Worried David Cameron postpones appearance before Leveson inquiry

by Guest 13.05.12 18:42

Oh Dear, pampers at the ready..................

Worried David Cameron postpones appearance before Leveson inquiry 110921

Worried David Cameron postpones appearance before Leveson inquiry

May 13 2012 By Mark Aitken

Worried David Cameron postpones appearance before Leveson inquiry David-cameron-image-2-995177327

David Cameron Image 2

DAVID Cameron has put off his appearance before the Leveson inquiry amid mounting panic in Downing Street over the phone-hacking scandal.

The Prime Minister is said by friends to be “deeply nervous” about the probe into links between politicians and newspaper executives, which has already caused him acute embarrassment.

Rebekah Brooks, the former chief executive of News International, revealed last week that Cameron signed off phone texts to her with the message LOL, thinking it meant “lots of love”.

The inquiry has seriously implicated one of the Prime Minister’s favourite cabinet ministers, Jeremy Hunt. The Culture Secretary was facing renewed calls to resign this weekend over claims he colluded with newspaper executives.

Chancellor George Osborne is also now likely to be summonsed after fresh details emerged of his close contacts with News International.

Cameron is said to be preparing “night and day” for his appearance before Lord Justice Leveson, which had been expected in the next week or so.

But sources say he will not now give evidence until next month after asking for more time to prepare.

He has also requested that he is questioned after Tony Blair and Gordon Brown give their evidence.

That way, he can explain his strategy of cosying up to newspaper executives by pointing to the fact that Blair and Brown admitted doing the same thing when they were PM, insiders revealed.

Cameron’s relationship with News International has come increasingly under the spotlight as the inquiry looks at claims that there was a deal between the Tories and Rupert Murdoch over the media mogul’s bid for full control of BSkyB.

“It’s all he thinks about,” said a source close to the Prime Minister.

“He’s terrified of getting somthing wrong, or being caught off guard.

“He knows that if he fluffs his appearance it could be devastating.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2012/05/13/worried-david-cameron-postpones-appearance-before-leveson-inquiry-86908-23857894/

by monkey mind 13.05.12 19:04

He can run but he can't hide His Pinocchio nose can be seen from the next county.

And speaking of pampers. They have a lot in common with politicians and both should be changed regularly, for the same reason....

by Snifferdog 13.05.12 22:24

monkey mind wrote:He can run but he can't hide His Pinocchio nose can be seen from the next county.

And speaking of pampers. They have a lot in common with politicians and both should be changed regularly, for the same reason....

Worried David Cameron postpones appearance before Leveson inquiry 2631910524

Worried David Cameron postpones appearance before Leveson inquiry 1214444319

Good one Monkey Mind! Worried David Cameron postpones appearance before Leveson inquiry 110921

by **Tony Bennett** 13.05.12 23:00

candyfloss wrote:Oh Dear, pampers at the ready..................

Worried David Cameron postpones appearance before Leveson inquiry

May 13 2012 By Mark Aitken

David Cameron Image 2

DAVID Cameron has put off his appearance before the Leveson inquiry amid mounting panic in Downing Street over the phone-hacking scandal.

The Prime Minister is said by friends to be “deeply nervous” about the probe into links between politicians and newspaper executives, which has already caused him acute embarrassment.

Rebekah Brooks, the former chief executive of News International, revealed last week that Cameron signed off phone texts to her with the message LOL, thinking it meant “lots of love”.

The inquiry has seriously implicated one of the Prime Minister’s favourite cabinet ministers, Jeremy Hunt. The Culture Secretary was facing renewed calls to resign this weekend over claims he colluded with newspaper executives.

Chancellor George Osborne is also now likely to be summonsed after fresh details emerged of his close contacts with News International.

Cameron is said to be preparing “night and day” for his appearance before Lord Justice Leveson, which had been expected in the next week or so.

But sources say he will not now give evidence until next month after asking for more time to prepare...

This is absolutely unbelievable.

Labour left office in 2010 with the country having accumulated almost unimaginable debt levels, one Minister admitting to his Conservative successor: 'Good luck. There's no money left'.

The country is back in recession.

