Brown doesn't give a crap about the country all he cares about is bashing the Tories.
It's quite pathetic how much of a sore loser he is.
If he'd just come out and been fair about Murdoch that would be fine but as usual he goes off on a hugely hypocritical rant. To suggest him and Blair were somehow the good guys fighting against Murdoch is laughable to the extreme.
In the month that I started at No. 10, there were already issues of state involving News International—a decision that the Government had to make on a Competition Commission inquiry into the recently acquired stake that brought its ownership of ITV up to 16.8%. It was for the Government to decide on any referral to the competition authority, and the Government approached this with no bias against BSkyB. However, after examining in some detail BSkyB’s activities, the Government, on the advice of the relevant authorities, found a case to answer and announced the strongest remedy possible—a referral to the competition authority, which went on to rule that BSkyB’s share purchase in ITV was not in the public interest. So far from siding with the News International interest, the Government stood up for the public interest by making the referral. While we correctly gave it time to sell its shares, its shares had to be sold.
Next was the proposed Ofcom review into the onward sale of BSkyB sporting and other programmes, and the claims of its competitors that it had priced BT, Virgin and other cable companies out of the market. The public interest was in my view served by due investigation. We did not support the News International interest, but stood up for what in our view was the public interest. The Ofcom recommendation, which News International still opposes today, demanded that there be fair competition.
It is no secret that the 2009 McTaggart lecture given by Mr James Murdoch, which included his cold assertion that profit not standards was what mattered in the media, underpinned an ever more aggressive News International and BSkyB agenda under his and Mrs Brooks’ leadership that was brutal in its simplicity. Their aim was to cut the BBC licence fee, to force BBC online to charge for its content, for the BBC to sell off its commercial activities, to open up more national sporting events to bids from BSkyB and move them away from the BBC, to open up the cable and satellite infrastructure market, and to reduce the power of their regulator, Ofcom. I rejected those policies.
During the last year of our Government, information became public to suggest that the hacking of phones, and indeed of computers, went far beyond one rogue reporter and one rogue newspaper. In February 2010, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee reported that the number of victims was more than the handful that had been claimed. It said it was inconceivable that no one else at News International other than those convicted was in the know. News International, it said, was guilty of “deliberate obfuscation”. But already, in August 2009, Assistant Commissioner Yates of Scotland Yard had taken only eight hours—less time, I may say, than he spent dining with the people he should have been investigating—to reject pre-emptively a further police inquiry. Even the proposal that an outside police force take over the Scotland Yard inquiry had been rejected.
Having seen the Select Committee report, I immediately asked the head of the civil service to agree that we set up a judicial inquiry. Far from the so-called cosy relationship alleged with News International, which would have meant doing nothing, my answer to what appeared to be News International’s abuse of press freedom was a full judge-led inquiry to meet growing public concern.
Let me summarise the formal advice contained in a memorandum to me rejecting such an inquiry: that, while there were some new facts and there was a media culture permissive of unlawful activities and deliberate obfuscation by News International, the Select Committee did not believe that the practices were still continuing, and thus they did not meet the test of urgent public concern; that time had elapsed and evidence may have been destroyed; that the News of the World and individuals had already been punished by their resignations and jail terms; that there was no evidence of systemic failure in the police, and anyway all their decisions had been checked with the Crown Prosecution Service; and that targeting the News of the World could be deemed to be politically motivated, because it was too close to the general election and would inevitably raise questions over the motivation and urgency of an inquiry.
There are a number of posts accusing GB of lying so I'd like to ask if someone can highlight the lies in his statement.
Also can someone show me where he lied and accused The Sun of accessing his son's medical records.
He said he did not know how the newspaper got access to the details but said: "I can't think of any way that the medical condition of a child can be put into the public arena legitimately unless the doctor makes a statement or the family makes a statement."
The Guardian has retracted it's accusation but I don't see how this equates to GB lying.
The Guardian has retracted it's accusation but I don't see how this equates to GB lying.
GB stated in the commons that a public enquiry he looked into was blocked. Gus O'Donnell has stated he gave advice and it was up to Brown to make the decision.
In this video Brown states that medical records were broken into( 4m 25s in). Just after talking about his sons medical condition.
