[Closed] news overload Any Coulson resigns

tbh, I see it the other way round - the Tories don't want to distract people from Blair/Chilcott any more than they have to - takes the pressure off them on so many other issues.

Coulson must be in some deep doo-doo to have to resign this week and announce it today.

Milliband needs to make a big thing about this.

Excellent article (from earlier in the week) by septicisle here:

[url= http://www.septicisle.info/index.php?q=/2011/01/phone-hacking-something-must-break.html ]Phone hacking scandal[/url]

Andy Coulson's apparent offer to resign as David Cameron's chief spin doctor has to be seen in this light. As Matthew Norman puts it, this would make him the first person in history to resign over something he knew nothing about twice, which would outdo even the likes of Peter Mandelson and David Blunkett

I said months ago his position was untenable.

Its simply not credible that he knew nothing about the goings on at the news of the world.

maybe this will bring down the entire murdch empire????????????

yeah i know i can dream

It might stop his bid to take over the rest of BSkyB look less likely.

Mr Campbell will be enjoying his latte this morning and a smug look on hos face.

I rather doubt it Kimbers...!

Looks like he jumped before being pushed, which is interesting. I assume more will out shortly. Choice of day was interesting, both from a "bury bad news under Bliar lying to the Chilcott Inquiry again" and a "I wonder what's in the Sunday papers" angle.

Mr Campbell will be enjoying his latte this morning and a smug look on hos face.

I would imagine he is still licking his wounds from last nights Question Time.

I would imagine he is still licking his wounds from last nights Question Time.

may be something in here:

havent watched it through yet.

EDIT: gorgeous george is poking campbell with a stick.

anyone watch dispatches

newscorp is satans army on earth

Oh there will be more to come for sure. Coulson will be shown to be a liar and Cameron either a liar or a dupe.

Of course Coulson knew and authorised the phone hacking.

Cameron either a liar or a dupe.

Yup

Or a liar in saying Coulson did no wrong or saying that he believed Coulson was innocent.

Its both Camerons strength and his weakness - he is very loyal - but sometimes simply too loyal

We know Murdoch was very keen to have his man in no 10 - that why he paid out millions in hush money to try to keep Coulsons name out of teh press and to stop court cases but now the various court cases are getting closer and closer to Coulson .

in their hatred of newscorp even the torygraph have rounded on cameron
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/8274855/David-Camerons-judgment-over-Andy-Coulson-was-deeply-flawed.html

All the parties are at it ...

😆

You know it's important news when the LOLCATZ come out

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

blair was up to his nuts in murdoch no doubt

cameron really is more blair than blair

cameron really is more blair than blair

How ? Cameron is pretty much what you would expect a Tory to be - he's not exactly a closet socialist who is determined to take his party to the left.

If any one can be compared with Blair it's Clegg - a liar, a cheat, and a fraud ........ who has abandoned his party's principles.

Blair is no-where near a socialist! Cameron is definitely a Blairite.

Blair was no where near a socialist!

😀 Yes I think that was the point I was making !

Blair was no socialist, and Cameron is definitely a Tory.

blair never pretended to be a socialist,
he openly moved the party to the centre to win the 1997 election

The presumption should be that economic activity is best left to the private sector.

as for lying castiron dave has reneged on enough election pledges to qualify as a politician

even murdochs employees dont actually like him

Senior financial journalists believed he often misled them. Jeff Randall, who is close to Rupert Murdoch and who presents a nightly business programme on Sky, wrote that Cameron "never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative".

Ian King, deputy business editor of the Times who was business editor of the Sun while Cameron was at Carlton, wrote in 2005: "I was unfortunate enough to have dealings with Cameron during the 1990s when he was PR man for Carlton, the world's worst television company. And a poisonous, slippery individual he was, too."

Cameron is either a liar or thick - too many of his statements are falshoods and those are the only possible explanations.

He is also beholden to too many special interests - from the eurosceptic right of his party to Murdoch to the private healthcare companies.

A weak man

to be fair osborne was the one who wanted to hire coulson
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/05/coulson-cameron-editor-news

Osbourne knows where the bodies are buried - or indeed where the coke was snorted

ernie_lynch - Member

Blair was no where near a socialist!

Yes I think that was the point I was making !

Blair was no socialist, and Cameron is definitely a Tory.

Ah I see, doh!

He is also beholden to too many special interests - from the eurosceptic right of his party to Murdoch to the private healthcare companies.

Quite a good video about the Healthcare Lobbies/Thinktanks and their relationships with cabinet ministers:

[url]

blair never pretended to be a socialist

Blair most certainly [i]did[/i] pretend to be a socialist. Mostly when he was he was crawling trying to get to become leader of the Labour Party. In 1982 he wrote to the Labour Party leader Michael Foot [i]"I come to Socialism through Marxism"[/i] (lying ****er) He maintained the charade when he supported CND and withdrawal from the EEC in 1983. Even after he became leader of the Labour Party and leader of the opposition, I very clearly remember him standing before a Labour Party conference and saying [i]"we should never be ashamed to call ourselves socialists"[/i] (I recall thinking "lying ****er") And it was only [u]after[/u] he had become leader that he stated he wanted Clause 4 scrapped. Blair has often claimed to be socialist (depending on the audience)

Edit : btw kimbers, the quote you attribute to him was made many years [u]after[/u] he had become leader, he was hardly likely to be replaced on the eve of a general election - so he no longer had to maintain the charade.

1982 i was way more interested in autobot vs decepticon politics then
though i get your point
i still see dc as a clone of tb (and nc as a clone of dc)

TBH I get your point too.........Blair, Cameron, and Clegg, do indeed all appear to be clones. Although for me Clegg is most like Blair. I think Cameron is [i]fairly[/i] honest (relatively speaking) ....... you kinda get what you see with him.

