Andy Coulson

22 Jan 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
The weight of evidence will never be tested....I really have no interest in Coulson any further than what his employment says about Camerons judgement...it would appear that both Blue and G would like me to have a different debate....as I say I'm really not interested in Coulson per se, I don't care about how good he was at his job,or wether there is any comparison to Alistair Campbell or not (nice try G)
I don't care if he's guilty or innocent.....BUT if your bank employed a suspected fraudster as your personal banker,what would you do?....would you question their judgement or wait for the trial??? would you say O.K. fine but he's good at his job and at least he's not Nick Leeson ?? or would you move your account elsewhere?

As Coulson is an innocent man, there is no judgment to be made by Cameron, other than can he do his job of work
Would you like to answer my question ?? or does your answer show that you really think that just possibly the prime ministers judgement here looks a little dodgy.....you know very well that the only consideration is not Coulsons guilt...but you choose not to acknowledge it .....you have your own business what would you do if put in the position of choosing between a perfectly qualified suspected criminal and a perfectly qualified man with no legal questions hanging over him ?? who would you employ?
AFAIK, there is no legal requirement for a person not convicted of anything to disclose allegations about their conduct as would be the case under the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders legislation within the time specified limits.
In this case, AC is not convicted of anything and therefore to deny him a job when he is the best person for it would be just down right daft.
There is nothing wrong in the PM's judgement. He was the best man for the job and may well have just fallen on his sword for the better good like the immediate past Chief Secretary to the Treasury (David Laws MP) did amid certain breaking news about expenses claims.

22 Jan 2011

Quote by fabio
The prime minister's communications chief Andy Coulson has today resigned, blaming coverage of the News of the World phone hacking scandal
Mr Coulson denied any knowledge of phone hacking but resigned saying, as editor, he took "ultimate responsibility".
Labour MPs accused Mr Coulson of deliberately announcing his resignation on a busy news day - when former Labour PM Tony Blair is before the Iraq Inquiry, and in the aftermath of Alan Johnson's shock resignation as shadow chancellor.

Not quite as dramatic as spin doctor Jo Moore though as the twin towers burned... link
actually there is a big difference between the two....
The Jo Moore comment was very oppotunist (notice I didn't say it was right or wrong)... in reacting to an event that had happened where you knew it was so big that nothing else was really likely to be reported...
This (Andy Coulson) event today was very Calculated..... in the fact that his resignation letter was actually given on wednesday evening... and they thought that with Blair going back to Iraq enquiry on friday and the Alan johnson Allergations and resignation, that those would be much much bigger stories and they could then bury this story as to not be front page news......
Same meat, different gravy fabs.

22 Jan 2011

Quote by GnV
The weight of evidence will never be tested....I really have no interest in Coulson any further than what his employment says about Camerons judgement...it would appear that both Blue and G would like me to have a different debate....as I say I'm really not interested in Coulson per se, I don't care about how good he was at his job,or wether there is any comparison to Alistair Campbell or not (nice try G)
I don't care if he's guilty or innocent.....BUT if your bank employed a suspected fraudster as your personal banker,what would you do?....would you question their judgement or wait for the trial??? would you say O.K. fine but he's good at his job and at least he's not Nick Leeson ?? or would you move your account elsewhere?

As Coulson is an innocent man, there is no judgment to be made by Cameron, other than can he do his job of work
Would you like to answer my question ?? or does your answer show that you really think that just possibly the prime ministers judgement here looks a little dodgy.....you know very well that the only consideration is not Coulsons guilt...but you choose not to acknowledge it .....you have your own business what would you do if put in the position of choosing between a perfectly qualified suspected criminal and a perfectly qualified man with no legal questions hanging over him ?? who would you employ?
AFAIK, there is no legal requirement for a person not convicted of anything to disclose allegations about their conduct as would be the case under the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders legislation within the time specified limits.
In this case, AC is not convicted of anything and therefore to deny him a job when he is the best person for it would be just down right daft.
Can I suggest you read the question again
As to your point...surely this is a little different if there are no applicants just an approach with the offer of a job,neither Blue or yourself seem willing or able to answer the simple question,does this whole thing place a question mark over the prime ministers judgement...it doesn't matter how I phrase it,how many times I ask it,how often I state my lack of interest in Coulson.
Simple question....
Does the appointment of Andy Coulson to a prominent position as adviser to the government and Mr Cameron exhibit a lack of good judgement by David Cameron ?
It's not difficult,it requires you to type at most three letters,can one of you do me the honour of giving an answer..... I will of course be reserving the right to ask supplementary questions later lol

