OVER THE HILL Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 After the Andy Coulson business some very poor judgement here by another senior Tory.His apology in the commons is not good enough and I think he ought to resign now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 This 'story' was the the main story on the news yesterday and was followed by a story about a brave 5 year old with a brain tumour who'd died having raised 500k for charity, and the story of the arch bishop of Canterbury visiting Rhodesia in the wake of persecution of Anglicans and the closing of orphanages. It's a sad state of affairs when some deem the Fox affair to be more important than the examples given and I think people such as the OP need get their priorities right and stop being so petty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 It never ceases to amaze me that despite the examples of those who have previously fallen from high office, intelligent, rational people, still make monumental **** ups when assessing their own liabilities. He should go, just for being a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 It never ceases to amaze me that despite the examples of those who have previously fallen from high office, intelligent, rational people, still make monumental **** ups when assessing their own liabilities. He should go, just for being a ****. Dr Fox and IDS are cabinet members that represent the Tory right, hence the backing of several influential back benchers. For this reason and this reason alone he has a certain amount of protection. Of course there is more to come out and that could change things. If and when it does it will present a headache for David Cameron as the right of the party will expect one of their own to fill the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OVER THE HILL Posted 11 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 October, 2011 It's a sad state of affairs when some deem the Fox affair to be more important than the examples given and I think people such as the OP need get their priorities right and stop being so petty. It seems to me to be a reasonable topic for discusion on here and there is no need for insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 You can't just take your mate to work for day and on world trips... especially when the trips are on as sensitive information as he has to deal with. To add to this, Werrity got to act as his adviser so that is personal gain, if not financial gain via his 'charity'(which was run from Fox's office, now not a charity due to its dubious circumstances). And to add to this, I want to know how he afforded to go on 18 world trips. All in all, poor judgement and its not acceptable for someone in his job. If an Army Officer had bought his mate to meetings all the time, he would be out. Fox should go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 You can't just take your mate to work for day and on world trips... Adam Boulton on SKY this lunchtime with a bloke from the Telegraph and The Mirror just put the cat amongst the pigeons by questioning whether this is a homosexual relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Adam Boulton on SKY this lunchtime with a bloke from the Telegraph and The Mirror just put the cat amongst the pigeons by questioning whether this is a homosexual relationship. I must say that was my first thought on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Isn't he married? Not that that is a guarantee of heterosexuality, buy you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 In general, I don't think his sexuality is an issue - he could have just as easily taken a 'lady friend' on all these trips. I read somewhere that his wife (of 6 years) is bi-sexual. But again, it's the magnitude of his irresponsibility that is questioned, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 He can't be sacked because, and I'm not making this up, he's got a cat. (Acknowledgement to NewsBiscuit for this gem). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Isn't he married? Not that that is a guarantee of heterosexuality, buy you know... A little Google on the issue brings up quite a few articles about it, particularly from when he threw his hat in the ring for the leadership and there were rumours (and denials) about his sexuality. There's also some questioning his marriage. No idea either way, but Adam Boulton seems to have said what many were thinking. That aside, my issue with this one is the apparent cover up and half truths, "there is nothing untoward" and "it was a chance meeting" to a few days later, "Serious mistakes" and "there was contact between the two parties prior to the meeting". All this against Cameron claiming a new standard of transparency and honesty in Government. Then there are obvious questions such as: Was Fox aware that Werrity was touting himself as an advisor? When did Fox know about the business cards (i.e. was it a while before he asked them to be binned)? Why was Werrity following him around? Who paid for Werrity's travel and accomodation costs? If Werrity didn't, then who did people pay for them? What other benefits did Werrity gain from this arrangement (financial or otherwise)? Did Fox gain from these arrangments? Did he mention this connection to his Permanent Secretray upon commencement of his role? What subjects were discussed at meetings where this non security cleared person was present? Why didn't he just engage him as an advisor/assistant, get him security cleared and be done with it? How does this behaviour square with Cameron's claim to be more transparent, open and honest etc in the revised Standards document? