ergo....Cameron was to blame for employing a potential villian.
against better judgement ?
Sorry potential villain - you are not making sense.
Until such a time that a court rules he (Coulson) is innocent of anything, not matter what rumour is doing the rounds. Just as you would not expect to lose a job because of what someone said about you - so Coulson should expect the same.
Now he has been found guilty that goes out the window.
Coulson not only lied to Cameron about this, he did to a Commons Select Committee as well - a committee that would have included MPs from all parties.
Thousands of people spoke about Lawson while the trial was going on and it was widely reported.
I understand that his support 'for Team Nigella' was viewed to be unhelpful to the trial taking place at the time. I believe the Judge even commented about it saying it could well jeopardise the trial. Now we seem to be in the same territory with the same man causing the same concerns.
I genuinely cannot believe Ed Miliband went down that road. Every question he asked had already been answered by Leveson.
The overall impression was that Miliband didn't give a fig for what the inquiry decided and that he wanted to reach his own - obviously politically expedient - conclusions. All Cameron had to do (which he did repeatedly) was to hold up a copy of the report.
....and Miliband wanted to talk about being weak....
Unbelievable! It is David Cameron who rejected the recommendations from Leveson but now sees fit to hide behind it at PM Q's and you think Ed is in the wrong?!
Just roll on the next election! I can't wait to see this smarmy arrogant so and so in Cameron get booted out!!!!!!
I understand that his support 'for Team Nigella' was viewed to be unhelpful to the trial taking place at the time. I believe the Judge even commented about it saying it could well jeopardise the trial. Now we seem to be in the same territory with the same man causing the same concerns.
It's still just one mans opinion. I fail to see how anyone saying they are Team Nigella can effect a trial. She wasn't even the one on trial and the other "team"were acquitted anyway.
The Attorney General disagrees with this current judge and I think he trumps him.
DC has always said that he would apologise if AC was found guilty.
Labour have been pressing for this apology since AC was charged and if DC stayed quite on the issue, after the verdict, the left would be foaming at the mouth, accusing him of weasling out of it.
It's still just one mans opinion. I fail to see how anyone saying they are Team Nigella can effect a trial. She wasn't even the one on trial and the other "team"were acquitted anyway.
The Attorney General disagrees with this current judge and I think he trumps him.
DC has always said that he would apologise if AC was found guilty.
Labour have been pressing for this apology since AC was charged and if DC stayed quite on the issue, after the verdict, the left would be foaming at the mouth, accusing him of weasling out of it.
I think in both cases, the judge saw it as David Cameron influencing the jury. What he said both times have been heavily publicised on the news so it would have been hard for the jury to miss it.
I think in both cases, the judge saw it as David Cameron influencing the jury. What he said both times have been heavily publicised on the news so it would have been hard for the jury to miss it.
DO you think that what they saw in the news yesterday would override everything they had heard and discussed over the months of the trial? They could equally have been "influenced" by reports they saw on Twitter, Facebook or even this forum
This really shows how antiquated the concept of court and sub judice laws are.
I didn't know Leveson had an inquiry in to the employment of Coulson by Cameron. Did he get an answer as to whether Civil Servant advice was given?
You're joking - it was a key, and widely reported, part of the proceedings. Ignore all the "think of the victims" sanctimony, this was the section of the inquiry that Labour took the most interest in for the simple reason that they recognised there was a possibility that Cameron could be hung out to dry if Leveson found against him.
I've already copied the section from Gus O'Donnell talking about Coulson earlier in this thread. The only other time O'Donnell referred to it was in his own submission to Leveson.
Question 30 - Please set out in full for the inquiry details of your role, if any, in relation to the appointment by the Prime Minster of Andy Coulson to a post in No.10. Your account should include a full explanation of the basis on which you were asked to advise.
Mr Coulson was brought in as a special adviser to the Prime Minister. I was not involved in the process of appointing Mr Coulson. Mr Coulson was cleared to SC (security clearance) level and was undergoing DV (developed vetting) clearance at the time of his resignation.
