Noodle used to warn me not to come into this forum much .
I miss him
I miss him
UK Riots (with the exception of Manchester which has its own thread)
- Thread starter CLK_FPC
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I've decided to become a revolutionary, Erica.
Correct, however I fail to see how that supports the belief that the PM was aware of any alleged wrongdoing. It merely acknowledges he may have misjudged Andy Coulson.
Andy Coulson has not been found guilty of the crimes that you assert the PM was aware of.
Personally I realise that David Cameron is an intelligent chap, why would he risk his political credibility by hiring someone he knew was a criminal? If you're swayed by this fantasy that DC sold his soul to Murdoch, don't you think he had other people working in his enormous media empire that wouldn't have posed such a high risk?
Even if the above were true, in a similar fashion you are straining to give DC the benefit of the doubt. No matter what one's politics, it beggars belief that a compromised person like Coulson would be given a 'second chance' by a serious politician like the Prime Minister. It's an insult to the intelligence that Cameron and company expect people to believe the party line on this matter.
He hasn't even been found guilty! Plenty of respectable and serious individuals have been "compromised" by allegations and accusations that were later withdrawn. Even if he is found guilty (and it's a sizeable "if") it will need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that David Cameron knew Andy Coulson was guilty at the time he hired him. Can't see it happening myself. In fact I'd be utterly shocked if the latter came to pass.
And evra, what of the blatant hypocrisy and classism displayed by Cameron regarding "second chances" "sickening criminality" and the "full force of the law" as laid out by Plech & I over the last couple of pages?...What are your conclusions on that? Is it right that the political class are given a slapped wrist, if that, whilst the underclasses - the least equipped to cope with it - are given both barrels?
Sharks were fecking awesome.
He was obviously aware of alleged wrongdoing - Coulson resigned from the NotW under a cloud.
I'm not saying he knew Coulson was guilty. My guess is he did, because my guess is that everyone in powerful positions at tabloids knew about hacking, and that within weeks of the story breaking, everyone in media and government knew they knew. If he didn't know, he took a punt based on what Coulson told him, and if he got it wrong he has questions to answer about his judgement.
Personally I don't really care whether Cameron knew or not, I'm just hoping for maximum embarrassment for party political reasons cos I don't like Tories.
Any politician found guilty of criminal activity in a court of law has been given both barrels. There has been no leniency for Jim Devine an co.
The Bullingdon club has been involved in some damage to various properties but part of their code is to pay for any damage in cash there and then. That doesn't completely excuse it but it's a point that is often ignored. Clearly it differs from what went on in Croydon, Manchester et cetera last week.
It looks to me like there was a journalistic culture of right and wrong simply being defined by whether you got the story or not. Given the almost incestuous relationship there is between politicians and particular elements of the media it's impossible to believe there weren't a few conversations down the years in which both parties skilfully avoided saying what neither of them wanted acknowledged. On that basis it's hard to believe Cameron, with the political reach he has and with the personal relationships he had, not being aware of some of this stuff, particularly with regard to Coulson.
The criminal offences those people have been charged with don't have anything to do with whether or not they made the 'victims' whole again financially. The fact that people like that view their money as a means by which to step outside the laws the rest of us have to live by is particularly odious.
You misunderstand me, when I said:
I was trying to stress that Andy Coulson is still presumed innocent. But making the assumption (as most of you are) that Andy Coulson is guilty, the fact that DC agreed to apologise for trusting Andy Coulson is not an admission that he knew about it all along.
"Alleged" should probably have been in brackets, apologies.
Wholeheartedly agree with that. Being rich is not a justification for criminal damage.
don't apologise now, apologise in a year or two when you've been found outSchoolboy stuff
Cameron will use the Blair defence - he did not believe what he had been told about Coulson was true.
God told him to appoint Andy Coulson (or Murdoch).
Spot on. It's akin to Cashley burning £50 notes, only with added criminal damage.
my second sentence clarified my first, but there's nothing like misquoting to support your own beliefs is there ?
If Coulson is found guilty then it will be plain to everyone that he should resign. He won't but he should. I am all for innocent until proven guilty but that doesn't stop me thinking about the future possibilities.
That Fraser Murdoch piece on the riots is brilliant btw.
There's definitely things out there worth rioting about but they aren't nike trainers or plasma screen tv's.
There's definitely things out there worth rioting about but they aren't nike trainers or plasma screen tv's.
Every MP who paid back expenses has admitted to defrauding the public. Every single one of them no matter which party should leave politics and be grateful that they haven't been sent to prison. To stand there now and try to talk about the morality of others is shocking hypocrisy.
Sad isn't it. If only people were more motivated by that rather than short term materialitic gain then maybe the Houses of Parliment would've been burned to the ground a few weeks back and not some 100 year old furniture store.
Never has the 'one rule for the rich, one rule for the poor' theory been so visible as it has been in the past few weeks.
I was thinking of starting a petition demanding they resign. We would only need to get 100'000 signatures to force MP's to debate it. That would be an interesting debate.
