NDA (remember those at SMS?) and pretty severe ones at that (eg so that an individual could actually have to pay everything back if they leak any information) so again Coulson has an "excuse" for not making disclosure. Interesting question however would be What was Coulson's salary while in employ of The Conservative Party? If it was a fair market rate then we are back to people not doing their job when they did their research, IF Coulson had an NDA from NI with his settlement then it is a storm in a teacup, but IF he worked at No 10 for peanuts - oops then it looks like he was being paid by NI to work there and the NDA's become part of the smoking gun trail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 This is why 'gardening leave' is often taken - to avoid even the hint of a conflict of interests. But to have a senior executive from a media group notorious for its manipulation of British politics to be paying large sums to one of their former own while they take up a position in the highest office of the land is deeply corrupt. If Cameron knew about it, which he almost certainly did, he is a party to that corruption. May be I am missing something, but to me that's rubbish. As it is a football forum.. Did Newcastle know that the settlement details of Pardew leaving Saints, when he joined Newcastle? Pardew did an interview about a month after he left, when he stated he was still on the Saints Payroll.... Standard Practice. Whatever the settlement figure or structure of payments was to Coulson from News International, it has nothing to do with his next employer be them private or public sector. It was a poor hire.... Ill advised and with considerable lack of judgement.... We get that and maybe more stuff left to come out as to who knew what etc. but whether or not Cameron did or didn't know about the severance package, is neither here nor there and certainly not corruption Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 May be I am missing something, but to me that's rubbish. As it is a football forum.. Did Newcastle know that the settlement details of Pardew leaving Saints, when he joined Newcastle? Pardew did an interview about a month after he left, when he stated he was still on the Saints Payroll.... Standard Practice. Whatever the settlement figure or structure of payments was to Coulson from News International, it has nothing to do with his next employer be them private or public sector. It was a poor hire.... Ill advised and with considerable lack of judgement.... We get that and maybe more stuff left to come out as to who knew what etc. but whether or not Cameron did or didn't know about the severance package, is neither here nor there and certainly not corruption Your ability to extrapolate from the totally irrelevant is impressive. We're talking about a gigantic conflict of interest here. Comparing Coulson's move from News International to the office of the guy the media group campaigned to have installed in No 10 to Pardew is staggeringly banal - a kind of po-faced refusal to see the implications and dangers of corruption even when it's in plain sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 23 August, 2011 (edited) It's NOT JUST about lack of judgement on Cameron's part. It IS ALSO about the fact that a) the powers that be didn't do an in-depth screening of Coulson that they should have done. He was party to hugely sensitive information whilst working at No. 10 and, in the past, spin doctors in such a position had the highest level of screening. Such screening would, for example, have examined his personal finances and would have shown that he was in receipt of payments from his former employer. b) someone, somewhere either lied to the Conservative party OR did, in fact, give the party this information and it chose to ignore it. c) Coulson lied to the Select Committee (see the end part of the Guardian article linked above) d) News International lied too when it said that Coulson wasn't in receipt of payment from them. His negotiations about his severance package aren't relevant. The subsequent lying / economy with the truth (allegedly) very much is. Edited 23 August, 2011 by bridge too far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 BUT in my (fairly wide) experience of these matters they are ALWAYS covered by an NDA (remember those at SMS?) and pretty severe ones at that (eg so that an individual could actually have to pay everything back if they leak any information) so again Coulson has an "excuse" for not making disclosure. I think the thing about the NDA's is that it does not just give you the freedom to lie. If someone asked him 'are you still receiving money from NI' and he said 'I can't comment on that for legal reasons' then he is telling the truth. If there is an NDA (which as with others I am sure there probably was) then you can't say just say 'No' if the correct answer is 'yes but under an NDA' as that's flat out lying and nothing to do with the NDA. (That's the problem with these NDA's, though they are supposed to be known only to the parties involved not being able to make a definitive 'yes/no' statement to this sort of question is a sure fire give away that A) the answer is probably yes and B) they are under a NDA about it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 The most worrying aspect, Trousers, is that the Conservative bigwigs 'apparently' were unaware of this arrangement. I don't see that as unusual. As long as it doesn't affect my ability to do my current job (which of course is debatable) then my personal finances are just that - personal and private. Who declares supplementary income to their employers? Yes, there's a potential conflict of interests here but, in principle, there is nothing automatically wrong with having secondary or tertiary streams of income that you don't declare to your current employer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 This sort of deal is pretty common at the