Most of the eurozone countries are likely to be in recession for the rest of the year, and the euro itself could be months away from collapse.

Unemployment is getting ever nearer 3 million - with one million talented, educated youngsters aged under 25 out of work.

And our Prime Minister is working 'night and day' and needs 'more time to prepare' because of threats made to him by Rebekah Brooks, ordering him to set up a review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann???

A review, moreover, that has spent £2-million plus, got nowhere, and is only 25% complete. After maybe £20 million or more has already been spent by the PJ, Leicestershire Police, Control Risks Group, Metodo 3, Red Defence International, Kevin/Richard Halligen, Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley etc. - to absolutely no avail, with 20-odd faces of male and female suspects to look for but not one single fact about who took her, nor where in the world we should be looking for her.

Can this be right...that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, instead of sorting out our serious economic and other problems, is losing sleep and needs weeks more preparation time because of threats made to him by Rupert Murdoch's right-hand woman over Madeleine McCann???

The Prime Minister said 'Yes' to the SY Review, Theresa May said 'Yes', Sir Paul Stephenson said 'Yes', Commander Simon Foy said 'Yes', D.C.I. Redwood said Yes', just - as it were - like a row of dominos, the first domino having been casually flicked over by a mere touch from Rebekah Brooks's fingernail...

by Guest 13.05.12 23:09

Yep, all this money thrown at the review, looking at psychics and dreamers, whilst cutting or stopping peoples disability benefits. So what if you have lost a limb says Duncan Smith angry

..........

500,000 to lose disability benefit

[bits snipped from whole article]

Half a million people are set to lose disability benefits as the Government pushes ahead with plans to rid the system of abuse and fraud, Iain Duncan Smith says.

The rigorous new process being introduced by Mr Duncan Smith could lead to those without limbs, including former soldiers, having their payments reduced as their everyday mobility is not undermined by their prosthetic limbs.

The Work and Pensions Secretary says: “It’s not like incapacity benefit, it’s not a statement of sickness. It is a gauge of your capability. In other words, do you need care, do you need support to get around. Those are the two things that are measured. Not, you have lost a limb...”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9263453/500000-to-lose-disability-benefit.html

by The Slave 13.05.12 23:09

It's staggering isn't it?
What does Brookes know. ? I'll tellyou what.
Everything.
She's the female Mandelson.
She knows where all the bodies are buried.. so to speak.

by Guest 13.05.12 23:26

Perhaps Mr Cameron is hoping that by postponing for a month, that Mr Leveson has a short memory span like the rest of the witnesses who have appeared, and won't remember what happened a month before. big grin

by Angelique 14.05.12 0:14

My guess is Cameron is now frantically bargaining with Brookes (I wonder how good her hand is).

Oh would now be good time to have their phones hacked?

Will they end up fighting like rats in a bag?

I can't wait!

by aiyoyo 14.05.12 3:12

He must have plenty skeletons in the closet , otherwise why should he worry and spent sleepless nights over it?

Apart from the recent revelation that he needs to defend himself for, how does he know what else he is going to be asked that he needs plenty time to prepare ?
Surely the farcical over the mccanns is straight forward -he only has to answer 1) how come he yielded to RB pressure? 2) Who is running the country - him or Brooks?
Lastly, what are the deals he made with Murdoch? And, concerning Yard's review, who set the remit - was it Met , Cameron, or Brooks?

In the first place were other witnesses granted time extension or only the PM given this special privilege?
In an Inquiry of this kind every witness should be treated equally without distinction of office or rank. Allowing him preferential treatment defeats the objective of the Inquiry as they are giving him time to confer with RB to synchronize their stories before he comes on.
They have to strike while the iron is hot else the impact and result will not be the same.

by **PeterMac** 14.05.12 7:23

And last night the Bond movie about the evil manipulative news tycoon, bent on world domination, Elliot Carver was on BBC 4.
Coincidence, or careful placement ?
He came to a very sticky end, eaten by a machine of his own making.
Can we live in hope ?

by **tigger** 14.05.12 7:27

aiyoyo wrote:He must have plenty skeletons in the closet , otherwise why should he worry and spent sleepless nights over it?

