Jeremy Hunt

smod · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:28 am

According to Nick Robinson:

Quote:

PM set to tell Marr that after Hunt gives evidence to Leveson he will act if there was breach of ministerial code. Won't satisfy critics

Despite the fact Leveson has told him it's not for him to decide. Why can't Hunt give his evidence to a select committee instead? Does Cameron really need another human shield for a longer period. Or, is he terrified of exposing his relationship to Murdoch? Or, most of his cabinet aren't fit for purpose?

Daley Mayle · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:36 am

Well done to Leveson to stand up to both political and media pressure. It is supposed to be an independent judicial inquiry and not to be swayed by demands of self-serving politicians and media who want to move the story along. Imagine what the Mail would say if this was a NL politician who was in the frame and trying to get his side of the argument pushed ahead of other people?

Esqui · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:22 am

Cameron says he doesn't think Hunt has broken the ministerial code. Not that it's his job to decide, but he will decide anyway.

oboogie · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:12 pm

Esqui wrote:

Cameron says he doesn't think Hunt has broken the ministerial code. Not that it's his job to decide, but he will decide anyway.

I've just watched Cameron on the Andrew Marr show and I'm no clearer what his position is. From his perspective what a wasted opportunity. If he really was any good at PR he could have used it to repair the government's reputation or at least do some damage limitation, instead he fumbled it and looked an incompetent fool.

satnav · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:52 pm

If a senior member of staff in an organisation was accused of behaving improperly surely the first thing that would happen would be for the chief executive of that organisation to make inquiries to see if the claims had any substance to them. Has Cameron seen any of the emails that Hunt sent or received? Has Cameron had a meeting with Hunt to discuss the allegations? If Cameron has carried out his own inquiry or received assurances from Hunt that he has not done anything wrong then Cameron will look extremely foolish if Hunt is ultimately found to have acted improperly.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:35 pm

It's just inept.

Bones McCoy · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:08 am **Posts:** 7344

satnav wrote:

If a senior member of staff in an organisation was accused of behaving improperly surely the first thing that would happen would be for the chief executive of that organisation to make inquiries to see if the claims had any substance to them. Has Cameron seen any of the emails that Hunt sent or received? Has Cameron had a meeting with Hunt to discuss the allegations? If Cameron has carried out his own inquiry or received assurances from Hunt that he has not done anything wrong then Cameron will look extremely foolish if Hunt is ultimately found to have acted improperly.

That's not how "Gentlemen" behave though.
If another "gentleman" impunes Hunt's honour then they end up taking pot shots at each other at dawn.
Under any other circumstances we're expected to take Hunt's word as he's out better and a good sort of chap.

Cameron's act of "finding him innocent without hearing evidence" is the tail end of a long tradition.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:01 pm

Or horsewhipped on the steps of his club.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:04 am

This is what can happen when you pass on market-sensitive information. Not exactly hung, drawn and quartered, but would finish Hunt's career:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 15563.html

Quote:

Ian Hannam, one of the City's biggest deal makers, has quit as chairman of capital markets at JPMorgan Cazenove after being fined £450,000 by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

Mr Hannam, who is advising Xstrata on its $90bn (£56bn) merger with Glencore, will leave once that deal is completed in the summer. He is appealing against the FSA fine.

The FSA said Mr Hannam had sent out emails to two potential clients in Kurdistan talking about a possible bid for his client Heritage Oil and later a new oil find by the company. This was inside information which he should not have disclosed, the watchdog said.

Bones McCoy · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:08 am **Posts:** 7344

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Or horsewhipped on the steps of his club.

Though only a man of means can afford the fees for that sort of luxury.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:21 am

An oik wouldn't own a horsewhip.

Daley Mayle · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:02 pm

A true gentleman would have retired to a side room at his club then order a decanter of the finest Scotch and a Webley revolver from the crusty old waiter who having served Mr Hunt would lock the door behind him as he left the room.

smod · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:40 pm

Expect Cameron's Commons statement on this at 3:30. Cheers Mr. Bercow.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:41 pm

Bercow's good, isn't he?

smod · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:47 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Bercow's good, isn't he?

It's very good of him. Nice bit of payback considering how often Cameron treats him with his brand of Bullingdon disdain.

Jeremy Hunt

Who is online