higher end of business. It probably comprised of something like a year's notice, pension contributions, foregone bonuses, pay up of share options under a good leaver clause plus a sum to make sure that he didn't sue them for wrnogful dismissal or any other cause. Why do you think these CEOs who are sacked get big pay off? It is the same thing. The fact that the payments happened after he had joined the government is purely down to timing Apologies for the MLG style intervention but the conservative party weren't in 'government' at the time of these severance payments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I don't see that as unusual. As long as it doesn't affect my ability to do my current job (which of course is debatable) then my personal finances are just that - personal and private. Who declares supplementary income to their employers? Yes, there's a potential conflict of interests here but, in principle, there is nothing automatically wrong with having secondary or tertiary streams of income that you don't declare to your current employer. With all due respect, Trousers, there's a bit of a difference between any screening you may have undergone for your job and the screening that should have been done for his. Especially given the incestuous relationship between NI and Cameron (i.e. Murdoch's stated intention to support Cameron in the election). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 The most worrying aspect, Trousers, is that the Conservative bigwigs 'apparently' were unaware of this arrangement. My present employer didn't know the Severance package I got from my previous employment and quite frankly it's none of their damn business. Had Coulson been receiveing money for work he did for NI, whilst employed by Cameron, then that's a story. I would have thought that Peston would have known the difference between wages, and Severance terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Here's the exchange between Tom Watson (Labour MP) and Coulson at the Culture Select Committee in July 2009 Tom Watson And then you went to work directly for the Conservative party. Coulson That is right. Tom Watson And you have not got any secondary income other than that have you? Coulson No. Watson So your sole income was News International and then your sole income was the Conservative party? Coulson Yes. Tom Watson: That is great, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I think the thing about the NDA's is that it does not just give you the freedom to lie. If someone asked him 'are you still receiving money from NI' and he said 'I can't comment on that for legal reasons' then he is telling the truth. If there is an NDA (which as with others I am sure there probably was) then you can't say just say 'No' if the correct answer is 'yes but under an NDA' as that's flat out lying and nothing to do with the NDA. (That's the problem with these NDA's, though they are supposed to be known only to the parties involved not being able to make a definitive 'yes/no' statement to this sort of question is a sure fire give away that A) the answer is probably yes and B) they are under a NDA about it) The point is still valid. As BTF is showing, she has "outrage" and "questions" which are very valid. BUt she hasn't indicated that she has any experience of being in a senior position and receiving a "Settlement". So again, LEGALLY Coulson could not say anything (even IF asked). Now look at "Party Bigwigs" and ask how many of them are career Politicos as opposed to Senior Employees in other fields. They quite simply may not even have THOUGHT to ask a question that could not be legally answered. (Memories of Sir Humphrey there!) Is this a stick to beat up Cameron with? Actually it may NOT be because there is a legal defence. We already KNOW that the whole appointment was as UP says elsewhere on the forum a clusterf\/ck of the highest proportion and this is just more of the same. Asking the same question keeps getting the same answer. Nothing new here move along. You cannot be accused of lying or being economical with the truth IF you are legally bound not to say something. It will come down to the words used - I expect his lawyers gave him the right briefing. He hasn't lied he hasn't been economical and the bigwigs haven't been incompetent. Their defence is sound. They have all just simply been MORALLY WRONG (yet again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Here's the exchange between Tom Watson (Labour MP) and Coulson at the Culture Select Committee in July 2009 Tom Watson And then you went to work directly for the Conservative party. Coulson That is right. Tom Watson And you have not got any secondary income other than that have you? Coulson No. Watson So your sole income was News International and then your sole income was the Conservative party? Coulson Yes. Tom Watson: That is great, thank you. Legally correct. Sorry BTF. the monies from NI were NOT income, they were the legal equivalent of "An out of Court Settlement". HMRC would class them as income for tax, but Tom Watson used the wrong words. Coulson was NOT receiving INCOME. It may be hard for the pitchfork brigade to understand but that is Civil Law unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Dragging this down to party political level for a moment....I see Miliband hasn't jumped on this particular band wagon yet...not sure why he's being so slow on this one. Nothing to do with his ex-News International employee having similar severance arrangements one assumes...