22 Jan 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
The weight of evidence will never be tested....I really have no interest in Coulson any further than what his employment says about Camerons judgement...it would appear that both Blue and G would like me to have a different debate....as I say I'm really not interested in Coulson per se, I don't care about how good he was at his job,or wether there is any comparison to Alistair Campbell or not (nice try G)
I don't care if he's guilty or innocent.....BUT if your bank employed a suspected fraudster as your personal banker,what would you do?....would you question their judgement or wait for the trial??? would you say O.K. fine but he's good at his job and at least he's not Nick Leeson ?? or would you move your account elsewhere?

As Coulson is an innocent man, there is no judgment to be made by Cameron, other than can he do his job of work
Would you like to answer my question ?? or does your answer show that you really think that just possibly the prime ministers judgement here looks a little dodgy.....you know very well that the only consideration is not Coulsons guilt...but you choose not to acknowledge it .....you have your own business what would you do if put in the position of choosing between a perfectly qualified suspected criminal and a perfectly qualified man with no legal questions hanging over him ?? who would you employ?
I can not discriminate against some one suspected of some thing, I must judge them on how qualified they are to do the job

22 Jan 2011

I am deeply disapointed by the replies I've received thus far and can only thank those debating with me for their unwillingness to answer a plain simple question,and their apparent inability to read the question asked as opposed to the one they think/hope I've asked .....Blue I was quite specific and careful to ensure I asked about two equally well qualified candidates the fact that you chose to ignore this is a shame....blind faith and an unwillingness to question are poor character traits , I hadn't thought you possessed them , I am as I say disappointed

22 Jan 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Can I suggest you read the question again
As to your point...surely this is a little different if there are no applicants just an approach with the offer of a job,neither Blue or yourself seem willing or able to answer the simple question,does this whole thing place a question mark over the prime ministers judgement...it doesn't matter how I phrase it,how many times I ask it,how often I state my lack of interest in Coulson.
Simple question....
Does the appointment of Andy Coulson to a prominent position as adviser to the government and Mr Cameron exhibit a lack of good judgement by David Cameron ?
It's not difficult,it requires you to type at most three letters,can one of you do me the honour of giving an answer..... I will of course be reserving the right to ask supplementary questions later

If the "question" (the thing in bold red letters) was actually constructed in English, you might have a better chance at getting an answer... :lol:
The standard of English these days is declining drastically. I blame years of Labour tinkering with the 3R's wink

22 Jan 2011

Quote by GnV
Can I suggest you read the question again
As to your point...surely this is a little different if there are no applicants just an approach with the offer of a job,neither Blue or yourself seem willing or able to answer the simple question,does this whole thing place a question mark over the prime ministers judgement...it doesn't matter how I phrase it,how many times I ask it,how often I state my lack of interest in Coulson.
Simple question....
Does the appointment of Andy Coulson to a prominent position as adviser to the government and Mr Cameron exhibit a lack of good judgement by David Cameron ?
It's not difficult,it requires you to type at most three letters,can one of you do me the honour of giving an answer..... I will of course be reserving the right to ask supplementary questions later

If the "question" (the thing in bold red letters) was actually constructed in English, you might have a chance at getting an answer... :lol:
Again a nice bit of evasion....nevertheless you still seem unwilling to answer...I will assume that is because you cannot find it within yourself to question the sainted David in any way and that everything you post on here is by extension cant and should be ignored....how can you ever claim an honest opinion if you never question. You are it would seem a mountebank, shame on you.
So much for honest debate....I refer you to the following

It would appear that a quote from any of these and the refusal to question their proponents is the only debate we can have.

