Andy Coulson

7 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Given the behaviour of journalists whilst he was editor of News of the Screws,is this someone who should be employed at the heart of government?
Does the phone hacking not show he is morally bancrupt,as well as a supporter of illegality.

or if you prefer,

I think, if the police find he is guilty of being in on the phone tapping then he should loose his job, but until then he is Innocent IMO.

7 Sep 2010

sounds like the perfect candidate for an mi5 job dunno

7 Sep 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
sounds like the perfect candidate for an mi5 job

Or to stop Government Ministers falling victim to taps...
But you have to laugh, don't you. The obvious unease of the Opposition front bench as Mrs May was reminding them that when Alan Johnson was Home Secretary, they dealt with the claims "fully" and now they are saying that a full enquiry should once again be held.
The Opposition have lost credibility on this. Their tactic is to disrupt as much of Government as they can to score cheap points rather than come up with credible policies.

7 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Given the behaviour of journalists whilst he was editor of News of the Screws,is this someone who should be employed at the heart of government?
Does the phone hacking not show he is morally bancrupt,as well as a supporter of illegality.

or if you prefer,

I think, if the police find he is guilty of being in on the phone tapping then he should loose his job, but until then he is Innocent IMO.
If he didnt know what his journalists were doing,which i doubt,isn't he therefore incompetent,and obviously not up to the job?
I do not believe you could hold him responsible for the actions of others under him. If they kept it quite, how could he know
Using this logic a prime minister would not last for very long, every time a minister had to resign over sleaze so should the prime minister

7 Sep 2010

My honest answer to that kaz would be, I don't know, and I would have to stand by my original comment, that if he is found to be guilty of some involvement then he deserves all he gets. I am not keen on the modern trial by Media frenzy.

7 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
My honest answer to that kaz would be, I don't know, and I would have to stand by my original comment, that if he is found to be guilty of some involvement then he deserves all he gets. I am not keen on the modern trial by Media frenzy.

Oh, I thought we as a country fought long and hard for the right to be tried by our peers? Sounds like the perfect definition.
Or should we call it - Hoist by his own petard? Sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander? Live by the sword - die by the sword? Or good old Mrs DoAsYouWouldBeDoneBy :giggle:
As has been said - he's either guilty of complicity or incompetent by not knowing about it and stopping it. either way - perfect candidate for any role in government. He must fit right in.

7 Sep 2010

Quote by foxylady2209
My honest answer to that kaz would be, I don't know, and I would have to stand by my original comment, that if he is found to be guilty of some involvement then he deserves all he gets. I am not keen on the modern trial by Media frenzy.

Oh, I thought we as a country fought long and hard for the right to be tried by our peers? Sounds like the perfect definition.
Or should we call it - Hoist by his own petard? Sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander? Live by the sword - die by the sword? Or good old Mrs DoAsYouWouldBeDoneBy :giggle:
As has been said - he's either guilty of complicity or incompetent by not knowing about it and stopping it. either way - perfect candidate for any role in government. He must fit right in.
I am not sure two wrongs make a right
I think, what we may see as bad moral judgement may be different to him doing anything illegal

7 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
If he didnt know what his journalists were doing,which i doubt,isn't he therefore incompetent,and obviously not up to the job?

Does every parent know what their children are doing once they leave the house?

7 Sep 2010

I assume that essex is trying to make the point that anyone in a position of authority does have to afford a certain amount of trust to those he's responsible for, to conduct themselves in an appropriate way.
Say Andy Coulson did ask where the information came from to one of the journalists he was managing and the journalist replied 'my source'. Then Mr Coulson asked if it was a legal source and the journalist lied or avoided giving a direct answer. Should he still be held responsible for a member of his staffs lie/avoidance? TBH I don't know if journalists are bound to reveal their sources to an editor anyway.
Given the cut-throat business of journalism, is it any surprise they use tactics that are at best unsavoury, to obtain an advantage over other papers and other journalists?
Who feeds this over-sensationalised market?
As long as he had taken 'reasonable steps' to ensure that the information was acquired legally, or is at least plausibly deniable, then I fail to see how they hope to pursue any kind of case.
I guess time will tell. dunno

As for the question should he be at the heart of government, well I'm sure he's no more or less corrupt and self-serving than some others that have gone before him and possibly are employed now. Some people will always be driven to appear to be the best, obtain more power or feather their own nest regardless of who they trample on to do so. sad

To paraphrase Gore Vidal .........
Anyone who seeks to work in high government office should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so.

7 Sep 2010

Quote by easy
I assume that essex is trying to make the point that anyone in a position of authority does have to afford a certain amount of trust to those he's responsible for, to conduct themselves in an appropriate way.

Thank you.