It's still just one mans opinion. I fail to see how anyone saying they are Team Nigella can effect a trial. She wasn't even the one on trial and the other "team"were acquitted anyway.
The Attorney General disagrees with this current judge and I think he trumps him.
DC has always said that he would apologise if AC was found guilty.
Labour have been pressing for this apology since AC was charged and if DC stayed quite on the issue, after the verdict, the left would be foaming at the mouth, accusing him of weasling out of it.
It is not "one man's opinion" it is the opinion on something happening in a court of law by the head of the government that makes the country's laws.
DO you think that what they saw in the news yesterday would override everything they had heard and discussed over the months of the trial? They could equally have been "influenced" by reports they saw on Twitter, Facebook or even this forum
This really shows how antiquated the concept of court and sub judice laws are.
Personally I think it's a bit of an overreaction, especially in the second case as the jury members would no doubt also know that David Cameron had promised to apologise if Andy Coulson was found guilty. It just seems that when it comes to the big cases, the judge doesn't want to take any risks.
Personally I think it's a bit of an overreaction, especially in the second case as the jury members would no doubt also know that David Cameron had promised to apologise if Andy Coulson was found guilty. It just seems that when it comes to the big cases, the judge doesn't want to take any risks.
The judge just wants the law of the land made by parliamentarians in our parliament to be obeyed by everyone including those in parliament who made the laws.
The judge just wants the law of the land made by parliamentarians in our parliament to be obeyed by everyone including those in parliament who made the laws.
True, I understand that but I just don't think it was necessary for the judge to call out David Cameron for apologising for employing Coulson. Whatever happened to the other two charges, Coulson was found guilty on one charge at that moment and so it was apparent that it was wrong of the prime minister to have hired him.
Unbelievable! It is David Cameron who rejected the recommendations from Leveson but now sees fit to hide behind it at PM Q's and you think Ed is in the wrong?!
Just roll on the next election! I can't wait to see this smarmy arrogant so and so in Cameron get booted out!!!!!!
It wasn't a judgment on Ed himself - but I think Ed was dead wrong to pursue that particular line. Those questions were the focus of lengthy discussion at Leveson - and in his report Leveson gave his us judgement on what he'd heard. IOW, they've already been subject to scrutiny and independent judgement. Try and hard as he can, Miliband can't change, or top that.
True, I understand that but I just don't think it was necessary for the judge to call out David Cameron for apologising for employing Coulson. Whatever happened to the other two charges, Coulson was found guilty on one charge at that moment and so it was apparent that it was wrong of the prime minister to have hired him.[/QUOTES]
You're joking - it was a key, and widely reported, part of the proceedings. Ignore all the "think of the victims" sanctimony, this was the section of the inquiry that Labour took the most interest in for the simple reason that they recognised there was a possibility that Cameron could be hung out to dry if Leveson found against him.
I've already copied the section from Gus O'Donnell talking about Coulson earlier in this thread. The only other time O'Donnell referred to it was in his own submission to Leveson.
But no answer as to why he refused to vet him to the normal standard, the standard previous holders of the job were vetted to. No mention of any advice given over the appointment? No Civil Service reservations?
Leveson was about what he knew about phone hacking, not why the prime minister employed someone with a questionable past or why he wasn't vetted fully. Nor did any question of advice from the Civil Service come up. Cameron is just hiding behind the skirts of Leveson to avoid actually answering questions about his judgement or actions.
why wasn't Coulson vetted more vigorously when Cameron first employed him as Conservative Party's head of communications in 2007 considering he he had quit his job with the News of the World after one of his reporters was jailed for phone tapping ?
One thing for sure it does appear that Cameron was wrong to put so much faith in Coulson, maybe he should have taken his fingers out of his ears and listened to what was being said at the time by both Labour and Lib Dems instead of insisting that Coulsons job was safe
Conservative leader David Cameron has insisted Andy Coulson's job as his communications director is safe.
Senior Labour and Lib Dems figures have said he should be fired after revelations about phone messages being intercepted by the News of the World.