GB stated in the commons that a public enquiry he looked into was blocked. Gus O'Donnell has stated he gave advice and it was up to Brown to make the decision.
Not wishing to be pedantic but GB said
Let me summarise the formal advice contained in a memorandum to me rejecting such an inquiry
which matches pretty well the susequent release of Gus O'Donnel's advice.
So GB claims the advice was not to hold an enquiry and the advice he actually received was not to hold an enquiry.
I just can't see where GB claims it was blocked, although I can see it was reported that way.
I am enjoying reading this thread indulging in the old 'attack Brown' stuff. It is quite obviously an attempt to hide the act that their leader Cameron made a fool of himself supporting Murdoch and the BskyB bid, until aftre Murdoch actually withdrew it.
The fact is, Cameron actively supported Murdoch, even employing News of the World people.
Brown of course did not suppoort Murdoch, but was scared of Murdoch's influence.
Only Miliband had the guts to say what was right, from the start.
I am enjoying reading this thread indulging in the old 'attack Brown' stuff. It is quite obviously an attempt to hide the act that their leader Cameron made a fool of himself supporting Murdoch and the BskyB bid, until aftre Murdoch actually withdrew it.
The fact is, Cameron actively supported Murdoch, even employing News of the World people.
Brown of course did not suppoort Murdoch, but was scared of Murdoch's influence.
Only Miliband had the guts to say what was right, from the start.
From the start of what? This month?
I only ask because the Ed and Rupee were busy chatting away together at a party last month.
I am enjoying reading this thread indulging in the old 'attack Brown' stuff. It is quite obviously an attempt to hide the act that their leader Cameron made a fool of himself supporting Murdoch and the BskyB bid, until aftre Murdoch actually withdrew it.
The fact is, Cameron actively supported Murdoch, even employing News of the World people.
Brown of course did not suppoort Murdoch, but was scared of Murdoch's influence.
Only Miliband had the guts to say what was right, from the start.
Not everyone who detests what New Labour became, or Blair or Brown are Tory supporters.
I voted for New Labour to get rid of the last vestiges of Thatcherism(as a former miner I don't need to say any more). But of course we didn't get rid of Thacherism. We got Thatcherism Mk II. And any benefit from the pain and suffering we went through was frittered away by Blair and Brown. So it's the working class that has to pay again.That's why in this area Blair and Brown are so hated.
I only ask because the Ed and Rupee were busy chatting away together at a party last month.
Despite the Sun's high-profile decision to back David Cameron in 2009, the Labour leadership know that alienating Murdoch would be foolish. There were more Labour figures at the party than Conservative ministers, a reflection, perhaps, of Labour's continuing obsession with winning over Murdoch when they can, and trying to neutralise his title's most venomous attacks when they fail. As well as Miliband and two of his closest advisers, Tom Baldwin and Stewart Wood, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper and shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander also partied.
I am enjoying reading this thread indulging in the old 'attack Brown' stuff. It is quite obviously an attempt to hide the act that their leader Cameron made a fool of himself supporting Murdoch and the BskyB bid, until aftre Murdoch actually withdrew it.
The fact is, Cameron actively supported Murdoch, even employing News of the World people.
Brown of course did not suppoort Murdoch, but was scared of Murdoch's influence.
Only Miliband had the guts to say what was right, from the start.
I am enjoying reading your post indulging in the old 'attack Cameron' stuff :rolleyes:
Rather than attacking posters on this board, I think the more pertinent question is whether Brown invented lies and distortions about his time in government and his links with News International.
He's picked a fight with some interesting people. Gus O'Donnell disputes what he says, The Sun has produced evidence that refutes his allegations, as has the Sunday Times. Now Rupert Murdoch has called him a liar.
This could destroy Brown's reputation, and his cheeleaders should be a little concerned.
Urgh, I bet you have been just as damning about Cameron. The man has his private life grossly invaded completely without justification, illegal or legal methods, and you find some way to sneer at him.
He looked a fool when a question pointed out that he held a slumber party at Chequers for Murdochs wife and daughter after the events he described..
This is the problem, so many of our politicians cosied up to Murdoch, including aids and spin doctors, that they look stupid when they open their mouths. I have the same problem with the 'avoiding the question'. I mean don't they realise that it makes them look stupid, do they really think they are fooling the public.
