NOTW Hacking [spoiler]

Cameron will survive this.

Depends if someone drops him in it. I would be sure that one of Brooks, Coulson, Murdoch and others will have the killer fact available.

The question is will they use it? To avoid jail? Maybe. Thats the only way he will have to go if one of the big players dobs him in with having lied to parliament.

I think 8-1 is a realistic odds. However he is weak boith in his own party and with the LibDems. It could be a saving tactic for the lib dems, dump clegg, force vote of no confidence in Cameron, foprce election. Look at us – we want to clean things up and we will have no truck with that sleazebag.

TandemJeremy – Member

Cameron will survive this.

Depends if someone drops him in it. I would be sure that one of Brooks, Coulson, Murdoch and others will have the killer fact available.

The question is will they use it? To avoid jail? Maybe. Thats the only way he will have to go if one of the big players dobs him in with having lied to parliament.
[/quote]

If the killer fact exists it will be worth more as influence when this has all blown through (as it inevitably will) than a get out of jail card.
The jail (if it happens), will be ‘soft time’, the fallout for the dobber will be the real ‘hard time’.

That’s the way I reckon it will play out unfortunately 👿

Brooks, Coulson the Murdochs need each other. Any cracks that appear in their joint denials will open up like a butterflied chicken, and they know it.

Cameron has set a decent tone and moved at a good pace on this. Any shit that sticks to him will get rolled in glitter and given to milliband for Christmas.

Cameron will survive just fine. No-one in the Conservative party is about to turf him out and force a general election. The Lib Dems know that they would be eaten for breakfast by Labour. So unless he has actually done something illegal (and trusting the wrong people is still not a crime in this country) the worse he will face is having to eat some humble pie, which he has already done and is adept at doing.

Interesting factoid: the Labour Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, back in 2006 knew that there was widespread illegal phone hacking, going much beyond the royal phone hacking charges, and chose to do nothing:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110720/debtext/110720-0002.htm#110720110000002

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Tom Watson

When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?”

To this James Murdoch answered:

“No, I was not aware of that at the time.”

In their statement, Myler and Crone claim:

“In fact, we did inform him of the ‘for Neville’ email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor’s lawyers.”

they informed him of the Email – they don’t claim he had seen it, or that he was aware of the full contents.

Very poor question by Tom Watson – Murdoch did not claim he was not aware of the existence of the email – he claimed he was not aware of and had not seen the full email transcript.

had Watson asked another question, he may have got another answer, but it seems Murdochs claim was technically correct, all down to the use of the word full by Watson

How unsurprising that you have come to James Murdoch’s defence Zulu-Eleven, whilst at the same taking a swipe at Tom Watson who more than any other MP, has exposed the criminality which occurred in News International.

Although I find your suggestion that James Murdoch as Chairman and Chief Executive of News Corporation in the UK, wouldn’t have bothered fully reading an email of crucial importance, in relation to a situation which was forcing him to write mega cheques as hush money, completely absurd.

Still, only you could come on here and try to defend the Murdochs, most Tories wouldn’t even bother trying – so well done you for giving it your best shot.

Coulson is being investigated over possible perjury during he Sheridan trail.

Ernie – read my comment again you numpty, are you saying I’m wrong?

I said that Watsons question was poorly worded and that, on appearance, Murdochs statement was technically correct, now, are you disputing that? or are you going to rely on childish ad hominem attacks?

You have NO evidence for your assertion that Murdoch fully read the Email, nobody involved has actually stated he has, they only stated they made him “aware of the email” – thats the way it goes, the literal truth.

Its no different from Bill Clintons statement that he had never had “sexual relations” with Lewinsky, anyone with a bit of nouse could tell that was a specific legal phrase, and that Clinton had avoided lying by telling us the literal truth!

You’re doing your normal trick of extrapolating one statement into something completely different. Either he lied, or he didn’t, and you’ve got NO evidence whatsoever that he did, so get off the bandwagon.