It seems perfectly okay, to me, to comment on one verdict. It won't affect the jury's decision making at all as they already know Coulson has been found guilty of one charge: they're the people who came to that verdict!
why wasn't Coulson vetted more vigorously when Cameron first employed him as Conservative Party's head of communications in 2007 considering he he had quit his job with the News of the World after one of his reporters was jailed for phone tapping ?
One thing for sure it does appear that Cameron was wrong to put so much faith in Coulson, maybe he should have taken his fingers out of his ears and listened to what was being said at the time by both Labour and Lib Dems instead of insisting that Coulsons job was safe
But no answer as to why he refused to vet him to the normal standard, the standard previous holders of the job were vetted to. No mention of any advice given over the appointment? No Civil Service reservations?
Leveson was about what he knew about phone hacking, not why the prime minister employed someone with a questionable past or why he wasn't vetted fully. Nor did any question of advice from the Civil Service come up. Cameron is just hiding behind the skirts of Leveson to avoid actually answering questions about his judgement or actions.
Yes. Extensive answers on vetting. and Leveson was NOT just about "what he knew about phone hacking". Far from it.
Stop pulling answers you want to believe in out of thin air. If you're going to comment at least try to be informed about it.
"I wish to inform the House how I will be applying its sub judice rules to any exchanges on Mr Coulson’s case. I ask the House for some forbearance, as it is important to Members and those outside the House that the position is clear. The House will know that Mr Coulson has now been convicted on a charge of conspiracy to intercept communications. The court has not yet sentenced Mr Coulson for that offence. There has as yet been no verdict on two charges against him of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. The rules of the House’s sub judice resolution, which the House rightly expects me to enforce, apply to criminal cases which are “active”. They cease to be active when, and I quote,
“they are concluded by verdict and sentence”,
so they apply in this case.
At the same time, the House’s resolution gives the Chair discretion in applying the rules. I have taken appropriate advice, as the House would expect—and, indeed, been in receipt of unsolicited advice, for which I am of course grateful. In the light of all the circumstances, I have decided, one, to allow reference to Mr Coulson’s conviction; two, not to allow reference to his sentencing by the court, such as speculation on the nature of that sentence; and three, not to allow reference to those charges on which the verdict is awaited. I rely on hon. Members to exercise restraint, but if that proves unavailing, I will of course intervene. I hope that is helpful to the House."
"Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con):
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way that we can place on the record my understanding that the reason for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) is that his wife has been rushed into hospital and he has had to attend at her bedside?"
'A senior judge has rebuked David Cameron for commenting on the conviction of Andy Coulson while the phone-hacking trial was still going on.
The prime minister apologised on Tuesday for employing Coulson, saying it had been the "wrong decision".
Mr Justice Saunders said his intervention was "unsatisfactory" and set a bad example to the media.'
(Sorry, I don't know how to quote webpages)
Thank you.:) I thought that you were referring to something else. My mistake.
In our system there should be a clear separation of powers between those who make the laws (parliamentarians) and those who investigate crime (police) and those who interpret the laws and pass judgement (the judiciary. None of them should be seen to interfering the work of the others. The judge thinks that Cameron crossed the line in this case.
There is a distinct feeling of having your cake and eat it here. Yesterday there were calls for Cameron to apologise for employing Coulson, so as he said he would - he did And now there are complaints from the same sources that he did.
If it was wrong for Cameron to apologise, why did some insist that he do so.
Further the judge would have admonished the jury to ignore anything not in evidence and so it should not have made a blind bit of difference what Cameron said. If the judge did not so admonish the jury then surely that in itself is reason for a mistrial?
There is a distinct feeling of having your cake and eat it here. Yesterday there were calls for Cameron to apologise for employing Coulson, so as he said he would - he did And now there are complaints from the same sources that he did.
If it was wrong for Cameron to apologise, why did some insist that he do so.