22 Jan 2011

Oh and B.T.W. and F.Y.I., I have to say, I really don't think I'm the one who's looking foolish here....Now how do you add a poll to someone elses post ????

22 Jan 2011

I thought I had answered the question, as an employer, I can not discriminate against a potential employee on the grounds of many things, race, colour, Creed, age, sex, or, for that matter, speculation, assumption, supposition, guess or opinion of others who believe a possible crime may or may not have been committed by some one.

22 Jan 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Can I suggest you read the question again
As to your point...surely this is a little different if there are no applicants just an approach with the offer of a job,neither Blue or yourself seem willing or able to answer the simple question,does this whole thing place a question mark over the prime ministers judgement...it doesn't matter how I phrase it,how many times I ask it,how often I state my lack of interest in Coulson.
Simple question....
Does the appointment of Andy Coulson to a prominent position as adviser to the government and Mr Cameron exhibit a lack of good judgement by David Cameron ?
It's not difficult,it requires you to type at most three letters,can one of you do me the honour of giving an answer..... I will of course be reserving the right to ask supplementary questions later

If the "question" (the thing in bold red letters) was actually constructed in English, you might have a chance at getting an answer... :lol:
Again a nice bit of evasion....nevertheless you still seem unwilling to answer...I will assume that is because you cannot find it within yourself to question the sainted David in any way and that everything you post on here is by extension cant and should be ignored....how can you ever claim an honest opinion if you never question. You are it would seem a mountebank, shame on you.
So much for honest debate....I refer you to the following

It would appear that a quote from any of these and the refusal to question their proponents is the only debate we can have.

How the fuck can I answer a "question" that seems not to be a question at all? Merely placing a question mark at the end of a string of otherwise individually meaningless random words (which your statement appears to be when read together in the order you have placed them) does not make it good and intelligible English nor does it justify it being labelled a "question" to which I would feel qualified to respond.
However, for the sake of clarity, as I have already stated, Blue has it right; The PM would in my view be exercising terrible judgement if he were only to have regard to those who mischievously place those who would serve their Country and its interests well as thieves and vagabonds and condemn them without trial or due process of law. AC had not been convicted of any offence which would disbar him from serving in the capacity to which he was appointed when DC was Leader of the Opposition nor later in the capacity of Government when DC became PM.
I surely can't be clearer than that. dunno

22 Jan 2011

I apologise ...let me re-phrase
Does the appointment of Andy Coulson to a prominent position as adviser to the government, and to Mr Cameron, exhibit a lack of good judgement by David Cameron ?
Should I perhaps qualify my qualifications for asking, or would you like to qualify your answer in some way.
My punctuation (like that of others) may sometimes be lacking....I don't doubt that you, and everyone else who has read the above, understand my question (and yes it is one) perfectly...the fact that you decided to procrastinate,prevaricate, and generally beat around the proverbial bush will I think have to serve as answer enough.
It would seem that you have lived abroad for far too long, your grasp of english is not, perhaps, what once it was
I await the explanation as to why my command of the language is flawed

22 Jan 2011

Sorry me again (unable to find meek apologetic emoticon)
It's just that, I, ermmm.... well thought of another tack as it where...
Sooooooooooooo just for fun, no prizes given...here goes
If 'call me Dave' were to appoint Vincent Tabak as his chief adviser on engineering tommorrow, would this be a display of poor judgement ??
Now bear in mind the Vince is an innocent, man charged with nothing, convicted in no court of law,yet.
Now I am fully aware that I've given you the opportunity to throw up your arms in disgust at my lack of taste,I'm fully aware that the temptation is for you to use your morasl indignation to duck the question,soooooooo lets asume that's all been done I am suitably contrite.......what for $64,000 is the answer?? will you open the box??? just remember it's only a game after all