Apart from the recent revelation that he needs to defend himself for, how does he know what else he is going to be asked that he needs plenty time to prepare ?
Surely the farcical over the mccanns is straight forward -he only has to answer 1) how come he yielded to RB pressure? 2) Who is running the country - him or Brooks?
Lastly, what are the deals he made with Murdoch? And, concerning Yard's review, who set the remit - was it Met , Cameron, or Brooks?

In the first place were other witnesses granted time extension or only the PM given this special privilege?
In an Inquiry of this kind every witness should be treated equally without distinction of office or rank. Allowing him preferential treatment defeats the objective of the Inquiry as they are giving him time to confer with RB to synchronize their stories before he comes on.
They have to strike while the iron is hot else the impact and result will not be the same.

I think we're being too hard on DC. In the first place this cosy relationship with NI all started with Tony Blair. It was Tony Blair who made a trip to Australia to talk to Murdoch before he was elected (someone may be able to find the exact date because I think it wasn't long after he was made leader of the Labour party). The fine Italian hand as they say - of Peter Mandelsson can be seen here. IMO.

Gordon Brown had to continue this relationship if he wanted to stay in power although he may have thought that bread and games would be enough for the plebs. That is, creating an ever more dependent underclass and open borders to get the votes in.
What a thought! If he'd been nicer to RB he might have won the election!
Between them, Blair and Brown ruined the country and blaming DC isn't fair. The global downward slide started to bite in 2007 and the circulation numbers of all newspapers were on a downward slide in 2007.
A story which would run and run was manna from heaven, I once read that a newspaper with a portrait of Diana on the front page could almost double their circulation that day.

So I think it's right for DC to go last as the whole thing started when the great Messiah Tony Blair got into bed with Murdoch. Stick with DC is my advice, TB has just announced that he would like to get back into politics and I wouldn't be surprised if he does pop up again - after all he is the godfather of Murdochs daughter.
Blair is a war criminal imo. Opened to borders to all and sundry - human rights applied to convicted foreign criminals so they could live on the state -
Brown sold the gold reserve for bargain basement prices and the thought of the inarticulate Milliband representing Britain - enough!

There's sleaze in every government. Democracy always was a highly flawed method of government. But giving the press the power they have now, is imo entirely down to the Blair years.
If DC is heard after Blair and Brown, he's going to look squeaky clean in comparison.

by monkey mind 14.05.12 8:27

tigger wrote:[
There's sleaze in every government. Democracy always was a highly flawed method of government. But giving the press the power they have now, is imo entirely down to the Blair years.
If DC is heard after Blair and Brown, he's going to look squeaky clean in comparison.
Democracy by necessity depends upon choice, not the illusion of choice.

by **tigger** 14.05.12 8:32

monkey mind wrote:
tigger wrote:[color=blue]war criminal imo. Opened to borders to all and sundry - human rights applied to convicted foreign criminals so they could live on the state -
Brown sold the gold reserve for bargain basement prices and the thought of the inarticulate Milliband representing Britain - enough!

Nice analysis.

There's sleaze in every government. Democracy always was a highly flawed method of government. But giving the press the power they have now, is imo entirely down to the Blair years.
If DC is heard after Blair and Brown, he's going to look squeaky clean in comparison.

Democracy by necessity depends upon choice, not the illusion of choice.

Ah yes Monkeymind, I don't know who said this but: You cannot have democracy without an educated population.

by bobbin 14.05.12 9:22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjwJ2JSEjzM&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Particularly interesting declaration from Murdoch, on Fox news, exposing ( as from 1.15 on the video ) how he uses his global power through ownership of the press and news broadcasts to fix deals between politicians and himself.

Having watched Cameron in Parliament, I do believe he was trying to get the BSkyeB contract to Murdoch, as by previous
arrangement and exchange for political favour.

His removal of Vince Cable, his replacement with Jeremy Hunt (and all that is now emerging), the downgrading of the powers
of Ofcom and BBC were transparently exposing of a sinister deviation from fair and honest brokering.

In my opinion, if it had not been for the weight of the public backlash, the opposition parliamentary challenges and public petitions, he would have pushed the BSkyeB deal through to Murdoch.