Rather than attacking posters on this board, I think the more pertinent question is whether Brown invented lies and distortions about his time in government and his links with News International.
He's picked a fight with some interesting people. Gus O'Donnell disputes what he says, The Sun has produced evidence that refutes his allegations, as has the Sunday Times. Now Rupert Murdoch has called him a liar.
The whole story about The Sun hacking Gordon Brown's medical records has now completely unravelled - it was an absolute pack of lies from start to finish, concocted by Gordon Brown and eagerly relayed by the BBC and the Guardian.
The Guardian has now officially apologised to The Sun, although like the snivelling pack of hypocritical jackals they are, they have tucked their apologies away deep within the newspaper, well away from the front page where they relayed their original allegations.
Well the Sun has made sure its readers know;) - boy these papers are going to be after him now.....the accusers never apologise on the front page when they are found out to be wrong.....;)
"[Brown] told MPs on Wednesday that he had tried to launch a public inquiry in February last year. Mr Brown said: "It was opposed by the police, opposed by the Home Office and opposed by the civil service and it was not supported by the [Culture] Select Committee."
Some Labour Cabinet members have a different recollection of events. They claimed the idea of an inquiry was never a formal proposal discussed inside Downing Street or by ministers. "If it was a proposal, it was one by Gordon to himself," one minister said."
"[Brown] told MPs on Wednesday that he had tried to launch a public inquiry in February last year. Mr Brown said: "It was opposed by the police, opposed by the Home Office and opposed by the civil service and it was not supported by the [Culture] Select Committee."
Some Labour Cabinet members have a different recollection of events. They claimed the idea of an inquiry was never a formal proposal discussed inside Downing Street or by ministers. "If it was a proposal, it was one by Gordon to himself," one minister said."
I only ask because the Ed and Rupee were busy chatting away together at a party last month.
Indeed. Ed is trying to take the credit for all of this and making it into a party political issue whereas the truth is that politicians form all parties, himself included, have spent far too much time cosying up to the media barons (and not just Murdoch's empire)
All politicians want good headlines and one of the easiest ways of doing so is to be "supportive" to the Lords of the Fourth Estate.
Indeed. Ed is trying to take the credit for all of this and making it into a party political issue whereas the truth is that politicians form all parties, himself included, have spent far too much time cosying up to the media barons (and not just Murdoch's empire)
All politicians want good headlines and one of the easiest ways of doing so is to be "supportive" to the Lords of the Fourth Estate.
The Sun had no right whether as they thought in the public interest or not to publish details over Gordon and Sarahs' son but GB seems to have selective amnesia re his dealings with the Murdoch press!
Nice little archived piece from The Spectator written in 2002 by Peter Oborne about how Gordon battled against Rupert Murdoch and his venomous empire
'This Budget stands out from all the Labour ones that have preceded it. They were aimed at the nation at large, if need be at the expense of Labour party. This one was aimed at the Labour party, to the partial exclusion of the nation at large. It was a factional budget which reinforced the Chancellor's popularity among MPs, union members and Labour activists, the people that will choose the next Labour leader.
For all his public quietism, the Chancellor has been extraordinarily assiduous in courting these constituencies for the last six months. He has been no less careful about wooing the press. The Budget package - easily the most widely leaked in history - was ransacked in advance to provide stories to papers Gordon Brown wants on his side.'
and the next piece:
'The Chancellor has started to love-bomb News International. His business seminars with Irwin Stelzer, Rupert Murdoch's plenipotentiary in London, are viewed with suspicion by the Blairite connection. Also new - and regarded with deep nervousness in Downing Street - is the rampant Brownism at the Daily Mirror. There have always been Brownite pockets at the paper. But now something not that far from a naked antagonism towards No. 10 has started to manifest itself. Rage has still not abated following Downing Street's leaking of the election date to the Sun.
