[Annsyre]

Originally Posted by Sad_BB_Addict

Rebekah Brooks & Co bailed for a fortnight
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18425322

Key points from Clegg evidence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...day-key-points

Thank SBBA I did listen but there were many distractions here at home.

[trew]

Originally Posted by Sad_BB_Addict

252 Ayes
290 Noes
Looks like some of the minority parties voted with the Govt.

Kevin Brennan @KevinBrennanMP

DUP voting with Tories on Hunt motion - how much will that cost?

[cpu121]

Originally Posted by Sad_BB_Addict

Dan Sabbagh‏@dansabbagh

Read Alex Salmond's correspondence with Guardian News & Media from July of last year here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...mondLetter.pdf

They didn't look very hard then. All they seemed to look at was the Operation Motorman files, which only covered the activities of Steve Whittamore. The details could've been obtained through another private investigator.

Edit: Actually looking into it even further, Operation Motorman appeared to only cover the period 2000-2003. Salmond claims his bank account was accessed in 1999 - i.e. before the period covered by Motorman.

That suggests Guardian News & Media are being extremely disingenious in claiming to have investigated the allegations properly.

[barrcode88]

Originally Posted by Sad_BB_Addict

252 Ayes
290 Noes
Looks like some of the minority parties voted with the Govt.

Not much between that.

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by cpu121

They didn't look very hard then. All they seemed to look at was the Operation Motorman files, which only covered the activities of Steve Whittamore. The details could've been obtained through another private investigator.

Edit: Actually looking into it even further, Operation Motorman appeared to only cover the period 2000-2003. Salmond claims his bank account was accessed in 1999 - i.e. before the period covered by Motorman.

That suggests Guardian News & Media are being extremely disingenious in claiming to have investigated the allegations properly.

How can they investigate something with no information forthcoming and no story having been printed with the alleged illicitly obtained information at the time? They have asked for more information and apparently Salmond hasn't provided it. It would reflect very badly on the Observer/Guardian if this allegation were proved. Salmond needs to give them all the information he has. He says he got the info from an ex Observer reporter so can't he get him to make whatever he knows public?

[penelopesimpson]

Originally Posted by Annsyre

Mair is one of my favourites because he makes me laugh! Jack de Manio was the same. And I liked Brian Redhead. Humphrys has got old and crabby and I have gone off him too.

Paxman's television documentary about the Victorians was excellent. imo.

Mair is fabulous. He uses few words but what he says is always like a stiletto. Wonder what he would be like on television? Paxman is speaking about the British Empire at the Festival I mentioned.

[penelopesimpson]

Originally Posted by swingaleg

Hunt was quite flustered and got his words badly mixed up when he wanted to suggest that Labour were OK with Labour Ministers breaking the Code but not Conservative Ministers...........but he said it the wrong way round

I really don't know what he did or didn't do but I do know a man out of his depth when I see one. Taxi for Mr. Hunt, I think.

[penelopesimpson]

Originally Posted by Annsyre

And especially since Cable got massive support when he was in the doo doo.

The Tories need to learn some lessons. The Lib Dems are traditionally a protest party and always fight dirty.

[glasshalffull]

Originally Posted by Transient1

How can they investigate something with no information forthcoming and no story having been printed with the alleged illicitly obtained information at the time? They have asked for more information and apparently Salmond hasn't provided it. It would reflect very badly on the Observer/Guardian if this allegation were proved. Salmond needs to give them all the information he has. He says he got the info from an ex Observer reporter so can't he get him to make whatever he knows public?

At the distance of a dozen years since whatever is supposed to have happened...providing every piece of information you or AN Other has is essential.

But then if Salmond is with holding information to help keep his "source" confidential he can hardly expect it to be easy to resolve.

There's an interesting thing about all this "confidential source" nonsense...if you are going to accuse someone of a crime you should be prepared to name your source and your source should be told that.

If everyone kept to that line there would be far less nonsense and tittle tattle allowed to gain traction...and the only exceptions to protect anonymity should surely be cases where the life of the source or national security would be endangered?

If Salmond's source genuinely felt there was a problem why wait 12 years to tell the man...boasting or gossip "under the influence" seems more likely.

