What this all has exposed is that the Tories were mates with News International, they put a bloke in charge of the BskyB bid (Jeremy Hunt) who was mates with News International, and if all things had gone to plan they would carried on the good work of Maggie Thatcher by giving Rupert bloody Murdoch even more control over our media. They are a disgrace
Now isn't that strange, you have missed out all the Labour PM's that were close to them, I wonder why, total hypocricy.
Oh so in fact I've not defended Labour's NI connections :rolleyes:
This is what you posted.
What this all has exposed is that the Tories were mates with News International, they put a bloke in charge of the BskyB bid (Jeremy Hunt) who was mates with News International, and if all things had gone to plan they would carried on the good work of Maggie Thatcher by giving Rupert bloody Murdoch even more control over our media. They are a disgrace
So I assume by that you think that it was just the Tories that gave Murdoch his power or am I misreading your post?
Actually you clearly are misreading my post - it states clearly that a) Thatcher allowed Murdoch to take over a larger share of our media and b) Cameron if he had his way would have let Murdoch take over an even larger share of our media.
I am specifically criticising the fact that the Tories have in the past and until the hacking scandal broke were intent on letting Murdoch increase his market share something that Blair/ Brown never did.
Your mixing things up, the story in the DM appears to be a non story, but I still think if the information came from a civil servant, which I suspect it did, it should be investigated especially as in this case it was information submitted to Levison and considered not relevant..
You may think that but the messages may have been leaked by Brooks herself. What should be her censure?
I must admit that did cross my mind, I was going by Christ Bryant's statement that he has a mole in No 10.
The thing with this leak is that the messages were apparently submitted to the Leveson Inquiry allegedly by Brooks. My understanding of the messages Bryant is concerned about is that were NOT submitted to the inquiry.
The thing with this leak is that the messages were apparently submitted to the Leveson Inquiry allegedly by Brooks. My understanding of the messages Bryant is concerned about is that were NOT submitted to the inquiry.
No he is not, he is rambling on about the one's that were not deemed valid for the inquiry.
I think we have to accept that Labour courted Murdoch as much as anyone, I mean News Corp was a big supporter of the Iraq War and backed Blair.
That said only the Tories have made moves to allow him to increase his share of our media, what Thatcher did in the 80s bypassing the monopolies commission was shameful and I think the actions of this government are comparable personally.
No he is not, he is rambling on about the one's that were not deemed valid for the inquiry.
Are you sure? If this is the case, why is he going on about a source within No. 10 and not a source within the inquiry and why did No. 10 reply to the query by saying Cameron took legal action BEFORE submitting evidence to the inquiry and was told he didn't need to submit the information being queried? Would it not make more sense for Bryant to query why Leveson withheld the information instead of asking Cameron to release it? Where is the sense in that?
I wonder how many friends Labour ministers had (whilst in government) who worked for organisations that may or may not have won contracts, then had to drop their friends (some may be lifelong)?
It all seems authoritarian...but Labour supporters crave that these days. (only applies to Tories of course).
What this all has exposed is that the Tories were mates with News International, they put a bloke in charge of the BskyB bid (Jeremy Hunt) who was mates with News International, and if all things had gone to plan they would carried on the good work of Maggie Thatcher by giving Rupert bloody Murdoch even more control over our media. They are a disgrace
Don't you mean Vince Cable, a Lib Dem,who turned out to be bias against NI which sort of rubbishes your conspiracy theory.
Are you sure? If this is the case, why is he going on about a source within No. 10 and not a source within the inquiry and why did No. 10 reply to the query by saying Cameron took legal action BEFORE submitting evidence to the inquiry and was told he didn't need to submit the information being queried? Would it not make more sense for Bryant to query why Leveson withheld the information instead of asking Cameron to release it? Where is the sense in that?
The texts and e-mails were submitted to Levison if you look back in this thread there is a link to what was said at the time.
The texts and e-mails were submitted to Levison if you look back in this thread there is a link to what was said at the time.
I've followed the thread from page one and can't see anything of the sort. Can you please point me in the right direction? Thanks.
ETA: As far as I know, this is how it all started:
David Cameron has refused to answer whether he held back dozens of communications between himself and Rebekah Brooks from the Leveson inquiry because they were "too salacious or embarrassing" for him to reveal.
Cameron was challenged during prime minister's questions (PMQs) after it emerged this week that he did not hand over texts and emails of a social nature with the former News of the World editor after seeking legal advice, since they did not fall within Lord Justice Leveson's remit.
Don't you mean Vince Cable, a Lib Dem,who turned out to be bias against NI which sort of rubbishes your conspiracy theory.