Matthew Norman, the recently hired star columnist on the relaunched paper, devoted his first column to a savage personal attack on the No. 10 director of communications, Alastair Campbell, and, with even greater ferocity, Campbell's partner, Fiona Millar, who works as assistant to Cherie Blair. He referred to them as the 'axis of evil'. The Mirror blames Millar for leaking to the Sun its sensational scoop about the Blair pregnancy. More recently, the paper was instrumental in organising a press campaign for the children's charity Barnardo's, of which Cherie Blair is patron. At the last moment, it was shifted to Rebekah Wade's News of the World. Millar got the blame for that, too. Last week, in an attempt to mend matters, the Prime Minister gave up one-and-a-half hours to a private meeting with the Mirror editor Piers Morgan, with Campbell not present.'
Probably more info to find, so expect me back later
I am enjoying reading this thread indulging in the old 'attack Brown' stuff. It is quite obviously an attempt to hide the act that their leader Cameron made a fool of himself supporting Murdoch and the BskyB bid, until aftre Murdoch actually withdrew it.
The fact is, Cameron actively supported Murdoch, even employing News of the World people.
Brown of course did not suppoort Murdoch, but was scared of Murdoch's influence.
Only Miliband had the guts to say what was right, from the start.
I dispise Brown - a git of the first water. Cameron is only my leader in that he is the head of government of my country. This sloppy thinking reminds me of some aspects of the Xfactor forum where some seem incapable of dealing with the inherit merits of a comment and have to make assumptions about who you are a fan off.
The ICO made the recommendation for custodial sentences in 2006.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs then published a consultation in July 2006, which closed in October 2006. The majority of responses supported custodial sentences but the media and PCC were stridently opposed. When the government published their response in February 2007 they said would include provisions when parliamentary time became available.
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee published Self Regulation of the Press in July 2007, also supporting custodial sentences. They comment in their February 2010 report, Press standards,
privacy and libel, that they were disappointed that the Government had rejected their recommendation.
Meanwhile the Government put the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill before Parliament. Section 77 was supposed to introduce custodial sentences. The final bill ended up with two sections: 77 would now allow for custodial sentences only if the Secretary of State made a order; and a new section 78 would introduce a defence of journalism. The Act received royal assent in May 2008.
Yet the Secretary of State did not make the necessary order. A consultation was eventually published in October 2009 (coincidentally just after the Labour Party Conference), proposing for an order to be made for custodial sentences from April 2010. The consultation closed in January 2010 and again most of the responses supported custodial sentences, indeed many of them told the Government not to wait and that they could be introduced much sooner.
But the election came and went with no response from the Government, let alone the proposed introduction in April 2010.
So what happened? A speech made by Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, to the Society of Editors in November 2008 might offer an explanation.
About 18 months ago, I, Les Hinton of News International and Murdoch MacLennan of the Telegraph, had dinner with the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. On the agenda was our deep concern that the newspaper industry was facing a number of very serious threats to its freedoms.
[...]
The fourth issue we raised with Gordon Brown was a truly frightening amendment to the Data Protection Act, winding its way through Parliament, under which journalists faced being jailed for two years for illicitly obtaining personal information such as exdirectory telephone numbers or an individual’s gas bills or medical records. This legislation would have made Britain the only country in the free world to jail journalists and could have had a considerable chilling effect on good journalism.
The Prime Minister – I don’t think it is breaking confidences to reveal – was hugely sympathetic to the industry’s case and promised to do what he could to help.
Over the coming months and battles ahead, Mr Brown was totally true to his word. Whatever our individual newspapers’ views are of the Prime Minister – and the Mail is pretty tough on him - we should, as an industry, acknowledge that, to date, he has been a great friend of press freedom.
[...]
And lastly, what of Section 55 of the Data Protection Act with its proposed two year jail sentences for journalists? Again, under the brokerage of Number 10, there were meetings with Jack Straw and his officials.
The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, a tenacious and principled fighter whom I have come to admire, and who may even be here tonight, was determined that the jail threat should stay as a deterrent. The industry argued that there were already adequate deterrents in the form of unlimited fines that could be imposed by the courts on those who offended the DPA.
Although there had undoubtedly been abuses, particularly by so-called inquiry agents paid for by newspapers, (and incidentally, such bodies as insurance companies and law firms), no journalist had so far been prosecuted and jail sentences were therefore
utterly disproportionate. Most worrying, we argued, the threat of prison would have a hugely damaging effect on legitimate investigative journalism.