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by glasshalffull

At the distance of a dozen years since whatever is supposed to have happened...providing every piece of information you or AN Other has is essential.

But then if Salmond is with holding information to help keep his "source" confidential he can hardly expect it to be easy to resolve.

There's an interesting thing about all this "confidential source" nonsense...if you are going to accuse someone of a crime you should be prepared to name your source and your source should be told that.

If everyone kept to that line there would be far less nonsense and tittle tattle allowed to gain traction...and the only exceptions to protect anonymity should surely be cases where the life of the source or national security would be endangered?

If Salmond's source genuinely felt there was a problem why wait 12 years to tell the man...boasting or gossip "under the influence" seems more likely.

I'm a little suspicious about Salmond's motives given that he seems to be best mates with Murdoch. I could be proved wrong of course but unless Salmond provides some proof this allegation remain just that, an allegation.

[David Tee]

Originally Posted by penelopesimpson

I really don't know what he did or didn't do but I do know a man out of his depth when I see one. Taxi for Mr. Hunt, I think.

I think Jeremy Hunt has behaved impeccably. Remember - there is not one (not one!) shred of evidence that he acted anyway other than impartially in relation to the BSkyB bid. Under pressure in Parliament, he might have consufed his worms but f*** it. Who wouldn't under that kind of relentless, contrived, manipulative attack? The objective for Labour was never upholding Parliamentary standards - the objective was always bagging a minister.

Good for him for standing up to them, and good for Cameron for supporting him (and to Clegg who supported him at Leveson today) . I've no doubt that few will agree with me but I genuinely believe any honour to be found of this whole sorry episode lies on the Government benches. The opposition benches, by contrast, reek of shameless opportunism and quite staggering hypocrisy.

Justice has been served. Restores my faith. JMO. obviously.

[glasshalffull]

Originally Posted by Transient1

I'm a little suspicious about Salmond's motives given that he seems to be best mates with Murdoch. I could be proved wrong of course but unless Salmond provides some proof this allegation remain just that, an allegation.

I really don't do conspiracy theory but I'm pretty sure the date of Salmonds letter was a week after the Milly Dowler hack became public....makes me wonder even more about booze fuelled gossip at a time press malfeasance was the issue grabbing the headlines.

I think I read somewhere Salmond has dropped snippets and suggestions all over in Scotland he's somehow "involved in all this big story" or been "a victim"...but totally refused to respond to questions in the Scottish Parliament...what a tease

[Hit Em Up Style]

Originally Posted by David Tee

I think Jeremy Hunt has behaved impeccably. Remember - there is not one (not one!) shred of evidence that he acted anyway other than impartially in relation to the BSkyB bid. Under pressure in Parliament, he might have consufed his worms but f*** it. Who wouldn't under that kind of relentless, contrived, manipulative attack? The objective for Labour was never upholding Parliamentary standards - the objective was always bagging a minister.

Good for him for standing up to them, and good for Cameron for supporting him (and to Clegg who supported him at Leveson today) . I've no doubt that few will agree with me but I genuinely believe any honour to be found of this whole sorry episode lies on the Government benches. The opposition benches, by contrast, reek of shameless opportunism and quite staggering hypocrisy.

Justice has been served. Restores my faith. JMO. obviously.

Hunt survived because Lib Dems were told if they voted against him Tories would block the house of lords reforms...

That is what one senior Lib Dem said on Sky News tonight. So no justice has been done because the result was reached by dirty politics. As per with this government and its the reason that Cameron is more unpopular than Brown ever was in the polls.

[thms]

Originally Posted by David Tee

I think Jeremy Hunt has behaved impeccably.

...warts and all

[Middleotroad]

Originally Posted by David Tee

The objective for Labour was never upholding Parliamentary standards - the objective was always bagging a minister.

It's the same for any oppostition. Bagging the resignation of a minister is very important. The equivalent of gaining Mayfair in Monopoly.

[penelopesimpson]

Originally Posted by glasshalffull

I really don't do conspiracy theory but I'm pretty sure the date of Salmonds letter was a week after the Milly Dowler hack became public....makes me wonder even more about booze fuelled gossip at a time press malfeasance was the issue grabbing the headlines.