Further the judge would have admonished the jury to ignore anything not in evidence and so it should not have made a blind bit of difference what Cameron said. If the judge did not so admonish the jury then surely that in itself is reason for a mistrial?
The judge did exactly that. He didn't admonish them though he directed them which is his job. Why should he have told them off (admonished them), they had done nothing wrong?
There is a distinct feeling of having your cake and eat it here. Yesterday there were calls for Cameron to apologise for employing Coulson, so as he said he would - he did And now there are complaints from the same sources that he did.
If it was wrong for Cameron to apologise, why did some insist that he do so.
Further the judge would have admonished the jury to ignore anything not in evidence and so it should not have made a blind bit of difference what Cameron said. If the judge did not so admonish the jury then surely that in itself is reason for a mistrial?
I haven't called for Cameron to apologise, I have queried why he's apologised if it was civil service who gave him the job as Conservative Party's director of communications 2007
Coulson became the Conservative Party's director of communications on 9 July 2007.
and then the job as Director of Communications for the government in 2010.
After David Cameron became Prime Minister in May 2010, he appointed Coulson as Director of Communications for the government at 10 Downing Street. His pay was £140,000, the highest paid special advisor.
Comments
Sorry potential villain - you are not making sense.
Until such a time that a court rules he (Coulson) is innocent of anything, not matter what rumour is doing the rounds. Just as you would not expect to lose a job because of what someone said about you - so Coulson should expect the same.
Now he has been found guilty that goes out the window.
Coulson not only lied to Cameron about this, he did to a Commons Select Committee as well - a committee that would have included MPs from all parties.
What did he say that could effect the trial?
Thousands of people spoke about Lawson while the trial was going on and it was widely reported.
I understand that his support 'for Team Nigella' was viewed to be unhelpful to the trial taking place at the time. I believe the Judge even commented about it saying it could well jeopardise the trial. Now we seem to be in the same territory with the same man causing the same concerns.
Unbelievable! It is David Cameron who rejected the recommendations from Leveson but now sees fit to hide behind it at PM Q's and you think Ed is in the wrong?!
Just roll on the next election! I can't wait to see this smarmy arrogant so and so in Cameron get booted out!!!!!!
It's still just one mans opinion. I fail to see how anyone saying they are Team Nigella can effect a trial. She wasn't even the one on trial and the other "team"were acquitted anyway.
The Attorney General disagrees with this current judge and I think he trumps him.
DC has always said that he would apologise if AC was found guilty.
Labour have been pressing for this apology since AC was charged and if DC stayed quite on the issue, after the verdict, the left would be foaming at the mouth, accusing him of weasling out of it.
I think in both cases, the judge saw it as David Cameron influencing the jury. What he said both times have been heavily publicised on the news so it would have been hard for the jury to miss it.
DO you think that what they saw in the news yesterday would override everything they had heard and discussed over the months of the trial? They could equally have been "influenced" by reports they saw on Twitter, Facebook or even this forum
This really shows how antiquated the concept of court and sub judice laws are.
You're joking - it was a key, and widely reported, part of the proceedings. Ignore all the "think of the victims" sanctimony, this was the section of the inquiry that Labour took the most interest in for the simple reason that they recognised there was a possibility that Cameron could be hung out to dry if Leveson found against him.
I've already copied the section from Gus O'Donnell talking about Coulson earlier in this thread. The only other time O'Donnell referred to it was in his own submission to Leveson.
It is not "one man's opinion" it is the opinion on something happening in a court of law by the head of the government that makes the country's laws.
Personally I think it's a bit of an overreaction, especially in the second case as the jury members would no doubt also know that David Cameron had promised to apologise if Andy Coulson was found guilty. It just seems that when it comes to the big cases, the judge doesn't want to take any risks.
The judge just wants the law of the land made by parliamentarians in our parliament to be obeyed by everyone including those in parliament who made the laws.
True, I understand that but I just don't think it was necessary for the judge to call out David Cameron for apologising for employing Coulson. Whatever happened to the other two charges, Coulson was found guilty on one charge at that moment and so it was apparent that it was wrong of the prime minister to have hired him.
It wasn't a judgment on Ed himself - but I think Ed was dead wrong to pursue that particular line. Those questions were the focus of lengthy discussion at Leveson - and in his report Leveson gave his us judgement on what he'd heard. IOW, they've already been subject to scrutiny and independent judgement. Try and hard as he can, Miliband can't change, or top that.
'A senior judge has rebuked David Cameron for commenting on the conviction of Andy Coulson while the phone-hacking trial was still going on.
The prime minister apologised on Tuesday for employing Coulson, saying it had been the "wrong decision".
Mr Justice Saunders said his intervention was "unsatisfactory" and set a bad example to the media.'
(Sorry, I don't know how to quote webpages)
But no answer as to why he refused to vet him to the normal standard, the standard previous holders of the job were vetted to. No mention of any advice given over the appointment? No Civil Service reservations?
Leveson was about what he knew about phone hacking, not why the prime minister employed someone with a questionable past or why he wasn't vetted fully. Nor did any question of advice from the Civil Service come up. Cameron is just hiding behind the skirts of Leveson to avoid actually answering questions about his judgement or actions.
One thing for sure it does appear that Cameron was wrong to put so much faith in Coulson, maybe he should have taken his fingers out of his ears and listened to what was being said at the time by both Labour and Lib Dems instead of insisting that Coulsons job was safe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8141819.stm
Due process is another British value we seem increasingly to ignore.
Yes. Extensive answers on vetting. and Leveson was NOT just about "what he knew about phone hacking". Far from it.
Stop pulling answers you want to believe in out of thin air. If you're going to comment at least try to be informed about it.
"I wish to inform the House how I will be applying its sub judice rules to any exchanges on Mr Coulson’s case. I ask the House for some forbearance, as it is important to Members and those outside the House that the position is clear. The House will know that Mr Coulson has now been convicted on a charge of conspiracy to intercept communications. The court has not yet sentenced Mr Coulson for that offence. There has as yet been no verdict on two charges against him of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. The rules of the House’s sub judice resolution, which the House rightly expects me to enforce, apply to criminal cases which are “active”. They cease to be active when, and I quote,
“they are concluded by verdict and sentence”,
so they apply in this case.
At the same time, the House’s resolution gives the Chair discretion in applying the rules. I have taken appropriate advice, as the House would expect—and, indeed, been in receipt of unsolicited advice, for which I am of course grateful. In the light of all the circumstances, I have decided, one, to allow reference to Mr Coulson’s conviction; two, not to allow reference to his sentencing by the court, such as speculation on the nature of that sentence; and three, not to allow reference to those charges on which the verdict is awaited. I rely on hon. Members to exercise restraint, but if that proves unavailing, I will of course intervene. I hope that is helpful to the House."
Youtube pmqs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0buXyvoEtgA&feature=em-uploademail
Hansard pmqs http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/101/
"Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con):
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way that we can place on the record my understanding that the reason for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) is that his wife has been rushed into hospital and he has had to attend at her bedside?"
We all wish Mrs Berry a speedy recovery.
Thank you.:) I thought that you were referring to something else. My mistake.
In our system there should be a clear separation of powers between those who make the laws (parliamentarians) and those who investigate crime (police) and those who interpret the laws and pass judgement (the judiciary. None of them should be seen to interfering the work of the others. The judge thinks that Cameron crossed the line in this case.
If it was wrong for Cameron to apologise, why did some insist that he do so.
Further the judge would have admonished the jury to ignore anything not in evidence and so it should not have made a blind bit of difference what Cameron said. If the judge did not so admonish the jury then surely that in itself is reason for a mistrial?
The judge did exactly that. He didn't admonish them though he directed them which is his job. Why should he have told them off (admonished them), they had done nothing wrong?
That jury has now been discharged.
I haven't called for Cameron to apologise, I have queried why he's apologised if it was civil service who gave him the job as Conservative Party's director of communications 2007
and then the job as Director of Communications for the government in 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Coulson