I tend to disagree - I see Blair as honest but deluded - I really think he believed all the balderdash he spoke such as the quotes you give, whereas I see Cameron as a liar thru and thru. He will lie as second nature - I don't think he actually believes anything

Its the difference between a laywer and a PR flack.

I am not sure which is the more dangerous mind you.

I see Blair as honest but deluded - I really think he believed all the balderdash he spoke

LOL ! 😀

*speechless*

(which doesn't happen very often btw)

Mmm. Thing is, Blair certainly wasn't honest but I don't think he was as universally crooked as some, he'd lie when he thought that was what was needed to get the job done but not as a default option. So dishonest but not outright crooked. Occasionally out of his ****ing mind though which is probably worse than crooked, on balance- I think TJ's half right, he really does seem to think he was fundamentally in the right.

Now David Cameron does seem to be one of those guys who just doesn't really accept that the truth is better than a lie, he lies for convenience as a first choice, like Donald Rumsfeld, and he really doesn't seem to care who knows it. He's not dishonest as a means to an end like Blair, he's just generally dishonest.

Or such is my kneejerk opinion, which I can't justify any more than saying "That's how it seems to me".

Ernie - remember he had a direct line to god who told him he was right. So any acknowledged lies were "white lies" for the grater good and I think he really has convinced himself that going into Iraq was the right thing to do for the right reasons - and that the intel before really did justify the invasion on grounds of the WMD. Its just that the intel was wrong.

As I say - I really think he is capable of that level of self delusion - hence the weird idea he could be a middle east peace envoy. Not even semni detached from reality but in the next field. A deluded man.

Jaysus lads, look at it this way, you could have Cowan and Fianna Fail 😐

TJ I find it totally astonishing that you choose a day when it has been shown [i]yet again[/i] that Blair blatantly lied to his colleagues and the cabinet, parliament, the British people, the Iraqi people, and the UN, in connection with the most important decision a prime minister can ever make, to claim that he was fundamentally honest. As I have often said on here, he is a liar, a cheat, a charlatan , and a fraud, and he [i]will[/i] go down in history as the prime minister who told lies.

I agree that he undoubtedly morally justifies telling lies on the basis that it achieves want he wants, but don't all liars do that ? And once you apply that justification to one thing, then it is easily applied to all things.

And you are wrong to suggest that [i]he personally believed[/i] the claim he made that Iraq should be attacked immediately, even before the UN inspectors under Hans Blix had completed their work, because of a [b][i]"growing threat"[/i][/b] from Iraq's alleged WMD. If you followed the Chilcot Iraq inquiry (which is made up of self-confessed Zionists and personal foreign policy advisors to Blair btw) you will have seen yesterday that Blair sent a memo to Bush stating he believed that the WMD threat did[i][b]"not seem obviously worse than three years ago"[/b][/i]

He have no doubt at all that Blair himself never believed the WMD bollox, all the evidence was that Iraq had destroyed the chemical weapons provided to them by the United States during the Iraq-Iran war. That was the conclusion which Robin Cook came to, and as Foreign Sec he had access to the same intelligence as Blair. Hans Blix too doubted whether Iraq had any WMDs. Blair deliberately told lies, such as the 45mins claim, [i]precisely[/i] because he had no evidence.

The WMD claim was purely a false excuse which Blair believed would be quickly brushed under the carpet and forgotten. In the same way as the attack on Afghanistan was justified by the claim that its only purpose was to arrest Osama bin Laden and put him on trial for 9/11 - Afghanistan was categorically told that it would not be attacked if it handed over Osama bin Laden.

Neither is there any doubt that Blair never believed his own rhetoric that Iraq posed a threat to its neighbours and the region. Blair was fully aware that Iraqi forces were completely unable to operate in the north of their own country. If the government in Baghdad posed no threat to the north of Iraq, how could it possibly pose a threat to its neighbours or the region ? As Robin Cook said, Iraq was attacked because it was weak, not because of the Blair lie that it was powerful. And of course Blair would never have agreed to attack Iraq if he had believed it had WMDs.

Blair is a liar to the very core of his being, lying is a tool to be used for his own personal fulfilment. He has no strongly held beliefs about anything. He has no ideology, which is why he was happy to leave Gordon Brown as chancellor throughout his premiership (an unprecedented arrangement) to provide New Labour's ideological direction.

He is immeasurably more dishonest than Thatcher. Thatcher at least tended to make very clear what she believed in, for example, she fought elections on platforms of privatisation. In contrast Blair, along with the rest of the parliamentary Labour Party, opposed and voted against [u]every single privatisation[/u] carried out by the Tories, and it was on that record that Labour won the 1997 general election. But as soon as he was in power Blair decided that one of the problems confronting Britain was that the Tories had not privatised enough, and he embarked on his own programme of privatisation which Thatcher could only have dreamed of.

And so I could go on ...... the story of Blair is a story of lies in pursuit of personal fulfilment - from the grovelling lies in the letter he wrote to Michael Foot when he was desperate to secure himself a safe Labour parliamentary seat, to the lies he told the world to justify his ambitions to go to war. History will remember him as a liar.

You miss my point ernie -I think he is deluded and a fantasist to such an extent that he believes his lies or many of them at the time he makes them. Or on occasion he knows they are lies but believes them justified. He just has no grip on the truth / reality.

I don't doubt that he told lies by the bucketload - Its just that to him they were either justified or he believed them to be true at the time he made them. I do think his psyche is that skewed / distorted. Sort of baron Münchhausen / toad of toad hall.

I know he is an ideology free zone.