Now, how about the latest revelations on the Daily Mirror eh? Red Ed must be shitting himself that things are about to come back and bite him on the Arse when both his PR blokes are now in the firing line over hacking allegations.

I said that Watsons question was poorly worded and that, on appearance, Murdochs statement was technically correct, now, are you disputing that?

Well, to use a word that you like to use, it is clearly you who is the numpty, if you can’t figure out what I’m saying. I’ll repeat what I said again, and we’ll see if you can understand what I mean – although I’m not holding out much hope.

You have come to James Murdoch’s defence Zulu-Eleven, whilst at the same taking a swipe at Tom Watson, who more than any other MP, has exposed the criminality which occurred in News International. Only you could come on here and try to defend the Murdochs, most Tories wouldn’t even bother trying.

With reference to your claim : “You have NO evidence for your assertion that Murdoch fully read the Email” I have already pointed out that as Chairman and Chief Executive of News Corporation in the UK, and the guy who was writing cheques worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to keep people quiet, it is inconceivable that James Murdoch would only have fully read an email he had received concerning the situation – you think he just read a couple of sentences and thought “nah, I can’t be bothered” ? ffs.

Now, how about the latest revelations on the Daily Mirror eh? Red Ed must be shitting himself ……

Absolutely classic Zulu-Eleven tactic …… when faced with a complete inability to defend yourself, which is most of the time, you resort to your usual diversionary strategy and attempt to change the subject.

You also throw in the “Red Ed” comment for good measure just to remind everyone that Ed Miliband is in fact an left-wing extremist ….. Marxist-Leninist no doubt.

You sound more like an American neo-conservative nut every day mate. You should get a job with Fox News 💡

Ernie – once again with the ad hominem 🙄

it is inconceivable

To you maybe! tell me, how many thousands of employee’s and law firms all across the world do you employ?

Regardless, the people who supposedly dispute his evidence to the select committee have alleged only that they “made him aware of the email” they have not alleged anything that he read the email – so, I’ll ask you again, can you actually point to any actual evidence that Murdoch lied?

Now, finally can you actually understand and accept that (Saint) Tom Watsons question was spectacularly badly phrased?

Had he been a Tory MP, you’d be saying that was deliberate 😉

Stop using your fancy grammar school latin Zulu-Eleven – I don’t know what you’re on about. I went to an ILEA comprehensive.

I went to a Comp as well Ernie – however the difference is, I listened, rather than thinking an ability to turn wood meant I was going to be the next Jesus 😉

Z-11 and Ernie, I don’t want to intrude too much into your discussion, but feel I must correct at least one inaccuracy, which may or may not alter the course of your interchange:

Tom Watson did not say “the full Neville email”, what he said was “the ‘for Neville’ email”, as this is what is has come to be known as, as it had ‘for Neville’ written on it.

Tom Watson knew exactly what he was asking.

which may or may not alter the course of your interchange

Not at all. I can’t be arsed to argue with Zulu-Eleven. I restrict my comments to him purely on the basis of little digs and personal insults ….. which is more than he’s worth 🙂

I don’t have a clue what the exact words used on the Select Committee were. Nor do I care.

Whimbrel – really interesting what you’ve just raised

BBC and main media reports are that Watson used the words:

At the committee hearing on Tuesday, Labour’s Tom Watson asked Mr Murdoch: “When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14242763

Hansard’s uncorrected version seems to say:

when you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the “for Neville” e- mail, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?

The BBC Site’s got the question on video, and I’ll be honest that and say I’m left none the wiser as to which word Watson used, or indeed which word Murdoch thought he said – and I’m afraid the correct answer to the two different questions could be VERY different

I think that one’s going to be argued for ever!

I think that one’s going to be argued for ever!

You and Ernie have made a good start. 🙂

I think the video in the link you just posted is quite clear at 9 secs.

So, it’s all kicking off again and the Sarah Payne thing isn’t the worst I’ve read…

What’s the worst you’ve read then?