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 In general, I don't think his sexuality is an issue - he could have just as easily taken a 'lady friend' on all these trips. I read somewhere that his wife (of 6 years) is bi-sexual. But again, it's the magnitude of his irresponsibility that is questioned, I think. If he'd taken a lady friend no-one would probably have even noticed. I used to take my "lady friend" on most of my trips, called her my secretary or PA or whatever. You get a reputation as a bit of a lad and a top notch fella. Take a bloke ...no-one wanted to know you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 There was a guy from one of the companies involved at the Dubai meeting on the BBC at lunchtime saying that all this about "chance meeting" was ****** and that it was all agreed days in advance. Werrity was openly touting himself as Fox's advisor so there doesn't appear to be any way that Fox didn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 If it was not a homosexual relationship, I cannot at all see what Fox is getting out of all this. I never thought of Fox as gay I must admit, but then, I never thought Rock Hudson was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Wasn't the married William Hague accused of sharing a bed/room innocently with another man. I'm sure a lot of politicians travel everywhere with their best friend in tow for company, can't have them being lonely on such important missions. Seems too far fetched to be innocent, should resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OVER THE HILL Posted 11 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 October, 2011 According to dune this is a non story that we should not be discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 It sounds like Fox and his friend have had their snouts in the trough more or less as soon as he became a Government Minister. By the way, I couldn't care less where he puts his winky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Dunce, if this had happened to John Reid, would you be claiming there was 'nothing to see, please move along' ? This guy was present on more than 35% of Fox's overseas trips, including dinners with high ranking Pentagon officers. If he wasn't gaining from them as part of his 'defence related business interests', why was he there ? Fox has to go, and if necessary Dave has to show he's 'got a pair'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Dunce, if this had happened to John Reid, would you be claiming there was 'nothing to see, please move along' ? This guy was present on more than 35% of Fox's overseas trips, including dinners with high ranking Pentagon officers. If he wasn't gaining from them as part of his 'defence related business interests', why was he there ? Fox has to go, and if necessary Dave has to show he's 'got a pair'. But Dave will have a problem. Foxy Fox is the darling of the right and, according to all accounts, was disliked by Dave. If Dave ditches him, the right will be up in arms. If he doesn't, the rest of parliament will be. Rocks and hard places spring to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Dunce, if this had happened to John Reid, would you be claiming there was 'nothing to see, please move along' ? This guy was present on more than 35% of Fox's overseas trips, including dinners with high ranking Pentagon officers. If he wasn't gaining from them as part of his 'defence related business interests', why was he there ? Fox has to go, and if necessary Dave has to show he's 'got a pair'. That's the question that if ever answered (honestly) will tell us all we need to know. What was Werrity doing there and what was he gaining from it? Simple enough, but I just don't think the question will be answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Bring back Peter Mandleson and Alastair Campbell I say. Let's get back to decent, open and honest politics. I'm fed up with this Tory sleaze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Bring back Peter Mandleson and Alastair Campbell I say. Let's get back to decent, open and honest politics. I'm fed up with this Tory sleaze. Bring back the good old days when yer ordinary bloke didn't give a flying one about politics,politicians,the stock exchange,the Royal Family,what some slut from Basildon did on her holidays etc etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Bring back Peter Mandleson and Alastair Campbell I say. Let's get back to decent, open and honest politics. I'm fed up with this Tory sleaze. Is this not a contradiction ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Is this not a contradiction ? Of course, their bible is Machavelli's "Prince" which contains excellent advice on all sorts or skullduggery,evasive tactics and what have you.There's the famous advice about "sometimes words being necessary to veil the truth" as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 But Dave will have a problem. Foxy Fox is the darling of the right and, according to all accounts, was disliked by Dave. If Dave ditches him, the right will be up in arms. If he doesn't, the rest of parliament will be. Rocks and hard places spring to mind. I already made this point. Do keep up dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Bring back Peter Mandleson and Alastair Campbell I say. Let's get back to decent, open and honest politics. I'm fed up with this Tory sleaze. Mandelson (twice), Blunkett (over the passprot furore) and others walked (or were pushed) under Blair and in previous Governments (red and blue) others have been pushed or walked for less. Cameron made a very bold claim upon entering office, including his new foreward on ethics and standards in the revised ministerial code, particularly after the Expenses Scandal, so he has really set himself up here to do something. Problem is as BTF points out, party politics will probably ride roughshod over Government and National Interests (once again dragging down politics in this country). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Isn't he married? Not that that is a guarantee of heterosexuality, buy you know... So is William Hague. Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 For those of you who like play on words, if you can be arsed to read the entries, there are some very funny captions here http://order-order.com/2011/10/07/friday-caption-contest-liam-fox-edition/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 That's the question that if ever answered (honestly) will tell us all we need to know. What was Werrity doing there and what was he gaining from it? Simple enough, but I just don't think the question will be answered. Agreed - it frustrated the hell out of me on Newsnight that the question was never even asked. It's got to be the most obvious of questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Agreed - it frustrated the hell out of me on Newsnight that the question was never even asked. It's got to be the most obvious of questions. There's another question too, although I think Werritty will be asked this by the Cabinet office or whoever. That is this. Who paid for him to go on all these trips. Apparently he earned only £20K over 5 years from his consultancies. Also, apart from Fox, other Tory MPs were shareholders in Werritty's now defunct health and defence businesses - Chris Grayling for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 This 'story' was the the main story on the news yesterday and was followed by a story about a brave 5 year old with a brain tumour who'd died having raised 500k for charity, and the story of the arch bishop of Canterbury visiting Rhodesia in the wake of persecution of Anglicans and the closing of orphanages. It's a sad state of affairs when some deem the Fox affair to be more important than the examples given and I think people such as the OP need get their priorities right and stop being so petty. Agree about the importance of some news and how its relayed however I don't think the archbishop of Canterbury and his visit to a non existent country should have any more importance over the Fox affair. As for Fox himself, 18 "chance" meetings with his "best" buddy around the world in 17 months does look dodgy, time to step down Dr Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 I also want to know if he declares the income from fronting Channel 5's popular music chart show! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 October, 2011 Share Posted 11 October, 2011 Something stinks about this whole affair. I reckon there will be MUCH more to come out on this affair. I could be wrong of course, but each day more is revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 Something stinks about this whole affair. I reckon there will be MUCH more to come out on this affair. I could be wrong of course, but each day more is revealed. I suspect that will be the press drip feeding us to keep the story alive for longer. Fwiw the bloke is probably guilty of nothing more than stupendous lack of judgement and for that alone he should probably go. If this is still leading the news by the end of the week DC will have to sack him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 (edited) Considering this c**t sat back and allowed the complete emasculation of the Royal Navy, I am laughing my tits off at "Thatcherite" Fox and everything thats coming to him. A question : are these two actually gay lovers ? There is something a little odd in the way the press are reporting it. Whenever I read about it I get the urge to stick two thumbs up and say "Frrieeend" in that effete In-Betweeners manner.. Edited 12 October, 2011 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 I see that latest tit-bit to emerge is that when Foxys London flat was burgled, he had a young man staying with him. All perfectly innocent of course, but why did Tory officials at the time say that he was on his own? Curiouser and curiouser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 I suspect that will be the press drip feeding us to keep the story alive for longer. Fwiw the bloke is probably guilty of nothing more than stupendous lack of judgement and for that alone he should probably go. If this is still leading the news by the end of the week DC will have to sack him That's the real point isn't it? Don't really care if Fox is promiscuous, gay, bi-, or a celibate, but what all this does show is that he has really poor judgement, and do we really want a man with poor judgement in charge of our nation's defence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 That's the real point isn't it? Don't really care if Fox is promiscuous, gay, bi-, or a celibate, but what all this does show is that he has really poor judgement, and do we really want a man with poor judgement in charge of our nation's defence? Too late. He hasnt left us anything but pitchforks to defend with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 good, this man has destroyed the royal navy (along with labour) and should go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 A bit from The Guardian which resonated with me: "cabinet ministers' most precious assets are "their time, their attention and their intelligence", and Fox gave Werritty the unimpeded run of all three. Given the competing demands on a defence secretary involved in two conflicts abroad, to have made a priority of the demands of an old mate is a gross failure of judgment and in itself sufficient grounds, says McTernan, to disqualify Fox for his post." As others above have also said, he has made some gross errors of judgement and has then gone on to make matters worse by being extremely candid with what really has been going on, denying anything to apologising days later, and has been far from open and transparent as promised by Cameron. His position is untenable and the longer he stays in role the more the focus will switch to Cameron. As with Coulson, Cameron is in no way implictated in the initial wrongdoings, but his failure to act and dithering will mean he will become embroiled in the storm. Of course one of the problems is that he's scared of the right wing of his own party, which then makes me start to question his own mettle (like Blair and others before him he appears to be more keen on pandering to others than being his own man and providing the leadership this country needs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 good, this man has destroyed the royal navy (along with labour) and should go (and Thatcher) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 Slightly off topic but to educate DD the figures for the demise of teh RN are Royal Navy Surface Fleet 1979 - The Greedy Tories – 18 Years - started with 68 ships Royal Navy Surface Fleet 1997 – The Looney Left 13 Years - started with 36 surface ships Royal Navy Surface Fleet 2010 – The Greedy Tories - started with 29 ships Tories One year on Royal Navy Surface Fleet 25 ships Royal Navy Submarine Fleet 1979 - The Greedy Tories – 18 Years 31 submarines Royal Navy Submarine Fleet 1997 – The Looney Left 13 Years – started