Home Politics and Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Coulson Resigns

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12251456

It's about time. "Rogue reporter" my arse.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fantastic news, and egg on the face of David fucking Cameron.

    Now let's see really how much power Rupert Murdoch has over the government and the police. The investigation should be re-opened in full, and if appropriate criminal prosecutions should follow.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a good day to bury bad news, but I can't decide who's doing the burying.

    Whilst the whole thing with Coulson's been going on, our good friend Tony's been explaining why he decided to bomb the shit out of Iraq. He doesn't have a very convincing reason. And then you've got Alan Johnson's missus shagging the bodyguard to divert a bit more attention too.

    Makes me wonder what else is being hidden.

    What will be interesting is what happens with Coulson who, during the perjury trial of Tommy Docherty, said he didn't know anything at all about phone tapping. Wonder if Inspector Knacker will decide to prosecute him for perjury? Given Knacker's investigations so far, I shan't hold my breath mind. Mostly because I suspect there will be one or two senior police sources who could be unmasked if they investigate too hard; News International get so much hot police gossip from someone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Call my a cynic but I don't think the timing of Coulson's resignation is coincidental at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But who is he protecting? There's a view on Twitter that he's helping out old Tony...certainly Blair's lies aren't the top story on the Grauniad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hardly gonna happen like that. Tories would happily hang the "idol" of recent Labour Govt out to dry.

    It was more likely a bad attempt to keep the Coulson thing under the horizon a little, in the middle of two bad stories for Labour. Failed miserably because it's too big itself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Hardly gonna happen like that. Tories would happily hang the "idol" of recent Labour Govt out to dry.

    It was more likely a bad attempt to keep the Coulson thing under the horizon a little, in the middle of two bad stories for Labour. Failed miserably because it's too big itself.

    But it would have been bigger. It's a myth you can bury bad news, but you can minimise its impact.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are rumous abounding that Rupert himself ordered Coulson to resign, in order to try and grease through the takeover of BSkyB by News Corporation. Interesting perspective on it all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are rumous abounding that Rupert himself ordered Coulson to resign, in order to try and grease through the takeover of BSkyB by News Corporation. Interesting perspective on it all.

    That is an interesting perspective, what with Vince Cable also being compromised on the issue of the BSkyB takeover.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But it would have been bigger.

    I think it still will be. There's the whole lying under oath issue potentially to face, then there's the questions about the Police investigation, rumours that Coulson is about to be outed as being heavily involved and the possibility of questionable links between News Intl and the Met...

    This one is a slow grower.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    I think it still will be. There's the whole lying under oath issue potentially to face, then there's the questions about the Police investigation, rumours that Coulson is about to be outed as being heavily involved and the possibility of questionable links between News Intl and the Met...

    This one is a slow grower.

    It may be or it may not be, though an awful lot of conspiracy theories once shown the light of day aren't nearly as earth shattering as the rumours.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    News Corporation actually paid someone (can't remember who) a six-figure amount so they wouldn't sue about their phone being hacked.

    As a letter in the Guardian today was asking, quite rightly too, why isn't News Corporation being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice? For clearly that is what the pay-off was trying to achieve.

    There is a lot of shit that could still hit the fan. Let's hope it does.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was allegedly a high figures and it was paid to Gordon Taylor, chief of the Professional Footballers Association.

    You can't pervert the course of justice in a civil matter. Taylor was suing on a civil basis, not on a criminal basis, for monetary compensation. He received that compensation and so the case stopped. It is normal.

    What we need is someone to be interested in the principle not the money. It looks like Sienna Miller is more interested in the principle, but we shall see.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Hardly gonna happen like that. Tories would happily hang the "idol" of recent Labour Govt out to dry.

    That may very well be the case, but not over the war in Iraq. The Conservative party supported it and voted for it (including Cameron, Osborne, Fox, Hague and May). If the Iraq inquiry goes the wrong way for Blair then the Tories are in it up to their neck as well. In fact only 15 conservative MPs voted against invading Iraq. The Tories would quit like the question of the legality of the War and the associated problems to disappear.

    Coulson's resignation was probably announced on Friday in the hope that it might not attract as much media attention as Blair's second appearance before the Iraq Inquiry, but the resignation of the current Government's Director of Communications in such circumstances is always going to attract significant media attention regardless of what else is going on at the time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Avizandum wrote: »
    That may very well be the case, but not over the war in Iraq. The Conservative party supported it and voted for it (including Cameron, Osborne, Fox, Hague and May). If the Iraq inquiry goes the wrong way for Blair then the Tories are in it up to their neck as well. In fact only 15 conservative MPs voted against invading Iraq. The Tories would quit like the question of the legality of the War and the associated problems to disappear.

    .

    Not sure that's true. Iraq's dead as a political issue for the Tories, there's no evidence that voting for it did them any harm in either 2005 (when it was fresh) or 2010. As far as the public blame anyone, they blame the Government responsible. It it also probable that generally those who are so strongly against the war it would influence voting decisions are mostly not natural Tory voters anyway.