We were very much mounting a rear-guard action as the legislation had already had its Second Reading in the Commons. The lobbying on both sides was fast and furious. The Society of Editors Executive Director, Bob Satchwell, was also very active and deserves the industry’s gratitude. Late in the day, the Conservatives in the Lords came out against the jail sentences.
And at the eleventh hour, with days to go before issue was to be voted upon in the Lords, two compromises were reached. It was agreed that the Data Protection Act should be amended so that journalists would have the right to seek out protected information if they had a “reasonable belief” that their actions were in the public
interest.
And, more pertinently, the Act was amended so that the jailing clause cannot now be implemented unless the Secretary of State seeks approval from Parliament to activate it.
Brown also resolved the other three issues that were raised with him in favour the media.
Gordon Brown has been caught out time and time again being economical with truth.
Why do you constantly defend this man who has caused more damage to the UK than any other Chancellor/PM in our history.
The man is disgrace.
Actually you mean according to the media he's been caught out telling lies but now we know they also tell lies 'great big whopping lies' so my question to you is "Do I believe what the press reports Brown has said or do I believe what I hear Gordon Brown himself says"? ....well I guess if I have to believe what the media says about Brown then I have to believe what the media says about everyone else including Cameron I suppose who BTW I happen to think has done disgraceful things both before he became PM and since but I'm not asking you why you defend him because I respect you are entitled to do so if you want to.
BTW I disagree Brown caused more damage to the UK than any other Chancellor/PM in our history, I've always thought it was Thatcher who did that but now I'm reserving judgement because there's chances it may yet end up being Cameron and Osborne who earn that accolade.
Actually you mean according to the media he's been caught out telling lies but now we know they also tell lies 'great big whopping lies' so my question to you is "Do I believe what the press reports Brown has said or do I believe what I hear Gordon Brown himself says"? ....well I guess if I have to believe what the media says about Brown then I have to believe what the media says about everyone else including Cameron I suppose who BTW I happen to think has done disgraceful things both before he became PM and since but I'm not asking you why you defend him because I respect you are entitled to do so if you want to.
BTW I disagree Brown caused more damage to the UK than any other Chancellor/PM in our history, I've always thought it was Thatcher who did that but now I'm reserving judgement because there's chances it may yet end up being Cameron and Osborne who earn that accolade.
Sad in a way GM.
You used to have an open mind, but nowadays you will not accept even the truth about Brown and co and try to bring in Margaret Thatcher and Cameron at every opportunity.
It's not according to the media that he has told lies or been economical with the truth, the last few weeks have proved that with his version of events and the official records. Margaret Thatcher was the savior of Britain and without her, the unions would have destroyed our economy more than Brown managed to do.
As this thread is about Brown and his lies, I think I will stick with him.
Brown has been caught out time and time again telling porkies. His arrogance is beyond belief and as the weeks unravel, I think you will find that he has been found out yet again twisting the truth.
As a backbench MP, Brown turned up to swear himself in at the new session and then again to put in his twopence worth over the current phone scandals. His attendance record is a disgrace, just like his record as a Chancellor/PM.
Comments
It's quite pathetic how much of a sore loser he is.
If he'd just come out and been fair about Murdoch that would be fine but as usual he goes off on a hugely hypocritical rant. To suggest him and Blair were somehow the good guys fighting against Murdoch is laughable to the extreme.
Also can someone show me where he lied and accused The Sun of accessing his son's medical records.
From BBC 13-07-2011 The Guardian has retracted it's accusation but I don't see how this equates to GB lying.
GB stated in the commons that a public enquiry he looked into was blocked. Gus O'Donnell has stated he gave advice and it was up to Brown to make the decision.
In this video Brown states that medical records were broken into( 4m 25s in). Just after talking about his sons medical condition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA4Az9YCv3w&feature=related
So GB claims the advice was not to hold an enquiry and the advice he actually received was not to hold an enquiry.
I just can't see where GB claims it was blocked, although I can see it was reported that way.
Thanks for that,
The fact is, Cameron actively supported Murdoch, even employing News of the World people.
Brown of course did not suppoort Murdoch, but was scared of Murdoch's influence.