7 Sep 2010

Quote by easy
I assume that essex is trying to make the point that anyone in a position of authority does have to afford a certain amount of trust to those he's responsible for, to conduct themselves in an appropriate way.
Say Andy Coulson did ask where the information came from to one of the journalists he was managing and the journalist replied 'my source'. Then Mr Coulson asked if it was a legal source and the journalist lied or avoided giving a direct answer. Should he still be held responsible for a member of his staffs lie/avoidance? TBH I don't know if journalists are bound to reveal their sources to an editor anyway.
Given the cut-throat business of journalism, is it any surprise they use tactics that are at best unsavoury, to obtain an advantage over other papers and other journalists?
Who feeds this over-sensationalised market?
As long as he had taken 'reasonable steps' to ensure that the information was acquired legally, or is at least plausibly deniable, then I fail to see how they hope to pursue any kind of case.
I guess time will tell.
As for the question should he be at the heart of government, well I'm sure he's no more or less corrupt and self-serving than some others that have gone before him and possibly are employed now. Some people will always be driven to appear to be the best, obtain more power or feather their own nest regardless of who they trample on to do so.
To paraphrase Gore Vidal .........
Anyone who seeks to work in high government office should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so.

If only I could have written my thoughts on the matter as clearly and eloquently
:thumbup:

8 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
That kind of depressing view of politicians makes me few i have met have been decent people trying to do their duty.
Suggesting that all are corrupt or that poor standards are par for the course just ensures we accept those who do break rthe rules.

Oh, I don't know. Expect only the worst of politicians and when it happens, you won't be disappointed....

8 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
...............
That kind of depressing view of politicians makes me few i have met have been decent people trying to do their duty.
Suggesting that all are corrupt or that poor standards are par for the course just ensures we accept those who do break rthe rules.

I didn't realise that I had said that all politicians were corrupt. confused

If what I posted came across as that then I do appologise. redface

That was not the intent.
I do know that some work very hard in the positions they have for the good of the masses, however I'm sure you'll agree that, as in any kind of role, there's those that are in it predominantly for their own personal gains and to satisfy their own needs.
It's not a negative view, nor is it a positive view. I feel it's a realistic view given what I understand of human nature.
I will say that I can take a slightly negative view of people at times, but then I'm always pleasantly surprised by them and seldom get a nasty shock from their behaviour. :lol2: ;)

9 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Given the behaviour of journalists whilst he was editor of News of the Screws,is this someone who should be employed at the heart of government?
Does the phone hacking not show he is morally bancrupt,as well as a supporter of illegality.

or if you prefer,

I think, if the police find he is guilty of being in on the phone tapping then he should loose his job, but until then he is Innocent IMO.
If the police find he is guilty the legal system will have taken a radical turn for the worse...

9 Sep 2010

Quote by GnV
sounds like the perfect candidate for an mi5 job

Or to stop Government Ministers falling victim to taps...
But you have to laugh, don't you. The obvious unease of the Opposition front bench as Mrs May was reminding them that when Alan Johnson was Home Secretary, they dealt with the claims "fully" and now they are saying that a full enquiry should once again be held.
The Opposition have lost credibility on this. Their tactic is to disrupt as much of Government as they can to score cheap points rather than come up with credible policies.
The police told Alan Johnson they'd doen their job. It turns out they hadn't. Embarassing for the police, and their boss, Boris 'knobgag' Johnson, but hardly a problem for ALan Johnson or Labour.

9 Sep 2010

Quote by easy
I assume that essex is trying to make the point that anyone in a position of authority does have to afford a certain amount of trust to those he's responsible for, to conduct themselves in an appropriate way.
Say Andy Coulson did ask where the information came from to one of the journalists he was managing and the journalist replied 'my source'. Then Mr Coulson asked if it was a legal source and the journalist lied or avoided giving a direct answer. Should he still be held responsible for a member of his staffs lie/avoidance? TBH I don't know if journalists are bound to reveal their sources to an editor anyway.
Given the cut-throat business of journalism, is it any surprise they use tactics that are at best unsavoury, to obtain an advantage over other papers and other journalists?
Who feeds this over-sensationalised market?
As long as he had taken 'reasonable steps' to ensure that the information was acquired legally, or is at least plausibly deniable, then I fail to see how they hope to pursue any kind of case.
I guess time will tell.
As for the question should he be at the heart of government, well I'm sure he's no more or less corrupt and self-serving than some others that have gone before him and possibly are employed now. Some people will always be driven to appear to be the best, obtain more power or feather their own nest regardless of who they trample on to do so.
To paraphrase Gore Vidal .........
Anyone who seeks to work in high government office should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so.

Funny how the Crichel Down rules have gone out of fashion.
WHo approved the invoices at NotW for the work of Mulcaire and his colleagues?

