Phone Hacking

satnav · **Posted:** Thu May 31, 2012 11:14 am

Is there really any difference between being 'broadly sympathetic' of the bid and being 'supportive of the bid'?

visage · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:05 pm **Posts:** 304

satnav wrote:

Is there really any difference between being 'broadly sympathetic' of the bid and being 'supportive of the bid'?

I think so, yes.

Id say the former implies that you understand the arguments in favour of something, without necessarily agreeing with them. The latter implies understanding *and* agreement.

IMO, of course.

storygirl · **Posted:** Thu May 31, 2012 11:19 am

JH's defense seems to be I am too thick for this job!

crabcakes_windermere · **Joined:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:56 pm **Posts:** 2075

Looks like Osbourne is being dragged into it, whether he likes it or not. Lucky Dave - if Hunt's inevitable sacrifice isn't enough (and after today he can't possibly last much longer) he can now put the already hideously unpopular Gideon in the firing line to save his own arse.

smod · **Posted:** Thu May 31, 2012 11:21 am

Quote:

Hunt: “Can we chat about Murdoch’s Sky Bid. I’m seriously worried we might screw this up. Just been called by James Murdoch, his lawyers are meeting now and saying it calls into question the legitimacy of the whole process from the beginning. Acute bias.”

Osborne: “I hope you like the solution”

Hunt tells Robert Jay QC that he was the “solution”.

Surely now, they have to summon Osborne.

visage · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:05 pm **Posts:** 304

Cameron is going to have to answer the tricky question as to why, given that Cable was forced to withdraw because of bias, he gave the job to Hunt, who was on the record as being equally biased.

Why is it reasonable to claim that Hunt could set aside his personal feelings but impossible for Cable to do the same?

The Red Arrow · **Posted:** Thu May 31, 2012 11:23 am

It's all a matter of circumstance. I'm sure Dave will be broadly sympathetic towards Coulson, but he couldn't possibly support him. Not now. :mrgreen:

mojojojo · **Joined:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:33 pm **Posts:** 4264

Nice.

I hope they ask Hunt if it's usual practice to write people's resignation letters for them. Will his be written for him?

new puritan · **Posted:** Thu May 31, 2012 11:26 am

http://www.redmolotov.com/catalogue/tsh ... shirt.html

crabcakes_windermere · **Joined:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:56 pm **Posts:** 2075

visage wrote:

Cameron is going to have to answer the tricky question as to why, given that Cable was forced to withdraw because of bias, he gave the job to Hunt, who was on the record as being equally biased.

Why is it reasonable to claim that Hunt could set aside his personal feelings but impossible for Cable to do the same?

I just have this sense the whole thing was an enormous stitch up that (thankfully) got derailed. Someone set up Vince with the Torygraph to get him of the case because they knew he was biased against the Murdochs (though ironically probably would have given them impartiality, which might have seen the deal through at least in some form), then they put a man in charge who was itching to sign on the dotted line but (crucially) this wasn't known by the public. As reward, Dave and his policies would have got an easy ride in the Murdoch press and a decent chance of re-taking No. 10 - probably as a solo act when The Saahn et al blame the LDs for everything in the run-up to the next election. And next on the list of Murdoch's demands would have been the proper NHS-reform-level dismantling of the BBC so Sky could move in and sew up the whole shebang.

If the phone hacking story hadn't hit when it did, I seriously think this country would be well on its way to being considerably shitter.

The Red Arrow · **Posted:** Thu May 31, 2012 11:38 am

Love the T shirt.

mojojojo · **Joined:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:33 pm **Posts:** 4264

crabcakes_windermere wrote:

visage wrote:

Cameron is going to have to answer the tricky question as to why, given that Cable was forced to withdraw because of bias, he gave the job to Hunt, who was on the record as being equally biased.

Why is it reasonable to claim that Hunt could set aside his personal feelings but impossible for Cable to do the same?

I just have this sense the whole thing was an enormous stitch up that (thankfully) got derailed. Someone set up Vince with the Torygraph to get him of the case because they knew he was biased against the Murdochs (though ironically probably would have given them impartiality, which might have seen the deal through at least in some form), then they put a man in charge who was itching to sign on the dotted line but (crucially) this wasn't known by the public. As reward, Dave and his policies would have got an easy ride in the Murdoch press and a decent chance of re-taking No. 10 - probably as a solo act when The Saahn et al blame the LDs for everything in the run-up to the next election. And next on the list of Murdoch's demands would have been the proper NHS-reform-level dismantling of the BBC so Sky could move in and sew up the whole shebang.

If the phone hacking story hadn't hit when it did, I seriously think this country would be well on its way to being considerably shitter.

We're lucky that they're as incompetent as they are corrupt and greedy.

visage · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:05 pm **Posts:** 304

Indeed. And to think that all this happened because some twunt hacked Dowlers phone.

Events, dear boy, events.....

mojojojo · **Joined:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:33 pm **Posts:** 4264

Quote:

Patrick Wintour
@patrickwintour

Early possible draft of Hunt resignation letter to PM: "I hope you like the solution".

Quote:

@patrickwintour

Did not Andy Coulson say he had no involvement in News Corps bid at Number 10, yet Hunt is emailing him about Cable's bias and seeking chat

Kevin Clash · **Joined:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:32 am **Posts:** 141

Phone Hacking

Who is online