Friday, July 22, 2011

Cameron - I Did Not Have Inappropriate Conversations With That Woman

Last Tuesday the prime minister, David Cameron said no less than 11 times that he "did not have inappropriate conversations with that woman" [Rebekah Brooks], then perhaps he should be forced to reveal just what conversations he did have and has had with Rebekah Brooks and the rest of the "Chipping Norton Set".

Last Christmas the pressure was mounting on Cameron and and his then chief of communications, Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks over alleged phone hacking at the now defunct Sunday newspaper the News of the World. When Rebekah Brooks was editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson was her deputy editor and they were said to be "close" and inseparable. They both (and David Cameron) expect the public to believe that they did not know about the papers despicable phone hacking of the Dowler family, the relatives of dead soldiers and the relatives of victims of the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London. Hacking was so widespread at the paper, that as editor Rebekah Brooks would have been signing off the large cheques to private detectives for "services" rendered to the NotW on a regular basis, does she really expect people to believe that she just signed those cheques without once questioning where they were going and what the paper was paying for? As editor, Brooks's reporters were coming back to her with sensational stories on various people and again, Brooks and Coulson are asking the public to believe that they never asked the source of those stories? Despite them having to be cleared by the paper's legal department in case of any libel accusations?

There are two possibilities, 1).Rebekah Brooks and her sidekick Andy Coulson did not know, in that case she was the world's worse and thickest editor who let her journalists do and write what they want without checking up and thus putting the Murdoch empire and the paper in serious jeopardy with all the legal implications that holds, and if so, what was Murdoch paying her for? and why did he promote her to CEO of News Corp? Or 2)..Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson knew all along what was happening and they are now lying through their back teeth.

Vince Cable the Business Secretary was then duped into believing that two reporters from the Daily Telegraph were his constituents, during their taped conversation Cable said that he "was going to declare war on Murdoch" the result of this was that Cameron removed the BSkyB take-over bid from him and gave the brief to Jeremy Hunt instead. Hunt's impartiality was questionable right from the start as Hunt is a known admirer of Rupert Murdoch.

With all this going on the prime minister, David Cameron attended a dinner party at the Oxfordshire home of Rebekah Brooks last Christmas and among the other guests was James Murdoch, strangely enough, Andy Coulson the friend of both Cameron and Brooks was not present at that party. The prime minister has now been asked 11 times if he discussed the BSKyB deal with Brooks and Murdoch and as he will deny outright that he did not discuss the deal and will only say "I did not have inappropriate conversations" with Rebekah Brooks we can safely assume that the prime minister did in fact discuss the BSkyB deal. Cameron says he asked to be removed from all the decision process of that deal, well sorry that is not good enough, we need to know if he discussed this deal with Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch at her home. Since the last election Mr Cameron met with executives from News International 27 times. Among those meetings was two in four days with Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive. What was so important that Cameron had to meet with Brooks twice in four days and was Coulson and or the BSkyB bid discussed?

 The prime minister should also reveal if he has ever discussed the BSkyB deal with his Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt.

 Jeremy Hunt has said:

"Rather than worry about Rupert Murdoch owning another TV channel, what we should recognise is that he has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person because of his huge investment in setting up Sky TV, which, at one point, was losing several million pounds a day.

We would be the poorer and wouldn't be saying that British TV is the envy of the world if it hadn't been for him being prepared to take that commercial risk. We need to encourage that kind of investment."
After saying that how on earth could Cameron give the decision to Jeremy Hunt to make? Obviously his impartiality was under great question-ability. Jeremy Hunt said  he was going to refer the deal to the Competition Commission which would have taken some time, however, he then suddenly decided to take assurances from the Murdochs over the deal and then suddenly Jeremy Hunt changed his mind and was actually within hours of giving the go ahead for the Murdochs to purchase the remaining  BSkyB shares which would have given him a monopoly on news in this country.

It is obvious that Cameron has spoken to Hunt and Brooks and Murdoch about the BSkyB bid and the public must be told what exactly it was that he discussed, he said the discussions were not inappropriate, well any mention at all of the BSkyB bid would have been deemed as inappropriate.