I am unsure as to whether the McCann review is a set up for a whitewash or not.

Is it part of a deal which carries over from the previous government.? At present it appears to be an unconvincing effort with no serious conviction behind its remit.

The question is who gains, and who stands to lose in what is clearly a politically motivated case.

However, one ray of light, I do think, for the moment at least, that the Leveson inquiry is being managed, and put clearly in the public arena for open scrutiny, by Lord Leveson and Mr. Jay Q.C. in a very professional and unclouded manner.

If this is a sign of 'democracy and political answerability' being pulled back into line, perhaps the cover up of the McCann case will be exposed by default rather than by design, sooner rather than later.

by Guest 14.05.12 12:52

I have done a quick google search this morning and not one other paper is reporting the news of this postponement thinking

I did however find this from a few days ago in the Guardian about lawyers allegedly preparing David Cameron for his appearance......

Why lawyers can't coach witnesses

If lawyers are preparing David Cameron for his appearance before Lord Justice Leveson, they are on perilous ground

Richard Moorhead

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 May 2012 15.40 BST

David Cameron is reportedly receiving legal tutoring from a "small group of leading lawyers" as he prepares to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry. Described by the Independent as "legal briefings", such sessions raise the interesting question of what lawyers can and can't do to prepare witnesses in the giving of evidence.

In the US, professional rules typically permit coaching because it 'invites' the witness to provide truthful evidence favourable to the lawyer's client. The rules in England and Wales are tougher. The conventional line is that lawyers may "familiarise" their witness with the process of giving evidence, but not coach them on the content of it. An interesting question is whether and when preparation of the prime minister, if that is what the small group of leading lawyers is engaged in, might stray into coaching rather than familiarisation.

For barristers, the Bar's Code of Conduct is pretty clear (para. 705): "A barrister must not... ...rehearse practise

or coach a witness in relation to his evidence." The Solicitors' Code of Conduct is considerably less clear; witness

coaching may amount to attempting to influence a witness and so misleading of a court but it is not clearly prohibited.

Even so, case law may bind both professions. As Lord Justice Judge (now Lord Chief Justice) pointed out in R v Momodou [2005] EWCA Crim 177, prohibition of coaching does not simply protect against mendacious clients with over-zealous lawyers. The risks of innocent contamination of witnesses are significant:

"The witness should give his or her own evidence, so far as practicable uninfluenced by what anyone else has said, whether in formal discussions or informal conversations. The rule reduces, indeed hopefully avoids any
possibility, that one witness may tailor his evidence in the light of what anyone else said, and equally, avoids
any unfounded perception that he may have done so. These risks are inherent in witness training. Even if the
training takes place one-to-one with someone completely remote from the facts of the case itself, the witness
may come, even unconsciously, to appreciate which aspects of his evidence are perhaps not quite consistent
with what others are saying, or indeed not quite what is required of him. An honest witness may alter the
emphasis of his evidence to accommodate what he thinks may be a different, more accurate, or simply better
remembered perception of events."

Judge LJ's opinion applies to criminal cases, but the Bar has suggested in its guidance that his prescriptions also apply to civil cases. Permissible witness familiarisation is limited. It includes familiarising witnesses with court layout; the likely sequence of events; the roles of each participant; and the nature of cross-examination. The aim is to avoid witnesses being taken advantage of by the process and not being able to give their best evidence at the hearing. Similarly, witnesses can be advised to listen carefully to the questions and to be brief and clear in their evidence.

It is a little difficult to see the needs of a prime minister being very acute here. He may need to have the Leveson inquiry's procedures explained to him (he may well be too busy to have been watching proceedings online,

but a couple of downloads would soon fix that). More pertinently, simulations, including cross-examination, can be conducted but only to familiarise a witness with the process of cross examination. Importantly, none of the material used in any cross-examination should bear any similarity whatever to the issues that the witness is required to give evidence on. In other words his tutoring team can practice cross-examination but not Leveson evidence.