22 Jan 2011

Quote by flower411
Sorry me again (unable to find meek apologetic emoticon)
It's just that, I, ermmm.... well thought of another tack as it where...
Sooooooooooooo just for fun, no prizes given...here goes
If 'call me Dave' were to appoint Vincent Tabak as his chief adviser on engineering tommorrow, would this be a display of poor judgement ??
Now bear in mind the Vince is an innocent, man charged with nothing, convicted in no court of law,yet.
Now I am fully aware that I've given you the opportunity to throw up your arms in disgust at my lack of taste,I'm fully aware that the temptation is for you to use your morasl indignation to duck the question,soooooooo lets asume that's all been done I am suitably contrite.......what for $64,000 is the answer?? will you open the box??? just remember it's only a game after all

Yeah ... off at a tangent again !! I suppose this all depends on whether or not you want this country to be run by the gutter press or by the elected representatives.
I hadn`t heard of Vincent until I just googled him and so far I can`t see any reason why he shouldn`t be employed except for the fact that he may be under qualified for the job you are proposing.
Have I missed something ?
The Question is about Mr Camerons judgement ,do you really think he would be wise to employ someone who had been repeatedly pointed to by the press as the potential subject of criminal prosecution,because I think it would be the action of a fool...anyone especially a politician and amongst them especially a party leader or god forbid even a prime minister who really really thought such a thing would just go away is quite patently either insane or a complete and utter moron...I don't think our 'Dave' is either. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO why did he give the estimable Mr Coulson a job ???
I don't expect a reasonable answer to that one either, but I live in hope

22 Jan 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Sorry me again (unable to find meek apologetic emoticon)
It's just that, I, ermmm.... well thought of another tack as it where...
Sooooooooooooo just for fun, no prizes given...here goes
If 'call me Dave' were to appoint Vincent Tabak as his chief adviser on engineering tommorrow, would this be a display of poor judgement ??
Now bear in mind the Vince is an innocent, man charged with nothing, convicted in no court of law,yet.
Now I am fully aware that I've given you the opportunity to throw up your arms in disgust at my lack of taste,I'm fully aware that the temptation is for you to use your morasl indignation to duck the question,soooooooo lets asume that's all been done I am suitably contrite.......what for $64,000 is the answer?? will you open the box??? just remember it's only a game after all

Yeah ... off at a tangent again !! I suppose this all depends on whether or not you want this country to be run by the gutter press or by the elected representatives.
I hadn`t heard of Vincent until I just googled him and so far I can`t see any reason why he shouldn`t be employed except for the fact that he may be under qualified for the job you are proposing.
Have I missed something ?
The Question is about Mr Camerons judgement ,do you really think he would be wise to employ someone who had been repeatedly pointed to by the press as the potential subject of criminal prosecution,because I think it would be the action of a fool...anyone especially a politician and amongst them especially a party leader or god forbid even a prime minister who really really thought such a thing would just go away is quite patently either insane or a complete and utter moron...I don't think our 'Dave' is either. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO why did he give the estimable Mr Coulson a job ???
I don't expect a reasonable answer to that one either, but I live in hope
Very qualified to do the job required of him
He knows the people in the right places

22 Jan 2011

Hi Staggers.
I've been away for a while and I'm pleased to see, upon my return, that you too are back!
Anyway, I'll answer your original question (much as I like the commas in the second I understood it perfectly well without wink

) yes. Yes, indeed. Oh and thrice yes.
Nola x

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I apologise ...let me re-phrase
Does the appointment of Andy Coulson to a prominent position as adviser to the government, and to Mr Cameron, exhibit a lack of good judgement by David Cameron ?
Should I perhaps qualify my qualifications for asking, or would you like to qualify your answer in some way.
My punctuation (like that of others) may sometimes be lacking....I don't doubt that you, and everyone else who has read the above, understand my question (and yes it is one) perfectly...the fact that you decided to procrastinate,prevaricate, and generally beat around the proverbial bush will I think have to serve as answer enough.
It would seem that you have lived abroad for far too long, your grasp of english is not, perhaps, what once it was
I await the explanation as to why my command of the language is flawed

