The Politics Thread

[William the White]

On a slightly different note - I was look for the News of the World/Hacking thread, but the only reference I found to Rebekah Brooks was in this thread.

Didn't know 'phone hacking was illegal - I mean no shit?
Didn't know who the company were paying £92 grand a year to, who was undertaking the hacking
Showed no surprise at all the inside information that the paper seemed to be getting from "sources"

Quite frankly, how could someone that fecking stupid, run a business?

The collective charade over this blows my mind - this was industry standard practice for a while and everyone knew it.

It's an unrealistic witchhunt to go for such a limited number of individuals and treat what they did as being an egregious transgression. Much better to have some honesty about how rotten the entire business was/is and spread the recriminations more widely.

But - if the jury decide so - these are criminals being prosecuted. I thought lawyers and other conservatives were in favour of this. It may have been widespread and common place, but that didn't make it lawful, did it? And I'm definitely in favour of spreading the recriminations more widely. But a start has to be made somewhere. Doesn't it? And these a pretty deserving bunch to start with.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But - if the jury decide so - these are criminals being prosecuted. I thought lawyers and other conservatives were in favour of this. It may have been widespread and common place, but that didn't make it lawful, did it? And I'm definitely in favour of spreading the recriminations more widely. But a start has to be made somewhere. Doesn't it? And these a pretty deserving bunch to start with.

I am in favour if the prosecutions and am saying that there should be more of them.

However, I don't find the level of moral outrage and surprise to be altogether genuine in some quarters.

[William the White]

But - if the jury decide so - these are criminals being prosecuted. I thought lawyers and other conservatives were in favour of this. It may have been widespread and common place, but that didn't make it lawful, did it? And I'm definitely in favour of spreading the recriminations more widely. But a start has to be made somewhere. Doesn't it? And these a pretty deserving bunch to start with.

I am in favour if the prosecutions and am saying that there should be more of them.

However, I don't find the level of moral outrage and surprise to be altogether genuine in some quarters.

Can you explain why this is an 'unrealistic witch hunt'?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But - if the jury decide so - these are criminals being prosecuted. I thought lawyers and other conservatives were in favour of this. It may have been widespread and common place, but that didn't make it lawful, did it? And I'm definitely in favour of spreading the recriminations more widely. But a start has to be made somewhere. Doesn't it? And these a pretty deserving bunch to start with.

I am in favour if the prosecutions and am saying that there should be more of them.

However, I don't find the level of moral outrage and surprise to be altogether genuine in some quarters.

Can you explain why this is an 'unrealistic witch hunt'?

It's unrealistic for all this focus on and condemnation of Brooks when there are a lot of people just as culpable as her.

What can I say - I'm a sucker for a formidable redhead.

[William the White]

What can I say - I'm a sucker for a formidable redhead.

[LeverEnd]

But - if the jury decide so - these are criminals being prosecuted. I thought lawyers and other conservatives were in favour of this. It may have been widespread and common place, but that didn't make it lawful, did it? And I'm definitely in favour of spreading the recriminations more widely. But a start has to be made somewhere. Doesn't it? And these a pretty deserving bunch to start with.

I am in favour if the prosecutions and am saying that there should be more of them.

However, I don't find the level of moral outrage and surprise to be altogether genuine in some quarters.

Can you explain why this is an 'unrealistic witch hunt'?

It's unrealistic for all this focus on and condemnation of Brooks when there are a lot of people just as culpable as her.

What can I say - I'm a sucker for a formidable redhead.

She'd beat the shit out of you! Ross Kemp fled to war zones to escape her.

I would though.

[Lord Kangana]

What can I say - I'm a sucker for a formidable redhead.

Him and 2/3rds of this centuries Prime Ministers. Murdoch should be in the dock with her. Scheming old nice person.

[Worthy4England]

But - if the jury decide so - these are criminals being prosecuted. I thought lawyers and other conservatives were in favour of this. It may have been widespread and common place, but that didn't make it lawful, did it? And I'm definitely in favour of spreading the recriminations more widely. But a start has to be made somewhere. Doesn't it? And these a pretty deserving bunch to start with.

I am in favour if the prosecutions and am saying that there should be more of them.

However, I don't find the level of moral outrage and surprise to be altogether genuine in some quarters.

I think this is all part of the charade.

She expresses "Disbelief" and "Shock" over Goodman's arrest (today's evidence), because if she doesn't, the contention is she knew all along. In kind, the other side express "Disbelief" and "Shock" that she didn't have a scooby about any of this, on her watch...

loosely translated as "I'm really innocent" and "bollocks"

I think she looks like Mick Hucknall, so I'll leave you two chaps to it.

[Bijou Bob]

I'm struggling with the whole Harriet Harman/Daily Heil spat at the moment as I'm really not sure which of them I loathe the most. Harman is a sanctimious, odious politician and part of me loves seeing her squirm. The other bit of me hates the fact that The Mail can peddle such atrocious sh1te and smear someone with the word paedophile.