Whether an experienced politician needs such practice is debatable. What is clear, however, is that the form of this practice must be carefully managed. It should not be used to rehearse, practise or coach a witness in relation to his (or her) evidence. To this end, the witness is to be prohibited from discussing the content of their actual evidence. If the witness tries to discuss it then they are to be warned and such warnings noted. Interestingly, also, those involved in the training should not have any personal knowledge of the matters in issue in the hearing. This poses a rather interesting problem for the trainers in this case. It would be difficult to argue they did not have knowledge of at least some of the evidence in the Leveson proceedings. How then can they participate in training without risking that knowledge contaminating their approach to training or the prime minister's approach to giving evidence? This, coupled with his limited need to become accustomed to the nature of the proceedings, might suggest any lawyers contemplating such training might have been wiser not to participate.

It is not known, of course, what form the 'legal tutoring' is actually taking. If his legal team apply the guidance applicable to the Bar in civil and criminal cases, they should disclose any process of witness familiarisation to Lord Justice Leveson and other core participants. His team should also keep records of those present at the training sessions as well as documentation of the programme itself. This should include copies of case studies, for instance.

Most participants in the justice system, be they parties, victims, witnesses or defendants, do not have the resources necessary to get meaningful witness familiarisation. Victim support, in particular, is limited. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing how long Cameron has spent on this process, who has paid for it and the nature of the tuition. Perhaps the participants should have been warier of their involvement in sessions that could have crossed the line between witness familiarisation and coaching, even if unconsciously.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/may/08/cameron-tutored-for-leveson

by Ollie 14.05.12 15:07

I don't know why Cameron has delayed appearing at the LI. The McCanns lied under oath at the LI (arguido does not mean suspect) and they are just a pair of child neglectors.

David Cameron is the Prime Minister, so surely he should be able to lie as much as he likes to save his a***.

by Snifferdog 14.05.12 20:47

candyfloss wrote:I have done a quick google search this morning and not one other paper is reporting the news of this postponement

I did however find this from a few days ago in the Guardian about lawyers allegedly preparing David Cameron for his appearance......

Why lawyers can't coach witnesses

If lawyers are preparing David Cameron for his appearance before Lord Justice Leveson, they are on perilous ground

Richard Moorhead

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 May 2012 15.40 BST

David Cameron is reportedly receiving legal tutoring from a "small group of leading lawyers" as he prepares to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry. Described by the Independent as "legal briefings", such sessions raise the interesting question of what lawyers can and can't do to prepare witnesses in the giving of evidence.

In the US, professional rules typically permit coaching because it 'invites' the witness to provide truthful evidence favourable to the lawyer's client. The rules in England and Wales are tougher. The conventional line is that lawyers may "familiarise" their witness with the process of giving evidence, but not coach them on the content of it. An interesting question is whether and when preparation of the prime minister, if that is what the small group of leading lawyers is engaged in, might stray into coaching rather than familiarisation.

For barristers, the Bar's Code of Conduct is pretty clear (para. 705): "A barrister must not... ...rehearse practise

or coach a witness in relation to his evidence." The Solicitors' Code of Conduct is considerably less clear; witness

coaching may amount to attempting to influence a witness and so misleading of a court but it is not clearly prohibited.

Even so, case law may bind both professions. As Lord Justice Judge (now Lord Chief Justice) pointed out in R v Momodou [2005] EWCA Crim 177, prohibition of coaching does not simply protect against mendacious clients with over-zealous lawyers. The risks of innocent contamination of witnesses are significant:

"The witness should give his or her own evidence, so far as practicable uninfluenced by what anyone else has said, whether in formal discussions or informal conversations. The rule reduces, indeed hopefully avoids any
possibility, that one witness may tailor his evidence in the light of what anyone else said, and equally, avoids
any unfounded perception that he may have done so. These risks are inherent in witness training. Even if the
training takes place one-to-one with someone completely remote from the facts of the case itself, the witness
may come, even unconsciously, to appreciate which aspects of his evidence are perhaps not quite consistent
with what others are saying, or indeed not quite what is required of him. An honest witness may alter the
emphasis of his evidence to accommodate what he thinks may be a different, more accurate, or simply better
remembered perception of events."