22 Jan 2011

Thank you Nola for your clear unequivocal and obviously correct answer...would anyone else like to join in whilst we're in the answering questions mood ?? no?? oh well

22 Jan 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Thank you Nola for your clear unequivocal and obviously correct answer...would anyone else like to join in whilst we're in the answering questions mood ?? no?? oh well

The bit in bold shows that it is pointless anyone else answering.
Where an answer is a reflection of someone's opinion it is impossible for there to be a correct or incorrect response. Even if we take as read the idea that you are just discussing things 'in your opinion', your own unequivocal statement of one answer being correct, precludes any need for anyone else to reply. To demand more replies is to demand people to validate your own opinion, or else to stand up possibly have their own perfectly valid opinions attacked.
I have an opinion in the matter you have put forward - I see no reason to give it to you.

22 Jan 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
Thank you Nola for your clear unequivocal and obviously correct answer...would anyone else like to join in whilst we're in the answering questions mood ?? no?? oh well

The bit in bold shows that it is pointless anyone else answering.
Where an answer is a reflection of someone's opinion it is impossible for there to be a correct or incorrect response. Even if we take as read the idea that you are just discussing things 'in your opinion', your own unequivocal statement of one answer being correct, precludes any need for anyone else to reply. To demand more replies is to demand people to validate your own opinion, or else to stand up possibly have their own perfectly valid opinions attacked.
I have an opinion in the matter you have put forward - I see no reason to give it to you.
Sometimes I do wonder where peoples sense of humour goes

22 Jan 2011

Quote by flower411
Thank you Nola for your clear unequivocal and obviously correct answer...would anyone else like to join in whilst we're in the answering questions mood ?? no?? oh well

No it doesn`t ....it demonstrates an ability to think without consulting the gutter press for thier approval !
The fact that you feel that a prime minister should base his appointments on the opinions of a bunch of journalists, is just plain weird ......you being all clever and all !!
I wasn't suggesting they consult but merely that Dave notices their existence or is it ok if our pm lives in a little cosseted bubble of artifice ???

22 Jan 2011

Quote by flower411
And before you go off on one !!!
The only reason any journalist ever tapped into anybodies phone conversations is because it sells newspapers .....that`s democracy for you !
If the thicko Sun and News of the World readers didn`t buy it, nobody would provide it !

No I think you'll find it's illegal pointless prying into the private lives of meaningless pointless celebrities..tomato, tomato,potato,potato dunno

22 Jan 2011

bat, home.
Point made very ably by foxy (as is often the case).
Maybe staggs might consider retiring back to the pub which was his preference in an earlier thread some little while back when he lost that round.
The Bliar tactic of thumping the despatch box with an extended digit repeating the same mantra just doesn't wash any more. Politics has moved on.

22 Jan 2011

Ever considered his insistence that my opinion was unequivocally correct may well have been tongue in cheek?

23 Jan 2011

Quote by GnV
bat, home.
Point made very ably by foxy (as is often the case).
Maybe staggs might consider retiring back to the pub which was his preference in an earlier thread some little while back when he lost that round.
The Bliar tactic of thumping the despatch box with an extended digit repeating the same mantra just doesn't wash any more. Politics has moved on.

oh that question btw ...now what was your answer again ???? thought not.....you stick with your rhetoric ....it is so much easier than opinion after all

23 Jan 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
Thank you Nola for your clear unequivocal and obviously correct answer...would anyone else like to join in whilst we're in the answering questions mood ?? no?? oh well