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 With all due respect, Trousers, there's a bit of a difference between any screening you may have undergone for your job and the screening that should have been done for his. Especially given the incestuous relationship between NI and Cameron (i.e. Murdoch's stated intention to support Cameron in the election). Fair point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 You cannot be accused of lying or being economical with the truth IF you are legally bound not to say something. I disagree. Yes I am happy that if he said "I can't comment on that for legal reasons", that fine. But knowing the answer is 'yes but under a NDA' and saying 'No' is lying in my books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 23 August, 2011 The point is still valid. As BTF is showing, she has "outrage" and "questions" which are very valid. BUt she hasn't indicated that she has any experience of being in a senior position and receiving a "Settlement". But I have - twice. Not an NDA in the sense of having to keep schtum but certainly in the sense of not being able to talk to previous clients or 'take them with me' for 12 months. As to your other point about being economical with the truth - why, then, didn't he answer Tom Watson's question by saying 'I'm not at liberty to discuss any, if there are any, financial settlements I may or may not have received from my former employer'? He just said 'no'. Sorry PEDG - just realised I've repeated your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Here's the exchange between Tom Watson (Labour MP) and Coulson at the Culture Select Committee in July 2009 Tom Watson And then you went to work directly for the Conservative party. Coulson That is right. Tom Watson And you have not got any secondary income other than that have you? Coulson No. Watson So your sole income was News International and then your sole income was the Conservative party? Coulson Yes. Tom Watson: That is great, thank you. As mentioned by someone else above, it depends how the word "income" is being used here. Rightly or wrongly, the word can be used generically to describe all the money one receives into one's bank account or it can be used to mean 'salary'. Coulson can squirm out of this one by saying he meant 'salary' and didn't include 'severence' payments. Semantics I know, but lawyers are rich for a reason.... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 As mentioned by someone else above, it depends how the word "income" is being used here. Rightly or wrongly, the word can be used generically to describe all the money one receives into one's bank account or it can be used to mean 'salary'. Coulson can squirm out of this one by saying he meant 'salary' and didn't include 'severence' payments. Semantics I know, but lawyers are rich for a reason.... ;-) I am seriously impressed if coulson was able to think through the different concepts of income vs his compromise agreement settlement between being asked the question and him saying 'No'. From what I remember of seeing the session the answer was fairly instantaneous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I disagree. Yes I am happy that if he said "I can't comment on that for legal reasons", that fine. But knowing the answer is 'yes but under a NDA' and saying 'No' is lying in my books. He was able to say "no" to the question about "income" on the semantic technicalities that Phil has outlined. Yes, he was morally wrong to say an outright "no" to the income question, but technically and/or legally he can 'get away with it' We can smell a rat all we like but these people will be shielded by clever lawyers. Anyway, I wonder what Ed Miliband is making of this latest angle on the coulson story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 (edited) Income and severance terms are not the same Edited 23 August, 2011 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 He was able to say "no" to the question about "income" on the semantic technicalities that Phil has outlined. Yes, he was morally wrong to say an outright "no" to the income question, but technically and/or legally he can 'get away with it' We can smell a rat all we like but these people will be shielded by clever lawyers. Anyway, I wonder what Ed Miliband is making of this latest angle on the coulson story? I'm sure Tom Baldwin is in the same boat with a NI pension, should he resign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I am seriously impressed if coulson was able to think through the different concepts of income vs his compromise agreement settlement between being asked the question and him saying 'No'. From what I remember of seeing the session the answer was fairly instantaneous. I'm sure it was pretty obvious to Coulson and his legal team what the line of enquiry would be so he would know what to say in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I wonder if he remembered to tell the people in charge of his salary at the conservative party about the company car that NI were still paying for? Would not want his tax code to be wrong would he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I'm sure it was pretty obvious to Coulson and his legal team what the line of enquiry would be so he would know what to say in advance. So you reckon that if Watson had phrased his question to include the money under the compromise agreement that Coulson would not have said 'No'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I'm sure Tom Baldwin is in the same boat with a NI pension, should he resign? Sorry, what are you on about? This is not to do with having an NI pension it is about the manner that coulson left and the extra money he obtained as part of that. I don't think there is any indication that Tom Baldwin has obtained any extra money from NI since he left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Funny how when other editors like David Yelland and Andrew Neill resigned from NI, they received nothing. Coulson was secretly in the pay of NI while in the pay of No.10. If some on here can't see anything even vaguely wrong with that they are either so blinkered by grovelling loyalty to 'their' party, or they have mislaid (hopefully temporarily...) the capacity to think straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Here's the exchange between Tom Watson (Labour MP) and