Interesting that Shami Chakrabarti (sp?) is being left well alone and LIberty have been allowed to get away with a quick apology.

[Prufrock]

That'll probably be because she didnt join Liberty until 2001, and when PIE was disbanded, in 1983, she was 14.

I'm not a huge fan of HH but she's clearly just another target of Dacre's wankers. I'd love for him to somehow get caught up in the hacking stuff. Grade A cock.

One day it's all going to backfire on the DM and end it. I can't wait for that day.

[Bijou Bob]

Whilst the Heil still has circulation figures and a solid 'middle England' readership, it might be a long time coming Pru. It beggars belief that people read it and take it at face value, but sadly, they do. I work with at least 2 of their dedicated readers.

My comment about Shami was more in relation to her organisation's history rather than her personally. Who made the policy decisions at the NCCL to allow groups to affiliate with no vetting? The furore has been around Harman and her senior Labour Party colleagues in an attempt to smear them, rather than looking at the policies and protocols adopted by the NCCL.

I have the distinct feeling that the Mail are playing with a far bigger and better hand than they have so far revealed.

[bobo the clown]

I have the distinct feeling that the Mail are playing with a far bigger and better hand than they have so far revealed.

Ass do I.

This story has kicked around since at least 2008, probably longer. It's been given fresh legs this past few weeks and Harman, Dromey and Hewitt have taken a 'don't respond and it'll go away (again)' tactic.

No-one in their right mind would suggest Harman, Dromey or Hewitt are positively linked to Paedophiles and it would be embarrassing, though hardly career limiting to say "in those days maybe we didn't challenge some of the more odd groups affiliating to NCCL" and be done with it.

They aren't saying that for a reason. Hewitt in particular has continued to keep her head down far longer than is wise. She's out of the general light these days and maybe thinks there's no need, but she's doing herself no favours.

I do think, from the tactics being employed, that the Mail are waiting for some specific denial so they can then turn over their final card and have someone 'bang to rights' for some sort of false statement. It's pointedly interesting that, despite the denials which finally came forth this week, no-one has been threatening legal action.

I also found it curious that the BBC kept right away from this and only finally reported on it once their lack of reporting threatened to become a story in its own right.

=======================

Finally, re Mr & Mrs Dromey, just and aside for a bit of mischief here, he was selected to fight the Erdington seat in 2010 despite the selection policy being to allow female only selection lists for safe seats. A policy brought in, controversially, by Ms Harman. The initial list was drawn up consisting only of females. His name was added at a meeting she 'couldn't attend' and, amazingly, he was selected. Just saying like.

[Lord Kangana]

I suspect the BBC kept away from it because its the usual bollox peddled as news by The Daily Mail. And as such, irrelevant.

[Prufrock]

Whilst the Heil still has circulation figures and a solid 'middle England' readership, it might be a long time coming Pru. It beggars belief that people read it and take it at face value, but sadly, they do. I work with at least 2 of their dedicated readers.

My comment about Shami was more in relation to her organisation's history rather than her personally. Who made the policy decisions at the NCCL to allow groups to affiliate with no vetting? The furore has been around Harman and her senior Labour Party colleagues in an attempt to smear them, rather than looking at the policies and protocols adopted by the NCCL.

I have the distinct feeling that the Mail are playing with a far bigger and better hand than they have so far revealed.

I get what you're saying but even hoboh seems to be getting sick of them .

I reckon they've left Liberty alone because attacking the current incarnation of an organisation for its past views, actions or policies may not end too well for the Daily Mail!

[Bijou Bob]

I concur. I was waiting for the Radio 4 correspondent to ask the DM rep yesterday about their support for the Nazi's, anti semitism and homophobia, but they bottled it as usual. A quick question about the sexualised content of the mail online would have stirred the pot nicely, but the BBC are terrfieidd of the heil starting on them in response.

What we really need is the lowdown on Dacre's skeletons. There must be some.

[William the White]

I have the distinct feeling that the Mail are playing with a far bigger and better hand than they have so far revealed.

Ass do I.

This story has kicked around since at least 2008, probably longer. It's been given fresh legs this past few weeks and Harman, Dromey and Hewitt have taken a 'don't respond and it'll go away (again)' tactic.

No-one in their right mind would suggest Harman, Dromey or Hewitt are positively linked to Paedophiles and it would be embarrassing, though hardly career limiting to say "in those days maybe we didn't challenge some of the more odd groups affiliating to NCCL" and be done with it.

They aren't saying that for a reason. Hewitt in particular has continued to keep her head down far longer than is wise. She's out of the general light these days and maybe thinks there's no need, but she's doing herself no favours.