The prime minister's integrity, honesty and judgement is at question and either the prime minister, David Cameron has appalling judgement or he is a liar, or maybe he is both, whatever he is, he is doing great harm to this country's reputation because under cameron's stewardship we have seen Britain's top police man Sir Paul Stephens resign and also his deputy John Yates after both men become embroiled in the phone hacking scandal. From the prime minister down no one seems to want to accept blame or responsibility for their own actions and we have a reached the ludicrous situation when the prime minister, or the the country's top police officers do not seem to be able to tell right from wrong then we are in dire trouble.

 Since he became PM he and his chancellor have caused confusion and mayhem, every single reform they have tried to introduce from the NHS to education, to welfare, to the police, defence or forestry has resulted in utter chaos. When problems have arise abroad neither the Pm or Foreign secretary, William Hague have been able to get a grip on them which has resulted in our citizens lives being put at risk abroad and Osborne has the country's economy on a collision course with absolute catastrophe and now we have the country's top police resigning and people being arrested all over the place. 

In just over one year this country has been reduced to a complete mess by Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and all the rest of them, they have made a complete hash of running this country. This is what happens when we have weak ineffective leadership from incompetent people trying to punch above their weight placed in a position of government, this government did not win the election, Cameron and Osborne just got lucky.The PM has no idea what it is he is doing and allows people like Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks and other assorted businessmen many from the banking sector (who caused this country's problems) too much influence over the formation of policy and the running of the country. Cameron is discovering that you cannot run the country by popular public opinion and every action he takes has further consequences and seems completely oblivious to the messes he is creating. David Cameron is simply not up to the job, he has no head for detail and has no idea what is happening in the country half the time. Everything the man does is questionable at best and dowright incompetent at worse.

David Cameron's position has become untenable and before further revelations emerge he would do well to resign and call an immediate general election because there is now no way out for him and he knows it, what is about to emerge from Coulson about Cameron will finish him off so he may just as well go now and save this country further grave problems of his making. He is in this hacking scandal right up to his crimson ears!
Cameron can say he "did nit have inappropriate conversations with thet woman" all he likes, the truth will come out and prove otherwise, he should go and  go now, he is a walking disaster waiting to happen, the man is a buffooon and a liability.


Robert said...

Lot of questions to be answered not only with Cameron, but Blair, Brown, and to some degree's Miliband.

It's shocking the power this man has on MP's.

Gracie Samuels said...

Robert it is OK to ask the questions but I can't see what questions Miliband has to answer, he has freely admitted he has been to a couple of social engagements held by Murdoch, but he hasn't done any deals with them, this is why he has been able to hold Murdoch to account in a way no other leader has felt they were able to. I take your point about Blair (and also Thatcher), but I doubt even those two were stupid enough to allow themselves to be compromised so badly the way Cameron has. For the record I always hated the way Blair spoke of Murdoch and I think the labour party would have wont the 1997 election without Murdoch's papers. In 1992 when labour lost the election and the Sun had personally attacked Neil Kinnock, I would not allow anyone to bring a copy of that paper in my house. I really detest everything that Murdoch appears to stand for, over the past few weeks I have heard him described as an anti-establishment figure who hates class and privilege, if that is so, then why did he allow his news group to become involved with Cameron and all that the toff stood for? He is the walking embodiment of class and privilege in this country! If Murdoch is like this, then why does he allow his papers to "attack" disabled people and tar them all with the "fraudulent claim" brush? Why does he allow his papers to attack genuine claimants of welfare? Sorry I just cannot see Murdoch as philanthropic, not by any stretch of the imagination, I think this is just another media story put about by his hacks who are trying to rewrite history that really Rupert Murdoch is not this rabid right winger after all, it doesn't wash with me.

As for Brown, well I think Brown has been a genuine victim of Murdoch's, obviously Brown trusted him and thought the man had good values, he fell for Murdoch's spin like a lot of others did. I think GB is genuinely hurt and dismayed at the callous way Rupert Murdoch could sanction the treatment of someone he had previously thought of as a "friend" and obviously Rupert Murdoch regrets what his papers did to brown, or he would not have said what he said last week about Mr Brown.

What this saga does tell us is that politics and politicians and the press and police had become far too close than is good for the efficient running of the country and here is where Miliband is completely different, he owes Murdoch absolutely nothing and so can be the person that can introduce a more healthier press - political system.