Only Miliband had the guts to say what was right, from the start.
From the start of what? This month?
I only ask because the Ed and Rupee were busy chatting away together at a party last month.
Not everyone who detests what New Labour became, or Blair or Brown are Tory supporters.
I voted for New Labour to get rid of the last vestiges of Thatcherism(as a former miner I don't need to say any more). But of course we didn't get rid of Thacherism. We got Thatcherism Mk II. And any benefit from the pain and suffering we went through was frittered away by Blair and Brown. So it's the working class that has to pay again.That's why in this area Blair and Brown are so hated.
Despite the Sun's high-profile decision to back David Cameron in 2009, the Labour leadership know that alienating Murdoch would be foolish. There were more Labour figures at the party than Conservative ministers, a reflection, perhaps, of Labour's continuing obsession with winning over Murdoch when they can, and trying to neutralise his title's most venomous attacks when they fail. As well as Miliband and two of his closest advisers, Tom Baldwin and Stewart Wood, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper and shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander also partied.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/20/david-cameron-rupert-murdoch-party
I am enjoying reading your post indulging in the old 'attack Cameron' stuff :rolleyes:
Urgh, I bet you have been just as damning about Cameron. The man has his private life grossly invaded completely without justification, illegal or legal methods, and you find some way to sneer at him.
This is the problem, so many of our politicians cosied up to Murdoch, including aids and spin doctors, that they look stupid when they open their mouths. I have the same problem with the 'avoiding the question'. I mean don't they realise that it makes them look stupid, do they really think they are fooling the public.
Yep.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3696513/Guardian-says-sorry-to-The-Sun-after-accusing-us-of-hacking-into-the-medical-records-of-Gordon-Browns-sick-son.html
Well the Sun has made sure its readers know;) - boy these papers are going to be after him now.....the accusers never apologise on the front page when they are found out to be wrong.....;)
"[Brown] told MPs on Wednesday that he had tried to launch a public inquiry in February last year. Mr Brown said: "It was opposed by the police, opposed by the Home Office and opposed by the civil service and it was not supported by the [Culture] Select Committee."
Some Labour Cabinet members have a different recollection of events. They claimed the idea of an inquiry was never a formal proposal discussed inside Downing Street or by ministers. "If it was a proposal, it was one by Gordon to himself," one minister said."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/excabinet-members-challenge-browns-judicial-inquiry-claim-2314077.html
Well if you mean this it doesn't actually support your example of Brown lying does it it shows that he at least tried to do something about blagging.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14150348
Indeed. Ed is trying to take the credit for all of this and making it into a party political issue whereas the truth is that politicians form all parties, himself included, have spent far too much time cosying up to the media barons (and not just Murdoch's empire)
All politicians want good headlines and one of the easiest ways of doing so is to be "supportive" to the Lords of the Fourth Estate.
Even Comrade Ken has been at it: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100097089/ken-livingstone-looks-on-as-tories-try-to-make-him-a-public-joke/
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Boris once again wrong foots Livingstone.
Nice little archived piece from The Spectator written in 2002 by Peter Oborne about how Gordon battled against Rupert Murdoch and his venomous empire
Couple of sections for you with the full piece that you can find here : http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7101288/from-the-archives-when-gordon-loved-rupert.thtml
'This Budget stands out from all the Labour ones that have preceded it. They were aimed at the nation at large, if need be at the expense of Labour party. This one was aimed at the Labour party, to the partial exclusion of the nation at large. It was a factional budget which reinforced the Chancellor's popularity among MPs, union members and Labour activists, the people that will choose the next Labour leader.
For all his public quietism, the Chancellor has been extraordinarily assiduous in courting these constituencies for the last six months. He has been no less careful about wooing the press. The Budget package - easily the most widely leaked in history - was ransacked in advance to provide stories to papers Gordon Brown wants on his side.'
and the next piece:
'The Chancellor has started to love-bomb News International. His business seminars with Irwin Stelzer, Rupert Murdoch's plenipotentiary in London, are viewed with suspicion by the Blairite connection. Also new - and regarded with deep nervousness in Downing Street - is the rampant Brownism at the Daily Mirror. There have always been Brownite pockets at the paper. But now something not that far from a naked antagonism towards No. 10 has started to manifest itself. Rage has still not abated following Downing Street's leaking of the election date to the Sun.