Judge LJ's opinion applies to criminal cases, but the Bar has suggested in its guidance that his prescriptions also apply to civil cases. Permissible witness familiarisation is limited. It includes familiarising witnesses with court layout; the likely sequence of events; the roles of each participant; and the nature of cross-examination. The aim is to avoid witnesses being taken advantage of by the process and not being able to give their best evidence at the hearing. Similarly, witnesses can be advised to listen carefully to the questions and to be brief and clear in their evidence.

It is a little difficult to see the needs of a prime minister being very acute here. He may need to have the Leveson inquiry's procedures explained to him (he may well be too busy to have been watching proceedings online,

but a couple of downloads would soon fix that). More pertinently, simulations, including cross-examination, can be conducted but only to familiarise a witness with the process of cross examination. Importantly, none of the material used in any cross-examination should bear any similarity whatever to the issues that the witness is required to give evidence on. In other words his tutoring team can practice cross-examination but not Leveson evidence.

Whether an experienced politician needs such practice is debatable. What is clear, however, is that the form of this practice must be carefully managed. It should not be used to rehearse, practise or coach a witness in relation to his (or her) evidence. To this end, the witness is to be prohibited from discussing the content of their actual evidence. If the witness tries to discuss it then they are to be warned and such warnings noted. Interestingly, also, those involved in the training should not have any personal knowledge of the matters in issue in the hearing. This poses a rather interesting problem for the trainers in this case. It would be difficult to argue they did not have knowledge of at least some of the evidence in the Leveson proceedings. How then can they participate in training without risking that knowledge contaminating their approach to training or the prime minister's approach to giving evidence? This, coupled with his limited need to become accustomed to the nature of the proceedings, might suggest any lawyers contemplating such training might have been wiser not to participate.

It is not known, of course, what form the 'legal tutoring' is actually taking. If his legal team apply the guidance applicable to the Bar in civil and criminal cases, they should disclose any process of witness familiarisation to Lord Justice Leveson and other core participants. His team should also keep records of those present at the training sessions as well as documentation of the programme itself. This should include copies of case studies, for instance.

Most participants in the justice system, be they parties, victims, witnesses or defendants, do not have the resources necessary to get meaningful witness familiarisation. Victim support, in particular, is limited. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing how long Cameron has spent on this process, who has paid for it and the nature of the tuition. Perhaps the participants should have been warier of their involvement in sessions that could have crossed the line between witness familiarisation and coaching, even if unconsciously.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/may/08/cameron-tutored-for-leveson

Personally, I think he was glued to the TV! Rebekah just Worried David Cameron postpones appearance before Leveson inquiry 592854

...

by aiyoyo 15.05.12 5:12

tigger wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:He must have plenty skeletons in the closet , otherwise why should he worry and spent sleepless nights over it?

Apart from the recent revelation that he needs to defend himself for, how does he know what else he is going to be asked that he needs plenty time to prepare ?
Surely the farcical over the mccanns is straight forward -he only has to answer 1) how come he yielded to RB pressure? 2) Who is running the country - him or Brooks?
Lastly, what are the deals he made with Murdoch? And, concerning Yard's review, who set the remit - was it Met , Cameron, or Brooks?

In the first place were other witnesses granted time extension or only the PM given this special privilege?
In an Inquiry of this kind every witness should be treated equally without distinction of office or rank. Allowing him preferential treatment defeats the objective of the Inquiry as they are giving him time to confer with RB to synchronize their stories before he comes on.
They have to strike while the iron is hot else the impact and result will not be the same.

I think we're being too hard on DC. In the first place this cosy relationship with NI all started with Tony Blair. It was Tony Blair who made a trip to Australia to talk to Murdoch before he was elected (someone may be able to find the exact date because I think it wasn't long after he was made leader of the Labour party). The fine Italian hand as they say - of Peter Mandelsson can be seen here. IMO.

Gordon Brown had to continue this relationship if he wanted to stay in power although he may have thought that bread and games would be enough for the plebs. That is, creating an ever more dependent underclass and open borders to get the votes in.
What a thought! If he'd been nicer to RB he might have won the election!
Between them, Blair and Brown ruined the country and blaming DC isn't fair. The global downward slide started to bite in 2007 and the circulation numbers of all newspapers were on a downward slide in 2007.
A story which would run and run was manna from heaven, I once read that a newspaper with a portrait of Diana on the front page could almost double their circulation that day.