Coulson at the Culture Select Committee in July 2009 Tom Watson And then you went to work directly for the Conservative party. Coulson That is right. Tom Watson And you have not got any secondary income other than that have you? Coulson No. Watson So your sole income was News International and then your sole income was the Conservative party? Coulson Yes. Tom Watson: That is great, thank you. To be fair as someone else has said, I think there is a difference between income and a severance payment. The severance payment was "earned/activated" at the termination of his contract and it was solely the mechanics of payment which overlapped with his employment by the Conservatives (that said, I do think given the nature and position of his previous and future employers, then things should have been much cleaner and clearer). I would be more interested in the considerable benefits in kind (car, private health insurance etc) that then dragged on to overlap with his employment at Conservative Central Office. These are definite payments that ensure there is still a "financial relationship" between Coulson and NI. (Plus all the other denials or negative answers about being in receipt of monies/benefits in kind make it a rather murky story and a serious misjudgement by a number of people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I disagree. Yes I am happy that if he said "I can't comment on that for legal reasons", that fine. But knowing the answer is 'yes but under a NDA' and saying 'No' is lying in my books. Morally I have no issue with what you say. Completely correct. Unfortunately having had to drag myself through Civil Law decades ago as part of my education I learnt way back then that Civil Law & Common Sense are mutually exclusive. If you have an NDA then in MANY cases you cannot say that you have an NDA. Coulson was answering a direct question in what amounts to "a Legal Entity similar to a Court of Law". Sorry, his answer was right IN THAT environment. (A SIMILAR issue has arisen in the past weeks about the Law Firm (Harbottle) who were asked to examine the emails from NI. They made a very clearly worded statement. The Murdochs then used the FACT that there had been a review as the basis of their defence with the Select Committee. In HINDSIGHT, Murdoch Junior used an incorrect definition of the limits of that review and the law firm went into PR overdrive and we discovered the documents had redactions etc, and the Murdochs may be in even more poo over it. They (like Tom Watson) used the wrong words. So there IS one undeniable FACT here and it is one I posted before the Murdochs appeared - A Select Committee is "A bunch of Amateurs" asking questions in a legal environment, NOT "Lawyers". The person to beat the crap out of is actually Tom Watson. He asked the right question but used the wrong words. So my point again - this is yet more evidence of incompetence at all levels of "Our Leadership" and part of a trail, it ain't the one thing to get all steamed up about. This solution to this entire debacle is about the use of Words in the right context who said what and when, Don't worry, there'll be LOADS more rope to hang people with to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 Sorry, what are you on about? This is not to do with having an NI pension it is about the manner that coulson left and the extra money he obtained as part of that. I don't think there is any indication that Tom Baldwin has obtained any extra money from NI since he left. Coulson's severance pay was a benefit related to the time that he worked for NI, it was just paid out in installments after he left. Once Tom Baldwin starts drawing his NI pension, is he not doing the same thing. Receiving income from a benefit earned whilst working at NI, even though he no longer works there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 23 August, 2011 Share Posted 23 August, 2011 To be fair as someone else has said, I think there is a difference between income and a severance payment. The severance payment was "earned/activated" at the termination of his contract and it was solely the mechanics of payment which overlapped with his employment by the Conservatives (that said, I do think given the nature and position of his previous and future employers, then things should have been much cleaner and clearer). I would be more interested in the considerable benefits in kind (car, private health insurance etc) that then dragged on to overlap with his employment at Conservative Central Office. These are definite payments that ensure there is still a "financial relationship" between Coulson and NI. (Plus all the other denials or negative answers about being in receipt of monies/benefits in kind make it a rather murky story and a serious misjudgement by a number of people). But it seems unlikely to have been a severance payment in any conventional sense of the term. Coulson had resigned from NI precisely because of the trial that sent Mulcaire and Goodman to jail on his watch. Just as both Mulcaire and Goodman have been made - or in Goodman's case promised - large after-the-event payments essentially as hush money (to keep quiet about the wider scandal inside NI) Coulson's payments should be seen in this light. They are in this sense clearly income. Interesting, though, isn't it, that Yelland and Neill should resign from NI and receive nothing (as is usual), and yet there was no stain on their reputation, only for Coulson to resign in disgrace and receive a king's ransom, staggered over a payment period so long that it could only be perceived as continuing income? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 23 August, 2011 I wonder why NI paid Coulson in instalments? Did they have a cash-flow problem? And he would have had to pay tax on his 'entitlement' - why didn't the clever clogs at Conservative Central Office not pick up on his tax code? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now