with 16 submarines Royal Navy Submarine Fleet 2010 - 1 Year - started with 11 submarines Tories One year on Royal Navy Submarines 11 submarines So whilst governments of both shades have reduced the size of the RN the Blue corner has been by far the most effective, in there 17 years from 1979 the surface fleet reduced by 47% and the submarine fleet by 48%, their latest efforts have already seen a 14% reduction in the surface fleet. In the red corner their record in the 13 years from 1997 is 20% reduction in the surface fleet and 22% reduction in the submarines. The manpower figures don’t favor the blue corner either in 1979 the RN establishment was over 70k by the time the Blues left office it was less than 40k. Note Surface Ship figures do not include MPH vessels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 Slightly off topic but to educate DD the figures for the demise of teh RN are Royal Navy Surface Fleet 1979 - The Greedy Tories – 18 Years - started with 68 ships Royal Navy Surface Fleet 1997 – The Looney Left 13 Years - started with 36 surface ships Royal Navy Surface Fleet 2010 – The Greedy Tories - started with 29 ships Tories One year on Royal Navy Surface Fleet 25 ships Royal Navy Submarine Fleet 1979 - The Greedy Tories – 18 Years 31 submarines Royal Navy Submarine Fleet 1997 – The Looney Left 13 Years – started with 16 submarines Royal Navy Submarine Fleet 2010 - 1 Year - started with 11 submarines Tories One year on Royal Navy Submarines 11 submarines So whilst governments of both shades have reduced the size of the RN the Blue corner has been by far the most effective, in there 17 years from 1979 the surface fleet reduced by 47% and the submarine fleet by 48%, their latest efforts have already seen a 14% reduction in the surface fleet. In the red corner their record in the 13 years from 1997 is 20% reduction in the surface fleet and 22% reduction in the submarines. The manpower figures don’t favor the blue corner either in 1979 the RN establishment was over 70k by the time the Blues left office it was less than 40k. Note Surface Ship figures do not include MPH vessels. Just look at the mess we had to go through to cobble together the Falklands Task Force. Overall the UK Government ( of any hue ) has been far more effective than the Kreigsmarine ever managed ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumuah Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 (and Thatcher) I don't think Thatcher was to blame for the demise of the RN. John Major maybe. Look at these two pages: 1975-2000 : http://frn.beedall.com/decline.htm 1990-2012: http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wordpress/royal-navy-warship-numbers-falling-off-a-cliff Some truly worrying numbers. Especially as next year i'll be on one of the destroyers. I don't rate my life expectancy very highly if we have to fight a proper war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 (and Thatcher) the only Navy that Maggie destroyed belonged to the Argentines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 I don't think Thatcher was to blame for the demise of the RN. John Major maybe. Look at these two pages Au contraire mush. In the early 80's I worked for a company that was after some defence-related work and we had a vist from Keith Speed, then called the Navy Minister (a charming chap, by the way). He was later sacked by Thatcher when he refused to resign because he would not accept the cuts to the Navy proposed by Thatcher and Nott. Later events in the Falklands showed him to be right. If the Falklands had happened a year after it did, we would have been in the sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 the only Navy that Maggie destroyed belonged to the Argentines. Actually, a common view at the time was that a major trigger for the Argentinian invasion was the reduction in British defence forces by Thatcher, and in particular the removal of HMS Endurance from the Islands. The Argentinians took this as a sign that Britain had stoped caring and wouldn't defend the islands. Thatcher's goverment also passed the Nationality Act in 1981 which removed full British citizenship from the Islanders. You may recall that Lord Carrington resigned over these issues, effectively taking the fall for Thatcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 Slightly off topic but to educate DD the figures for the demise of teh RN are Royal Navy Surface Fleet 1979 - The Greedy Tories – 18 Years - started with 68 ships Royal Navy Surface Fleet 1997 – The Looney Left 13 Years - started with 36 surface ships Royal Navy Surface Fleet 2010 – The Greedy Tories - started with 29 ships Tories One year on Royal Navy Surface Fleet 25 ships Royal Navy Submarine Fleet 1979 - The Greedy Tories – 18 Years 31 submarines Royal Navy Submarine Fleet 1997 – The Looney Left 13 Years – started with 16 submarines Royal Navy Submarine Fleet 2010 - 1 Year - started with 11 submarines Tories One year on Royal Navy Submarines 11 submarines So whilst governments of both shades have reduced the size of the RN the Blue corner has been by far the most effective, in there 17 years from 1979 the surface fleet reduced by 47% and the submarine fleet by 48%, their latest efforts have already seen a 14% reduction in the surface fleet. In the red corner their record in the 13 years from 1997 is 20% reduction in the surface fleet and 22% reduction in the submarines. The manpower figures don’t favor the blue corner either in 1979 the RN establishment was over 70k by the time the Blues left office it was less than 40k. Note Surface Ship figures do not include MPH vessels. However when you consider that the soviet union disolved in the late 80's, therefore bringing the cold war to an end, is there any surprise that we cut back the navy. The biggest issue is that we cut the ships and not the admirals or bureacracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 12 October, 2011 Share Posted 12 October, 2011 Sorry Lumah You will struggle to find anyone serving now that was in pre 1990 (and there are still loads) who think it was worse for the RN under maggie The cold war ending had a massive impact on the future of the armed forces of many countries 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