I do think, from the tactics being employed, that the Mail are waiting for some specific denial so they can then turn over their final card and have someone 'bang to rights' for some sort of false statement. It's pointedly interesting that, despite the denials which finally came forth this week, no-one has been threatening legal action.

I also found it curious that the BBC kept right away from this and only finally reported on it once their lack of reporting threatened to become a story in its own right.

=======================

Finally, re Mr & Mrs Dromey, just and aside for a bit of mischief here, he was selected to fight the Erdington seat in 2010 despite the selection policy being to allow female only selection lists for safe seats. A policy brought in, controversially, by Ms Harman. The initial list was drawn up consisting only of females. His name was added at a meeting she 'couldn't attend' and, amazingly, he was selected. Just saying like.

Have you thought of writing fiction professionally?

[Hoboh]

Finally, re Mr & Mrs Dromey, just and aside for a bit of mischief here, he was selected to fight the Erdington seat in 2010 despite the selection policy being to allow female only selection lists for safe seats. A policy brought in, controversially, by Ms Harman. The initial list was drawn up consisting only of females. His name was added at a meeting she 'couldn't attend' and, amazingly, he was selected. Just saying like.

Well we all know that Harperperson is tolerated by the leftie's and unions because they use her to keep Labours machine in line, so it would not be of any great suprise.
One day the Haperperson will be of no use and I await that day with glee, it will be such a show.

[bobo the clown]

I have the distinct feeling that the Mail are playing with a far bigger and better hand than they have so far revealed.

Ass do I.

This story has kicked around since at least 2008, probably longer. It's been given fresh legs this past few weeks and Harman, Dromey and Hewitt have taken a 'don't respond and it'll go away (again)' tactic.

No-one in their right mind would suggest Harman, Dromey or Hewitt are positively linked to Paedophiles and it would be embarrassing, though hardly career limiting to say "in those days maybe we didn't challenge some of the more odd groups affiliating to NCCL" and be done with it.

They aren't saying that for a reason. Hewitt in particular has continued to keep her head down far longer than is wise. She's out of the general light these days and maybe thinks there's no need, but she's doing herself no favours.

I do think, from the tactics being employed, that the Mail are waiting for some specific denial so they can then turn over their final card and have someone 'bang to rights' for some sort of false statement. It's pointedly interesting that, despite the denials which finally came forth this week, no-one has been threatening legal action.

I also found it curious that the BBC kept right away from this and only finally reported on it once their lack of reporting threatened to become a story in its own right.

=======================

Finally, re Mr & Mrs Dromey, just and aside for a bit of mischief here, he was selected to fight the Erdington seat in 2010 despite the selection policy being to allow female only selection lists for safe seats. A policy brought in, controversially, by Ms Harman. The initial list was drawn up consisting only of females. His name was added at a meeting she 'couldn't attend' and, amazingly, he was selected. Just saying like.

Have you thought of writing fiction professionally?

Of course. Do direct me to the fictional bit though.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't really understand this BBC article.

Rebekah Brooks has told the phone-hacking trial she approved payments to public officials - but only when there was an "overwhelming public interest".

She said she had agreed payments on a "handful of occasions" between 1998 and 2009, when she held senior roles at the Sun and the News of the World.

Public officials had approached the papers asking for money in exchange for information, she told the Old Bailey.

The trial is about illegal payments to public officials, allegations of attempts to hide potential evidence and phone hacking - the illegal interception of messages by journalists at the News of the World and the Sun.

Mrs Brooks is one of seven defendants who deny all the charges against them. The trial continues.

How can she deny all charges when she admitted paying public officials? Is it UK law (help Crayons) that it is legal to bribe (i.e. purchase confidential information from) public officials if the editor decides it is in the public interest? I can understand the public interest may be a defence against libel, but surely bribery would be illegal.

[Hoboh]

I don't really understand this BBC article.

Rebekah Brooks has told the phone-hacking trial she approved payments to public officials - but only when there was an "overwhelming public interest".

She said she had agreed payments on a "handful of occasions" between 1998 and 2009, when she held senior roles at the Sun and the News of the World.

Public officials had approached the papers asking for money in exchange for information, she told the Old Bailey.

The trial is about illegal payments to public officials, allegations of attempts to hide potential evidence and phone hacking - the illegal interception of messages by journalists at the News of the World and the Sun.

Mrs Brooks is one of seven defendants who deny all the charges against them. The trial continues.

How can she deny all charges when she admitted paying public officials? Is it UK law (help Crayons) that it is legal to bribe (i.e. purchase confidential information from) public officials if the editor decides it is in the public interest? I can understand the public interest may be a defence against libel, but surely bribery would be illegal.

Give them a break Monty.
The legal vultures have to argue something to look like they are earning their fees.
The defence of 'public interest' could only be argued as valid if Brooks and her crew had paid by changing the lives of these people to protect them from malicious persons or state operations that would seek to do them harm because of what they were about to reveal, not just to swell their bank accounts.