    And it would help rather than hinder the Tories for it be comprehensively proved Blair deliberately and flagrantly lied (not that I think there is a smoking gun which will be found on this). That way they can put up the narrative that they voted for it on the belief that a Prime Minister would never be so bad as to lie the UK into a war and wasn't it terrible that a Labour PM would stoop so low
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ^^This
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not sure that's true. Iraq's dead as a political issue for the Tories, there's no evidence that voting for it did them any harm in either 2005 (when it was fresh) or 2010. As far as the public blame anyone, they blame the Government responsible. It it also probable that generally those who are so strongly against the war it would influence voting decisions are mostly not natural Tory voters anyway.

    And it would help rather than hinder the Tories for it be comprehensively proved Blair deliberately and flagrantly lied (not that I think there is a smoking gun which will be found on this). That way they can put up the narrative that they voted for it on the belief that a Prime Minister would never be so bad as to lie the UK into a war and wasn't it terrible that a Labour PM would stoop so low

    Historically the Tories have always favoured sending troops into active service. Taking that into consideration having their top leadership implicated in a vote in favour for an illegal war could, if picked up by the right journalists, prove problamatic for the Conservative Party.

    Add to that some of the reterick coming from them now and their choices at the cruical vote again could, with the right journalists, cause a few problems that they would rather not have in the climate we are currently in.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Avizandum wrote: »
    Historically the Tories have always favoured sending troops into active service. Taking that into consideration having their top leadership implicated in a vote in favour for an illegal war could, if picked up by the right journalists, prove problamatic for the Conservative Party.

    Add to that some of the reterick coming from them now and their choices at the cruical vote again could, with the right journalists, cause a few problems that they would rather not have in the climate we are currently in.

    I don't see how. it's not new news that most of them voted for it and so they're already implicated. If no journalist was able to pin a negative narrative on them voting for in the 2005 election when people cared, they won't be able to do so now. The only caveat for that is if we find some evidence that the Tories deliberately conspired with Blair and I think that's as about as unlikely as us Elvis appearing in public leading the Loch Ness Monster. Otherwise for the Tories the issue can only be positive as it paints Labour much worse...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On the other hand, with the exception of Tony Blair, the Tories have always been far more enthusiastic about the so-called Special Relationship and far more willing to embark in all sorts of militaristic adventures hand in hand with Uncle Sam than Labour have been.

    Regardless of what the right wing media might claim, the immense majority of people in this country are rather sick and tired of our military exploits abroad and our unconditional adherence to US' foreign policy. And unless the Tories were to clearly distance themselves from sucha approach, they will always be seen as far more likely to take us into further wars and conflicts whenever the US requires it than a Labour government would be willing to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    On the other hand, with the exception of Tony Blair, the Tories have always been far more enthusiastic about the so-called Special Relationship and far more willing to embark in all sorts of militaristic adventures hand in hand with Uncle Sam than Labour have been.

    Regardless of what the right wing media might claim, the immense majority of people in this country are rather sick and tired of our military exploits abroad and our unconditional adherence to US' foreign policy. And unless the Tories were to clearly distance themselves from sucha approach, they will always be seen as far more likely to take us into further wars and conflicts whenever the US requires it than a Labour government would be willing to.

    I'm going to be kind and say that's a little simplistic

    Looking at the wars which the UK has gone hand in hand with the US since 1945 Korea was Labour, only GW1 was Tory, as Kosovo, GW2 and Afghanistan were all Labour.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, as i said, with the exception of Tony Blair.

    He went against the grain of the party. The current leadership is unlikely to be quite so cosy with the US government. With the Tories however it is a given regardless of who is in charge.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Yeah, as i said, with the exception of Tony Blair.

    He went against the grain of the party. The current leadership is unlikely to be quite so cosy with the US government. With the Tories however it is a given regardless of who is in charge.

    Except even with the exception of Tony Blair the results are 1 war with the Tories and 1 with Labour. The Labour Party historically have been also been close to the US with a few dishonourable exceptions such as Benn and Galloway who's anti-American views have led them to support such luminaries as the IRA, Hussein and Galtereri
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perhaps the public saw some of those wars as a necessary evil. My point all along was that with the exception of Tony Blair, the Tories have always been, and almost certainly continue to be seen, as far more gun-ho and willing to follow the US into armed conflict. Now that Blair is gone, there is again a very clear distinction between the two parties when it comes to that, IMO.

    But to bring the discussion back to the original topic, things are unravelling fast now on the phone tapping scandal:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12290535

    This could well be a defining week in the long term relationship this country and its leaders have with Rupert Murdoch. At the same time this is happening the Culture Secretary is mulling over whether to refer the Dirty Digger's bid to wholly own BSkyB to the Competition Commission. Let's hope the evil cunt from hell ends up with egg on his face on both counts.
Sign In or Register to comment.