I think I read somewhere Salmond has dropped snippets and suggestions all over in Scotland he's somehow "involved in all this big story" or been "a victim"...but totally refused to respond to questions in the Scottish Parliament...what a tease

Agree with most of what you say. My point is that Hunt doesn't seem up to the cut and thrust.

[Sad_BB_Addict]

Ten questions David Cameron needs to answer tomorrow
New Statesman
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/po...-david-cameron

[Nosnikrapl]

Originally Posted by Middleotroad

It's the same for any oppostition. Bagging the resignation of a minister is very important. The equivalent of gaining Mayfair in Monopoly.

But as Tony Blair said at Leveson the media gets out of control with their witch-hunts for Ministers. He admits letting Mandelsohn go the second time was wrong but he just couldn't face endless shrill news day after day. Said if he was faced with the same situation today he wouldn't do it. The sheer nonsense over the years is how many ministers have been driven out by media noise only to return later with little or no reaction from the very same media. It's just a game to show how powerful they are.

[Sad_BB_Addict]

Ten questions David Cameron needs to answer tomorrow
New Statesman
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/po...-david-cameron

[Sad_BB_Addict]

It occurs to me that if Cameron was determined to save Hunt, he could at least have ordered a review of ministerial management of special advisers, so he had at least taken some action.

[Sad_BB_Addict]

Nice piece by Michael White
Nick Clegg and his cunning plan The Lib Dem leader's appearance at the Leveson inquiry was like organising a diversionary feint that nobody would fall for

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...g-plan-leveson

[Annsyre]

Originally Posted by Hit Em Up Style

Hunt survived because Lib Dems were told if they voted against him Tories would block the house of lords reforms...

That is what one senior Lib Dem said on Sky News tonight. So no justice has been done because the result was reached by dirty politics. As per with this government and its the reason that Cameron is more unpopular than Brown ever was in the polls.

Deals have been done within governments for years.

[Annsyre]

Originally Posted by Sad_BB_Addict

It occurs to me that if Cameron was determined to save Hunt, he could at least have ordered a review of ministerial management of special advisers, so he had at least taken some action.

Isn't that part of Leveson's brief?

I am sure that they will be changes when the inquiry is ended and a report has been produced.

[swingaleg]

Originally Posted by David Tee

I think Jeremy Hunt has behaved impeccably. Remember - there is not one (not one!) shred of evidence that he acted anyway other than impartially in relation to the BSkyB bid.

Well I wouldn't say that there's not a 'shred' of evidence...........there are shreds of evidence that he didn't act impartially........eg leaking the contents of statements to NI and the 'back-channel' of communication with Murdoch's team. These are 'shreds' of evidence

But anyway that's all a bit of a straw man as regards today because he wasn't accused of that........it seemed like a pre-conceived tactic by Tory backbenchers to defend him against something he hadn't been accused of

I mean........if backbencher after backbencher had got up and said (following the whips orders.........) that there was absolutely no evidence that Mr Hunt had stolen any sweets from a sweetshop in Blackpool..........therefore they were going to vote against the motion, wouldn't you think that was a bit odd ?

That's effectively what was happening today........as a diversionary tactic he was being defended against something he wasn't accused of

What I didn't hear today was an adequate defence of something he HAD been accused of, ie...........misleading Parliament by repeatedly telling the House that he was publishing all relevant materials relating to the decision including 'exchanges between his department and the interested parties'. As he hadn't published all the exchanges between his Dept and the interested parties (about a thousand of them) then he had misled parliament several times and had not taken any opportunity to come back to the House and correct his error (which is the usual practise if a Minister unintentionally misleads the House)

[glasshalffull]

Originally Posted by Sad_BB_Addict

It occurs to me that if Cameron was determined to save Hunt, he could at least have ordered a review of ministerial management of special advisers, so he had at least taken some action.

Why review something that must be working very well.

It has to be working well because nothing Hunt did or did not do with his SpAd was wrong.

The fact most of us ever been responsible for managing staff would expect to be out on our ears for such gross failure of supervision is quite immaterial and a bizarre notion