9 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
Given the behaviour of journalists whilst he was editor of News of the Screws,is this someone who should be employed at the heart of government?
Does the phone hacking not show he is morally bancrupt,as well as a supporter of illegality.

or if you prefer,

I think, if the police find he is guilty of being in on the phone tapping then he should loose his job, but until then he is Innocent IMO.
If the police find he is guilty the legal system will have taken a radical turn for the worse...
I think most people here will have known exactly what I meant, as I suspect did you. Untill they investigage we shall not know the truth.

9 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
........
I think, if the police find he is guilty of being in on the phone tapping then he should loose his job, but until then he is Innocent IMO.

If the police find he is guilty the legal system will have taken a radical turn for the worse...
Must admit I did think the same thing but (only just) manages to stop myself posting. redface

Sorry Blue. :giggle:
If I was a cynical man I wouldn't hold much stead in any police investigation. If it has been decided that his appointment is for the good of the country (at best :dry: ), then it can always be 'suggested' by those who pull strings, what the findings should be. sad

Purely in the interest of the nation of course. ;)

9 Sep 2010

Quote by easy
........
I think, if the police find he is guilty of being in on the phone tapping then he should loose his job, but until then he is Innocent IMO.

If the police find he is guilty the legal system will have taken a radical turn for the worse...
Must admit I did think the same thing but (only just) manages to stop myself posting. redface

Sorry Blue. :giggle:
If I was a cynical man I wouldn't hold much stead in any police investigation. If it has been decided that his appointment is for the good of the country (at best :dry: ), then it can always be 'suggested' by those who pull strings, what the findings should be. sad

Purely in the interest of the nation of course. ;)
I have every faith in our boys in blue finding the truth of the matter

21 Jan 2011

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.

21 Jan 2011

Quote by HnS
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

22 Jan 2011

G the practice of releasing bad news on a busy news day is both common and longstanding quoting one example doesn't excuse another, every party/government does point are you trying to make?That our M.P.'s and governments have no shame?..I think we all knew 'New Labour' is run by an awful bunch of cynics ? I think most of us have figured that out,it is I think you'll find one of the things they have in common with the that you can show us some smoke and glittery things and we'll forget what the subject was and wander off.
The fact that Coulson was appointed in the first place shows an appalling lack of judgement by Cameron, that he has had to leave so early in his tenure (not I would add the first example) only confirms this.
Coulsons appointment shows one thing....that Cameron and his government are prepared to risk any kind of ridicule and questions to keep certain sections of our media Coulsons appointment was an appointment of outstanding idiocy is/was apparent to anybody,what Cameron received in return is something perhaps we'll never know.

22 Jan 2011

So far, as I am aware, Coulson has not been proved guilty of anything. He has had a trial by media, live by the sword die by it. But as regards his job, in my view he is still Innocent until prov-en guilty.

22 Jan 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
So far, as I am aware, Coulson has not been proved guilty of anything. He has had a trial by media, live by the sword die by it. But as regards his job, in my view he is still Innocent until prov-en guilty.

He will of course come to trial (or not) he will of course be found guilty or innocent*,the question about the wisdom of appointing him in the first place still remains.
*The truth is however that whatever the weight of evidence suggesting he was fully complicit in the illegal tapping of hundreds of peoples phones (and there is much)he is unlikely to ever come to trial....someone else has already carried that particular can and I doubt that the powers that be want it opened again.

22 Jan 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
So far, as I am aware, Coulson has not been proved guilty of anything. He has had a trial by media, live by the sword die by it. But as regards his job, in my view he is still Innocent until prov-en guilty.

He will of course come to trial (or not) he will of course be found guilty or innocent*,the question about the wisdom of appointing him in the first place still remains.
*The truth is however that whatever the weight of evidence suggesting he was fully complicit in the illegal tapping of hundreds of peoples phones (and there is much)he is unlikely to ever come to trial....someone else has already carried that particular can and I doubt that the powers that be want it opened again.
If it is found that the weight of evidence is not Strong enough to convict him of any crime, then we must presume him to be innocent, and therefore competent to do his job unprejudiced by others preconceptions

22 Jan 2011

I with Blue on this Staggs.
Everyone talked to says that Andy Coulson was brilliant in his job, very popular and an inspiration. I haven't seen a negative comment about him other than of course the issues concerning the phone tapping which, as Blue has said, is completely unproven. Even Alastair Campbell, when interviewed today on SkyNews, was complimentary about him - less so about Cameron of course who he blames for just about everything (including no doubt, the fall of Bliar from grace and Joan of Arc burning at the stake!).
Campbell himself of course is no stranger to the pressures of this job. He left when it all got too pressured. Coulson has a young family and the constant media attention must surely take it's toll eventually. Life's too short and a young family needs it's father figure. He'll not be much good in a box.

22 Jan 2011

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?

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

22 Jan 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
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?

22 Jan 2011

Quote by GnV
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......