So I think it's right for DC to go last as the whole thing started when the great Messiah Tony Blair got into bed with Murdoch. Stick with DC is my advice, TB has just announced that he would like to get back into politics and I wouldn't be surprised if he does pop up again - after all he is the godfather of Murdochs daughter.
Blair is a war criminal imo. Opened to borders to all and sundry - human rights applied to convicted foreign criminals so they could live on the state -
Brown sold the gold reserve for bargain basement prices and the thought of the inarticulate Milliband representing Britain - enough!

There's sleaze in every government. Democracy always was a highly flawed method of government. But giving the press the power they have now, is imo entirely down to the Blair years.
If DC is heard after Blair and Brown, he's going to look squeaky clean in comparison.

I'm not blaming him for the mess UK is in. Basically the whole of Europe is in a complete mess with hugh debt situation and the current climate of voting in new Political leaders is not going to be quick fit to the problem in Europe. Unless manufacturing is brought back to create jobs, the problem is a long term one.

IMO Governments should impose penalties on businesses who outsource manufacturing to China or cheap labour country for their own pocket at the expense of patriotism and nationalism. Governments should implement some sort of regulations to balance up the heavily lopsided economy between Asia and Europe. Corporations and businesses in the western countries that take their manufacturing to the asian countries for optimal profit reason are the root cause of the disparity in the unemployment and economy growth in the East and West.

Margaret Thatcher was guilty of excessive privatization of state-owned industries which is the precursor to UK current problem. Ownership matters. Britain has never taken the issue of ownership seriously enough under governments of every political hue. That (privatization) and the sell-off of big british companies at the cost to national interest - well-being of our great businesses, economy, consumers, and the wider community they serve, compounding the problem, are all contributing factors to the mess we're are left in.

Multinational and International companies acquisition/ merger is a crucial factor in modern day capitalism but it takes away the value-and-moral-driven approach capitalism and turns it into narcissism capitalism. That is the biggest problem today when there is a greater divide of wealth. The disparity gap between the have and have nots has become very radical like north and south poles, where the rich get richer with money going to a very small band of people whose individual wealth can probably feed the entire nation for years, yet the extreme poor are left destitute and homeless and the government's coffer is empty and cant do anything for them. The working class and lower middld class (which is the majority of the people) are left struggling to make ends meet as well as to struggle against every sucking policy and cut-back the government implement.

Having said that Margaret Thatcher like others PM before her got to their position by their own merits and they did what they thought (even mistakenly) was best for the country's interest. Even John Major by comparison is better than those who succeeded him.

Tony Blair is the worst . He should be tried for war crime against Iraq, but lady luck seems to shine on him and he rides from one crisis to another and somehow manages to emerge from all of it totally unscratched. Just look at the MP Expenses Scandal - there was nothing on him because his expenses got lost in the abyss.

While Tony Blair is guilty of courting Murdoch, and his successor TB got engaged to Murdoch, there is no need for DC to follow on the self serving tradition and end up marrying Murdoch, and at the same time acquire a concubine "Rebekah Brooks" thrown in as part of the family.
Going to bed with the media tycoon and his enablers to get to No. 10 is bad enough, did he have to have to pander to their whim and fancy to keep the job at No. 10? The answer is resounding NO.

Who he chooses as friends is one thing, but allowing them to influence his official capacity as PM is quite another thing.
Allowing them to "persuade" him into making policies changes, staff changes, or to blackmail him into taking hasty crime review decision demonstrates blatant stupidity on his part not to draw a line between private and official.

Basically he lacks ability to distinguish on the fundamental "principle" of what is right and what is wrong. He cant do right by Great Britain if he cant draw a distinct line between self interest and national interest. What is right for his self interest is wrong for the national interest, that at the very least is the basic "principle" a country's leader should bear in mind.

by **tigger** 15.05.12 8:33

Aiyoyo wrote:

While Tony Blair is guilty of courting Murdoch, and his successor TB got engaged to Murdoch, there is no need for DC to follow on the self serving tradition and end up marrying Murdoch, and at the same time acquire a concubine "Rebekah Brooks" thrown in as part of the family.
Going to bed with the media tycoon and his enablers to get to No. 10 is bad enough, did he have to have to pander to their whim and fancy to keep the job at No. 10? The answer is resounding NO.

Who he chooses as friends is one thing, but allowing them to influence his official capacity as PM is quite another thing.
Allowing them to "persuade" him into making policies changes, staff changes, or to blackmail him into taking hasty crime review decision demonstrates blatant stupidity on his part not to draw a line between private and official.

Basically he lacks ability to distinguish on the fundamental "principle" of what is right and what is wrong. He cant do right by Great Britain if he cant draw a distinct line between self interest and national interest. What is right for his self interest is wrong for the national interest, that at the very least is the basic "principle" a country's leader should bear in mind. Unquote

Great post! I have to agree with you. Imo John Major was the last real PM and both he and Mme Thatcher got there on merit from humble beginnings. Of course they made mistakes but Major left the UK prosperous and with plenty of money in the bank. I think Thatcher's major mistake was to think that owning a home would make them more responsible people, it just made them greedy.

The whole Euro disaster- actually having a single currency is fine and trade and interest rates unified to help trade along, but all the rest is a waste of space and time imo.
I have been told that the greatest motivation for the Iraq war was the fact that Saddam was going to accept euros for his oil. That would endanger the oil dollar, the only thing keeping the US going. I think one needs a counterbalance to the dollar.
Gadaffi, apart from ploughing back most of the wealth into the country (have you ever seen publicity about the great aquifer?) had no debts to the IMF and wanted to bring in his own currency, the golden dinar. That was his undoing.
The Greek crisis is apparently on the same lines, the US doesn't want a currency anywhere that might threaten the dollar. Such as it is. Greece only has about 12 million people who now appear to be owing a couple of million per head. So was it selected as a weak link in the chain to destabilise?

Since history is barely taught these days we are doomed to repeat it. (was that Churchill?). Does anyone know how shamelessly America bled Britain dry during WWII? How they propped up the European economies and especially Germany with Marshall Aid. Britain got nothing - paying off debts on material which often had never arrived.
After the war, Britain was too poor to act on their own inventions which were hijacked by the US. (E.g. jet engine, vertical take off aircraft etc.).
Oof! Got off on a rant there.

Back to Cameron. An ardent Conservative friend of mine said right from the start that he's a lightweight. Trying to please all of the people all of the time.
I actually think he means well - he does at least seem to love the country, which can't be said of his predecessors.

But your are right, to jump to the command of a mere newspaper, because they think they can make or break you - what was going to be her next step? Dictate international policy?
The way she uses her right hand in that chopping (off with his head?) gesture is most unpleasant.

by aiyoyo 15.05.12 17:34

@ Tigger
But your are right, to jump to the command of a mere newspaper, because they think they can make or break you - what was going to be her next step? Dictate international policy?
The way she uses her right hand in that chopping (off with his head?) gesture is most unpleasant.

Well, DC was courting trouble with his close liaison with her. She is UK version of the bunny boiler. I am sure she's used to getting her ways, so watch out DC! Someone like her with a fierce ambition using ruthless and callous method of hacking to sell papers in order to suck up to her boss isn't going to go down quietly.

I wonder why RB is so devoted to the mccanns cause that she personally pressurized the PM, and why did DC make the decision so hastily without even having to deliberate on it. I don't think it was to protect Theresa May or that RB has anything drastic on Theresa May that DC took the decision. I suspect DC made the decision for self preservation reason because if RB were to put Theresa May on the front page every day I am sure she (Theresa May) will spill the beans on DC and it wont be pleasant.

If speculation is true that DC is receiving legal tutoring, lawyers involved in that risks facing perverting the course of justice IMO.

by Beanie 16.05.12 20:37

The Slave wrote:It's staggering isn't it?
What does Brookes know. ? I'll tellyou what.
Everything.
She's the female Mandelson.
She knows where all the bodies are buried.. so to speak.

I believe you are so right!