Clearly you're not, if you were you would postpone any talk of resignation unitl: A) Andy Coulson is convicted and B) It's proven beyond reasonable doubt that DC was aware of Andy Coulson's criminal acts when he hired him. Until both of those things have happened any talk of resignation is ridiculous.
Sense prevails:
Riots: Mother jailed for handling looted shorts freed on appeal | UK news | guardian.co.uk
Judge calls original decision "wrong in principle".
Riots: Mother jailed for handling looted shorts freed on appeal | UK news | guardian.co.uk
Judge calls original decision "wrong in principle".
what are you on about? I wasn't in need of clarification, you were, as you said in your first sentence - that you weren't sure what point we were making.
Your second line just begs the question. What's the difference in criminality between looting Poundland and smashing up an Indian restaurant for a laugh?
I wasn't in need of clarification, you were, as you said in your first sentence - that you weren't sure what point we were making.
Your second line just begs the question. What's the difference in criminality between looting Poundland and smashing up an Indian restaurant for a laugh?
Both are reprehensible in my view . Sorry if that disappoints you
On the contrary, I'm delighted that you can now see the hypocrisy we were talking about.
It is never ridiculous to think ahead. I am not speculating on the issue of Coulson’s guilt or innocence per say but on the political ramifications of a guilty verdict. So your innocent until proven guilty remark is groundless and inaccurate.
After Coulson was charged the result of a potential guilty verdict become relevant. I think if guilty Cameron should resign; his position is undermined and his closeness to Coulson will lead to questions of complicity, which Cameron could never remove.
There is no one else to blame for Coulson getting inside number ten, it wasn't a surprise Coulson was involved in all this he had resigned from post under a very big cloud. Principle would dictate that having directly appointed him to a post with a great deal of power and influence, you put your job on the line if he is a wrong un.
Cameron knowing or not knowing wouldn't change my view on the best recourse for him. Suppose it is claimed that Coulson was appointed because of the dirt he knew on Cameron's opponents, knowledge gained via illegal means. Integrity wise, it's a killer.
Coulson might be found not guilty, stranger things have happened. If so then the debate is mute. Up until then I will think about the possibilities as much I like because it focuses on what should happen next. It stops the spin merchants reacting after the event to try to prevent the best outcome. In the situation outlined a PM with integrity falls on his sword.
The debate is silent?
Any talk of resignation is absurd, complicity in what? You think the PM was helping to hack Heather Mills mobile? Assuming Coulson is convicted DC will have to apologise for misjudging a person with dubious morals but nobody serious will suggest resignation. It would be impossible to prove that DC knew of any wrongdoing prior to hiring him (unless DC's phone was hacked
).Cameron has placed himself at risk merely by placing so much trust in someone who appears to have engaged in overtly criminal behavior. A PM should have better judgment.
The debate is silent?
Any talk of resignation is absurd, complicity in what? You think the PM was helping to hack Heather Mills mobile? Assuming Coulson is convicted DC will have to apologise for misjudging a person with dubious morals but nobody serious will suggest resignation. It would be impossible to prove that DC knew of any wrongdoing prior to hiring him (unless DC's phone was hacked
Not sure that's true... aside from the opposition, the rightwing Tories are sharpening their knives.
I think you need to separate the morality from the politics. I doubt many people think Cameron committed a terrible wrong by hiring Coulson. It's normal in modern politics to hire top hacks as spin-doctors. These people are absolute scum, and everybody knows it, but they know the game so they have value.
The question is how much political capital it's cost Cameron. He took a risk hiring a man under a cloud, and the gamble has come out badly. Opponents on both flanks will seize on this, including 'serious' ones. Cameron knows this, which is why he's tried to spread the damage thin with his pre-emptive quasi-apology.
I doubt it'll cost him his job but it will damage him.
The debate is silent?
Any talk of resignation is absurd, complicity in what? You think the PM was helping to hack Heather Mills mobile? Assuming Coulson is convicted DC will have to apologise for misjudging a person with dubious morals but nobody serious will suggest resignation. It would be impossible to prove that DC knew of any wrongdoing prior to hiring him (unless DC's phone was hacked
Sorry but did you miss that politicians had their phones hacked and medical records illegally obtained including Gordon Brown? Nice try Evra but no cigar.
Look, you want to make the bar very high in terms of what you see as a resignable offense. I think I know why but that isn't relevant to me. Cameron brought in Coulson (IF he is convicted) then he is personally responsible for bringing a criminal into number ten as chief spin merchant.
That is enough to resign over, as far as I am concerned.
Complicit in the attempt to prevent the truth coming out. What message did bringing Coulson in send to the Met with regards to investigating the matter?
Complicit in trying to clear a personal friend who in fact was guilty and lied to parliament about it. (If so found)
Complicit in bringing Coulson back into a position of influence and power where his illicit activity (alleged) would do most damage.
Complicit in bringing that all into the heart of government as an institution which really did not need any more undermining.
It's not really ridiculous to look for a resignation when you consider all the implications.
I don't want to derail this thread any further so if you want to continue the debate then let’s go to the hacking thread and do it.