The bit in bold shows that it is pointless anyone else answering.
Where an answer is a reflection of someone's opinion it is impossible for there to be a correct or incorrect response. Even if we take as read the idea that you are just discussing things 'in your opinion', your own unequivocal statement of one answer being correct, precludes any need for anyone else to reply. To demand more replies is to demand people to validate your own opinion, or else to stand up possibly have their own perfectly valid opinions attacked.
I have an opinion in the matter you have put forward - I see no reason to give it to you.
Beautifully put foxy :thumbup:

23 Jan 2011

No, go on, I'll give you that....an absolute stroke of genius lets you all off the hook ....and now a refusal to debate or answer points put to you is a victory.....very good.....now what's that word ?Pyrrhic or what was that other one oh yes cant that I think is my favourite
Or then again I could go with a good old fashioned word like ermmmm bollocks

23 Jan 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
Thank you Nola for your clear unequivocal and obviously correct answer...would anyone else like to join in whilst we're in the answering questions mood ?? no?? oh well

The bit in bold shows that it is pointless anyone else answering.
Where an answer is a reflection of someone's opinion it is impossible for there to be a correct or incorrect response. Even if we take as read the idea that you are just discussing things 'in your opinion', your own unequivocal statement of one answer being correct, precludes any need for anyone else to reply. To demand more replies is to demand people to validate your own opinion, or else to stand up possibly have their own perfectly valid opinions attacked.
I have an opinion in the matter you have put forward - I see no reason to give it to you.
And that I'm afraid foxy is just evasive rubbish ....I have not demanded 'more' replies I have asked for the question to be answered no-one other than Nola has as yet seen fit to answer the I wonder do you choose to post on this forum,would it by any chance be to test your opinion against that of others ? or to try and point to you may believe they're wrong?? or even to see if any one else agrees with you ?? I would suggest that you and everyone else here is ,in part at least,here to 'validate' their opinions.....So ignore my little joke and if you have a view express it.....I will if I disagree attempt to tell you where I think you're wrong...that has always been my understanding of a debate..but I may have been interpreting it wrong

23 Jan 2011

I think people have answered the question, it seams that if the answer is not in line with your thinking, you cant except it dunno

The man was employed on the basis of his qualifications to do his job and not on what crime the media may think he has committed, that seams perfectly correct thing to do.
Now, im off to church wink

23 Jan 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
I think people have answered the question, it seams that if the answer is not in line with your thinking, you cant except it
The man was employed on the basis of his qualifications to do his job and not on what crime the media may think he has committed, that seams perfectly correct thing to do.
Now, im off to church

I'm sorry Blue but that is still the answer to a question I didn't ask....I asked for your opinion on what this says about Mr Camerons judgement I asked very clearly and I have asked repeatedly you and G have refused to answer....What am I then to make of this repeated evasion...why is it such a difficult distinction for you and G to grasp ???

23 Jan 2011

Would it help clear thinking if I pointed out that:
a) The bugging is an established fact.
b) Coulson denied knowledge of the events but admitted responsibility.
Cameron or his advisers obviously felt the risks of the appointment were outweighed by the advantages. I can just imagine a "Yes Minister" discussion along the lines of "dont worry about the proles, hey will forgive you anything now they have seen the back of Labour".

23 Jan 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I think people have answered the question, it seams that if the answer is not in line with your thinking, you cant except it
The man was employed on the basis of his qualifications to do his job and not on what crime the media may think he has committed, that seams perfectly correct thing to do.
Now, im off to church

I'm sorry Blue but that is still the answer to a question I didn't ask....I asked for your opinion on what this says about Mr Camerons judgement I asked very clearly and I have asked repeatedly you and G have refused to answer....What am I then to make of this repeated evasion...why is it such a difficult distinction for you and G to grasp ???
I haven't refused to answer, I have answered - many times but it is not seemingly the answer you wanted hence the continued demand to accept your take on things.
Go back down the pub Staggs. You know you want to. I look forward to your response in the wee small hours after your get back :grin: