No i'm equating it to the law,and basic human rights to privacy.
Something the NotW under Coulson's editorship had very little truck with. People have the the most recent Guardian articles on this and still support him. Interesting.
And it's down to the Met, I'm sure of it, they have previous dating back to the sixties, of institutionally covering things up.
For some reason they aren't investigating properly. I don't know if Coulson is guilty or not, but it seems to me that if answers are to found we won't get them from the Met.
Somehow I think if this had been a Labour MP you wouldn't show as much fairness.
What like Prescott when he remained in his grace and favour mansion passed the time when he qualified for it. Which probably would not merit a comment - if it was not for the way he has rather been a class warrior.
Or the excessive cost of decorations in the Lord Chancellor's office at the start of the Labour government.
Or letting a sport off a smoking ban just after the rights owner gives the party £1m.
There were numerous scandals during the Labour period in office - and with far more documentation than the inuendo that has marked the Coulson affair - and those concerned have hung on for grim death before going, usually reluctantly. It would not really have mattered - had New Labour not gone on so much about Tory sleeze - while surpassing it in such behaviour itself.
There is nothing in the Coulson affair except assumption and inuendo. The man has already fallen on his sword twice over this issue - is it not enough unless some shred of evidence emerges.
And no I would not have been harder on the Labour Party MPs.
It's funny how such a story has just disappeared from the public eye. We had lesser 'scandlous' things going on under the labour government that stayed in the news for months on end.
It appears there may not be an end to the phone hacking saga for Coulson and Cameron just yet.
The fallout from a 1987 killing is a new blow to the 'News of the World' – and embarrasses David Cameron.
What links the murder almost a quarter of a century ago of a private detective killed with an axe, allegations of corruption within the Metropolitan Police, and the current Prime Minister?
The answer: News International, that's what. And, of all the revelations in the phone-hacking saga threatening to engulf Rupert Murdoch's media giant, the collapse of the fifth trial on the murder of a man in a London pub car park in 1987 may yet prove to be the one that opens a Pandora's box.
That's the Irish edition of the NoTW, Coulson had nothing to do with it.
You're getting desperate now. Why wouldn't he have anything to do with it - they're the same newspaper and this character reported directly to Coulson. So he didn't know that the apparently half the senior staff at the NOTW were involved in dubious activities. Takes the phrase 'plausible deniability' to new heights.
What like Prescott when he remained in his grace and favour mansion passed the time when he qualified for it. Which probably would not merit a comment - if it was not for the way he has rather been a class warrior.
Or the excessive cost of decorations in the Lord Chancellor's office at the start of the Labour government.
Or letting a sport off a smoking ban just after the rights owner gives the party £1m.
There were numerous scandals during the Labour period in office - and with far more documentation than the inuendo that has marked the Coulson affair - and those concerned have hung on for grim death before going, usually reluctantly. It would not really have mattered - had New Labour not gone on so much about Tory sleeze - while surpassing it in such behaviour itself.
There is nothing in the Coulson affair except assumption and inuendo. The man has already fallen on his sword twice over this issue - is it not enough unless some shred of evidence emerges.
And no I would not have been harder on the Labour Party MPs.
Perhaps because there is so little to it.
How do you know there's nothing to it? You only know there is something to the 'scandles' you mentioned because the press pursued them and milked them for more than they're worth, it's called investigative journalisim. However, it seem investigating this story will land you in hot whatever with the press. If there is nothing to the story, why did Coulson resign because he's such an honourable man? So honourable, that he was invovled in illegal activities. This story has as much or more weight to it than the press coverage gives it. It has practically vanished from the murdoch press and you're saying it's because there's no story? Give me a break
You're getting desperate now. Why wouldn't he have anything to do with it - they're the same newspaper and this character reported directly to Coulson. So he didn't know that the apparently half the senior staff at the NOTW were involved in dubious activities. Takes the phrase 'plausible deniability' to new heights.
And still, no-one has said that Coulson knew about it. Or can he be convicted on conjecture alone? He resigned because he didn't know and should have. There's still no evidence to contradict that position, apart from the constant repeats of 'well if this person knew, Coulson should have done'.
And still, no-one has said that Coulson knew about it. Or can he be convicted on conjecture alone? He resigned because he didn't know and should have. There's still no evidence to contradict that position, apart from the constant repeats of 'well if this person knew, Coulson should have done'.
In written evidence given to the home affairs select committee and published for the first time today, Paul McMullan, a former features executive and investigative journalist at the title, said former editor Coulson "knew a lot of people" used the technique when Coulson worked at sister paper the Sun. He joined the News of the World in 2003, where he worked alongside McMullan for 18 months.
I don't - which is the whole point - you don't know there is anything in the story since to date there has been no documentary proof - not an email, reciept, invoice - nothing.
What there have been are allegations - none of which have been backed up with anything more substantial than ineuendo and assumptions.
And? That' just another vague guardian 'well he must have known' story. After how many years they still can't find anything against him, so resort to vague nudges winks and 'theres no smoke without fire' stories.
I don't - which is the whole point - you don't know there is anything in the story since to date there has been no documentary proof - not an email, reciept, invoice - nothing.
What there have been are allegations - none of which have been backed up with anything more substantial than ineuendo and assumptions.
Yet he resigned. If there was nothing to it, he'd still be in his post, surely. Factor in that people have been 'warned' that pushing the story will 'be remembered' and the whole thing starts to look suspicious. Most scandles start with ineuendo and assumptions, but if the journalists invovled work for the people that will suffer from any investigation then the assumptions will always be that won't they. If the media is in your pocket you're clear to break the law apparently. Just as there has been no 'smoking gun' if the man was clearly innocent then there would be no smoke at all. There just doesn't seem to be any urgency about proving his innocence or his guilt. All I'm saying is, having 'no proof' never stopped the press ramming speculation down our throats in the past. Yet all of a sudden they've grown a conscience..Yeah right... If this was any other party other than Conservatives they'd be all over it, even if there was nothing to it because as they well know, whether you're innocent or not, if you brand someone as guilty in the press, then that's all that matters - that'll be your legacy. Look at Jullian Assange. Flimsy rape case that'd been tossed out of court on day zero had he not been apart of wiki leaks. But ask the man on the street and they'll no doubt not only now associate him with rape, but think that he was guilty. Ask them about Andy Coulson and they'll no doubt say 'who'? It wouldn't suprise me if they even thought you meant Andy Gray, since that story conveniently came out at the same time and contain a similar theme.
And? That' just another vague guardian 'well he must have known' story. After how many years they still can't find anything against him, so resort to vague nudges winks and 'theres no smoke without fire' stories.
Well, clearly investigative journalism counts for nothing in your world if you disagree with the political stance of the paper, so here's the FT:
Yet he resigned. If there was nothing to it, he'd still be in his post, surely.
He resigned because the ongoing media storm was preventing him from doing his job. Just as he resigned from the Tory role in order to clear his name.
Most scandles start with ineuendo and assumptions, but if the journalists invovled work for the people that will suffer from any investigation then the assumptions will always be that won't they.
Of course they do and people have been jailed for their part in the whole scandal - it is not just the newspapers but the police who have investigated the claims and despite that nothing of substance has been found - and certainly nothing that would succed in a criminal court - otherwise we would not be discussing it - Coulson would have been jailed alongside the others.
All I'm saying is, having 'no proof' never stopped the press ramming speculation down our throats in the past.
Look at Jullian Assange. Flimsy rape case that'd been tossed out of court on day zero had he not been apart of wiki leaks. But ask the man on the street and they'll no doubt not only now associate him with rape, but think that he was guilty.
His rape case has not been heard. Since he has been awaiting extradition, which has not been granted - personally I am not that convinced he is guilty - at least not of rape - I'm not entirely convinced that the way wikileaks operates was particularly clever - there are after all perfectly valid reasons for things to remain secret (the talks between the IRA and the (then) Tory government are a good example)
Of course they do and people have been jailed for their part in the whole scandal - it is not just the newspapers but the police who have investigated the claims and despite that nothing of substance has been found - and certainly nothing that would succed in a criminal court - otherwise we would not be discussing it - Coulson would have been jailed alongside the others.
I fear you're not exactly keeping up with this at all - the Metropolitan Police are part of the story. That's why there's a new investigation and why some MP's are calling for an independent review by an external force.
Comments
Are you pissed.
I think it's yourself that needs to re-read the thread before asking such questions.
Off you go then.
Something the NotW under Coulson's editorship had very little truck with. People have the the most recent Guardian articles on this and still support him. Interesting.
Oh dear :yawn:
Is it the school holidays again? :rolleyes:
So that's a no then.
And it's down to the Met, I'm sure of it, they have previous dating back to the sixties, of institutionally covering things up.
For some reason they aren't investigating properly. I don't know if Coulson is guilty or not, but it seems to me that if answers are to found we won't get them from the Met.
Are you really sure about that?
Taking into account everything, I'd say equated to a negative whilst with the Tories.
Even now his past association with the Tory party is letting off a pretty big stink. Hardly good PR.
What like Prescott when he remained in his grace and favour mansion passed the time when he qualified for it. Which probably would not merit a comment - if it was not for the way he has rather been a class warrior.
Or the excessive cost of decorations in the Lord Chancellor's office at the start of the Labour government.
Or letting a sport off a smoking ban just after the rights owner gives the party £1m.
There were numerous scandals during the Labour period in office - and with far more documentation than the inuendo that has marked the Coulson affair - and those concerned have hung on for grim death before going, usually reluctantly. It would not really have mattered - had New Labour not gone on so much about Tory sleeze - while surpassing it in such behaviour itself.
There is nothing in the Coulson affair except assumption and inuendo. The man has already fallen on his sword twice over this issue - is it not enough unless some shred of evidence emerges.
And no I would not have been harder on the Labour Party MPs.
Perhaps because there is so little to it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/an-axe-murder-a-prosecution-that-failed-and-trouble-for-the-murdoch-empire-2240515.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12712400
Coulson must be the most inept newspaper editor in history if he wasn't aware of any of this.
That's the Irish edition of the NoTW, Coulson had nothing to do with it.
He's incompetant because he didn't know an executive at the Irish edition of the NoTW, so nothing to do with him, had some dodgy e-mails?
What a witty and insightful comeback, you should have your own political show filled with such witty comebacks as 'whatever' and 'jog on'.
You're getting desperate now. Why wouldn't he have anything to do with it - they're the same newspaper and this character reported directly to Coulson. So he didn't know that the apparently half the senior staff at the NOTW were involved in dubious activities. Takes the phrase 'plausible deniability' to new heights.
How do you know there's nothing to it? You only know there is something to the 'scandles' you mentioned because the press pursued them and milked them for more than they're worth, it's called investigative journalisim. However, it seem investigating this story will land you in hot whatever with the press. If there is nothing to the story, why did Coulson resign because he's such an honourable man? So honourable, that he was invovled in illegal activities. This story has as much or more weight to it than the press coverage gives it. It has practically vanished from the murdoch press and you're saying it's because there's no story? Give me a break
And still, no-one has said that Coulson knew about it. Or can he be convicted on conjecture alone? He resigned because he didn't know and should have. There's still no evidence to contradict that position, apart from the constant repeats of 'well if this person knew, Coulson should have done'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/04/andy-coulson-phone-hacking
I don't - which is the whole point - you don't know there is anything in the story since to date there has been no documentary proof - not an email, reciept, invoice - nothing.
What there have been are allegations - none of which have been backed up with anything more substantial than ineuendo and assumptions.
And? That' just another vague guardian 'well he must have known' story. After how many years they still can't find anything against him, so resort to vague nudges winks and 'theres no smoke without fire' stories.
Yet he resigned. If there was nothing to it, he'd still be in his post, surely. Factor in that people have been 'warned' that pushing the story will 'be remembered' and the whole thing starts to look suspicious. Most scandles start with ineuendo and assumptions, but if the journalists invovled work for the people that will suffer from any investigation then the assumptions will always be that won't they. If the media is in your pocket you're clear to break the law apparently. Just as there has been no 'smoking gun' if the man was clearly innocent then there would be no smoke at all. There just doesn't seem to be any urgency about proving his innocence or his guilt. All I'm saying is, having 'no proof' never stopped the press ramming speculation down our throats in the past. Yet all of a sudden they've grown a conscience..Yeah right... If this was any other party other than Conservatives they'd be all over it, even if there was nothing to it because as they well know, whether you're innocent or not, if you brand someone as guilty in the press, then that's all that matters - that'll be your legacy. Look at Jullian Assange. Flimsy rape case that'd been tossed out of court on day zero had he not been apart of wiki leaks. But ask the man on the street and they'll no doubt not only now associate him with rape, but think that he was guilty. Ask them about Andy Coulson and they'll no doubt say 'who'? It wouldn't suprise me if they even thought you meant Andy Gray, since that story conveniently came out at the same time and contain a similar theme.
Well, clearly investigative journalism counts for nothing in your world if you disagree with the political stance of the paper, so here's the FT:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf39ea64-3091-11e0-9de3-00144feabdc0,s01=1.html#axzz1GZWj5gu7
He resigned because the ongoing media storm was preventing him from doing his job. Just as he resigned from the Tory role in order to clear his name.
Of course they do and people have been jailed for their part in the whole scandal - it is not just the newspapers but the police who have investigated the claims and despite that nothing of substance has been found - and certainly nothing that would succed in a criminal court - otherwise we would not be discussing it - Coulson would have been jailed alongside the others.
His rape case has not been heard. Since he has been awaiting extradition, which has not been granted - personally I am not that convinced he is guilty - at least not of rape - I'm not entirely convinced that the way wikileaks operates was particularly clever - there are after all perfectly valid reasons for things to remain secret (the talks between the IRA and the (then) Tory government are a good example)
I fear you're not exactly keeping up with this at all - the Metropolitan Police are part of the story. That's why there's a new investigation and why some MP's are calling for an independent review by an external force.