Matthew Norman, the recently hired star columnist on the relaunched paper, devoted his first column to a savage personal attack on the No. 10 director of communications, Alastair Campbell, and, with even greater ferocity, Campbell's partner, Fiona Millar, who works as assistant to Cherie Blair. He referred to them as the 'axis of evil'. The Mirror blames Millar for leaking to the Sun its sensational scoop about the Blair pregnancy. More recently, the paper was instrumental in organising a press campaign for the children's charity Barnardo's, of which Cherie Blair is patron. At the last moment, it was shifted to Rebekah Wade's News of the World. Millar got the blame for that, too. Last week, in an attempt to mend matters, the Prime Minister gave up one-and-a-half hours to a private meeting with the Mirror editor Piers Morgan, with Campbell not present.'
Probably more info to find, so expect me back later
I dispise Brown - a git of the first water. Cameron is only my leader in that he is the head of government of my country. This sloppy thinking reminds me of some aspects of the Xfactor forum where some seem incapable of dealing with the inherit merits of a comment and have to make assumptions about who you are a fan off.
What did Brown do to ensure it wasn't enacted ?
The Department for Constitutional Affairs then published a consultation in July 2006, which closed in October 2006. The majority of responses supported custodial sentences but the media and PCC were stridently opposed. When the government published their response in February 2007 they said would include provisions when parliamentary time became available.
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee published Self Regulation of the Press in July 2007, also supporting custodial sentences. They comment in their February 2010 report, Press standards,
privacy and libel, that they were disappointed that the Government had rejected their recommendation.
Meanwhile the Government put the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill before Parliament. Section 77 was supposed to introduce custodial sentences. The final bill ended up with two sections: 77 would now allow for custodial sentences only if the Secretary of State made a order; and a new section 78 would introduce a defence of journalism. The Act received royal assent in May 2008.
Yet the Secretary of State did not make the necessary order. A consultation was eventually published in October 2009 (coincidentally just after the Labour Party Conference), proposing for an order to be made for custodial sentences from April 2010. The consultation closed in January 2010 and again most of the responses supported custodial sentences, indeed many of them told the Government not to wait and that they could be introduced much sooner.
But the election came and went with no response from the Government, let alone the proposed introduction in April 2010.
So what happened? A speech made by Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, to the Society of Editors in November 2008 might offer an explanation.
Brown also resolved the other three issues that were raised with him in favour the media.
GM.
Gordon Brown has been caught out time and time again being economical with truth.
Why do you constantly defend this man who has caused more damage to the UK than any other Chancellor/PM in our history.
The man is disgrace.
Actually you mean according to the media he's been caught out telling lies but now we know they also tell lies 'great big whopping lies' so my question to you is "Do I believe what the press reports Brown has said or do I believe what I hear Gordon Brown himself says"? ....well I guess if I have to believe what the media says about Brown then I have to believe what the media says about everyone else including Cameron I suppose who BTW I happen to think has done disgraceful things both before he became PM and since but I'm not asking you why you defend him because I respect you are entitled to do so if you want to.
BTW I disagree Brown caused more damage to the UK than any other Chancellor/PM in our history, I've always thought it was Thatcher who did that but now I'm reserving judgement because there's chances it may yet end up being Cameron and Osborne who earn that accolade.
Sad in a way GM.
You used to have an open mind, but nowadays you will not accept even the truth about Brown and co and try to bring in Margaret Thatcher and Cameron at every opportunity.
It's not according to the media that he has told lies or been economical with the truth, the last few weeks have proved that with his version of events and the official records. Margaret Thatcher was the savior of Britain and without her, the unions would have destroyed our economy more than Brown managed to do.
As this thread is about Brown and his lies, I think I will stick with him.
Brown has been caught out time and time again telling porkies. His arrogance is beyond belief and as the weeks unravel, I think you will find that he has been found out yet again twisting the truth.
As a backbench MP, Brown turned up to swear himself in at the new session and then again to put in his twopence worth over the current phone scandals. His attendance record is a disgrace, just like his record as a Chancellor/PM.
History will record the truth.