Vince Cable was removed once the Tories heard he was anti Murdoch. We then got Jeremy Hunt who was clearly pro Murdoch, communicated with NI when he said he hadn't and lied to Parliament over it.
As for conspiracy theories, the evidence of the Conservative government's closeness to NI at a time when the crucial BskyB bid was coming up is out there and indisputable.
And of course old Vince has been proven 100% correct wanting to go to 'war' on Murdoch - as we have all found out over the last year Newscorp has been found to be deeply corrupt.
Sorry on two accounts the post I was referring to is in the Levison thread post1977 and Cameron did take legal advice on what he had to submit.
Thanks.
So to clarify, Bryant is asking Cameron to publish the information he did NOT submit and also asking Leveson to publish the submitted evidence which he, Leveson, deemed irrelevant?
So to clarify, Bryant is asking Cameron to publish the information he did NOT submit and also asking Leveson to publish the submitted evidence which he, Leveson, deemed irrelevant?
Yes that probably is the case but I am still assuming they have no relevance to the inquiry.
Comments
Now isn't that strange, you have missed out all the Labour PM's that were close to them, I wonder why, total hypocricy.
Please feel free to quote any posts of mine where I've defended Labour's NI connections
You just miss them out, you went from Thatcher to Cameron and mentioned no one inbetween.:rolleyes:
Oh so in fact I've not defended Labour's NI connections :rolleyes:
This is what you posted.
What this all has exposed is that the Tories were mates with News International, they put a bloke in charge of the BskyB bid (Jeremy Hunt) who was mates with News International, and if all things had gone to plan they would carried on the good work of Maggie Thatcher by giving Rupert bloody Murdoch even more control over our media. They are a disgrace
So I assume by that you think that it was just the Tories that gave Murdoch his power or am I misreading your post?
I am specifically criticising the fact that the Tories have in the past and until the hacking scandal broke were intent on letting Murdoch increase his market share something that Blair/ Brown never did.
You may think that but the messages may have been leaked by Brooks herself. What should be her censure?
I must admit that did cross my mind, I was going by Christ Bryant's statement that he has a mole in No 10.
Didn't Gordon Brown stand up to the Murdochs, in-particular over ofcom
The thing with this leak is that the messages were apparently submitted to the Leveson Inquiry allegedly by Brooks. My understanding of the messages Bryant is concerned about is that were NOT submitted to the inquiry.
No he held a pyjama party for them
No, he didn't.
His wife Sarah did and not for them - it was for charity and Brooks was one of the guests.
You are desperately trying to support the Tories but getting your facts wrong is not the right way to go about it.
No he is not, he is rambling on about the one's that were not deemed valid for the inquiry.
The facts are not wrong, Brooke's was asked to Chequers and any guest list would have had to be approved by her husband.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/15/leveson-inquiry-adam-boulton
Read about it here.:o
That said only the Tories have made moves to allow him to increase his share of our media, what Thatcher did in the 80s bypassing the monopolies commission was shameful and I think the actions of this government are comparable personally.
Are you sure? If this is the case, why is he going on about a source within No. 10 and not a source within the inquiry and why did No. 10 reply to the query by saying Cameron took legal action BEFORE submitting evidence to the inquiry and was told he didn't need to submit the information being queried? Would it not make more sense for Bryant to query why Leveson withheld the information instead of asking Cameron to release it? Where is the sense in that?
It all seems authoritarian...but Labour supporters crave that these days. (only applies to Tories of course).
Don't you mean Vince Cable, a Lib Dem,who turned out to be bias against NI which sort of rubbishes your conspiracy theory.
The texts and e-mails were submitted to Levison if you look back in this thread there is a link to what was said at the time.
I've followed the thread from page one and can't see anything of the sort. Can you please point me in the right direction? Thanks.
ETA: As far as I know, this is how it all started:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/17/david-cameron-chris-bryant-leveson
Sorry on two accounts the post I was referring to is in the Levison thread post1977 and Cameron did take legal advice on what he had to submit.
Vince Cable was removed once the Tories heard he was anti Murdoch. We then got Jeremy Hunt who was clearly pro Murdoch, communicated with NI when he said he hadn't and lied to Parliament over it.
As for conspiracy theories, the evidence of the Conservative government's closeness to NI at a time when the crucial BskyB bid was coming up is out there and indisputable.
And of course old Vince has been proven 100% correct wanting to go to 'war' on Murdoch - as we have all found out over the last year Newscorp has been found to be deeply corrupt.
Thanks.
So to clarify, Bryant is asking Cameron to publish the information he did NOT submit and also asking Leveson to publish the submitted evidence which he, Leveson, deemed irrelevant?
Yes that probably is the case but I am still assuming they have no relevance to the inquiry.