Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy
Why is it, that those who are supporting Cameron in this, continue to harp on about Labour? I am being constantly accused of raising partisan issues in this thread, when I have merely asked one very relevant question, hundreds of posts ago, about the election. But here we are again, with yet another poster accusing the Labour governemnt of something that they are not being implicated in, other than not taking action when they supposedly could have. This is nothing to do with party politics, but you and others seem intent on making it so and then have the audacity to blame it on others.
|
This is very about party politics. One party is insisting on dragging this to the forefront and scoring party political points. Where are all the quite pertinent questions regarding New Labour's ties to Murdoch and any undue influence back then? Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy
The very reason why people are "banging" on about Coulson, is directly related to his being hired by Cameron, when he should have know full well what his history was. The fact that he was warned by several people (his refusal to neither confirm nor deny that serves only strengthens people's opinion of his complicity) of very real risks of being associated with Coulson, but decided to hire him anyway, raises even more questions: Why did he ignore the warnings? Who recommended the appointment? What was news International's involvement in Copulson's appointment and did Rupert Murdoch personally support it.
|
Did he do anything untowards while at #10. No? Indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy
Then there is the involvement of Brooks, to consider: How close was her relationship with Cameron in respect of the BSkyB bidding process. What conversations took place relating to the bid and what other conversations occurred between Cameron and the rest of the News Corp executive?
|
There are no questions here, Cameron has already said he wasn't involved in the BSkyB decisions and had no inappropriate discussions. Of course at some point someone at News International would have mentioned it to him, naive to think not. He's stuck in a difficult position as to acknowledge this would have people, like yourself, trying to score points off of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy
There are many many more unanswered questions here, the very fact that the remain unanswered, is enough to raise suspicion that Cameron is hiding something.
|
Politicians on all sides of the spectrum are hiding something, I'm perfectly happy to say it, why don't you give it a try? If we're talking about Murdoch's approval it's noted he said the closest he has been to a politician recently was Gordon Brown as chancellor. There are multiple lines of attack on both sides.
There is nothing party political about acknowledging that all side of the spectrum come out of this dirty, concentrating on one side of the spectrum exclusively and ignoring the transgressions of the other veers towards political.
There's a financial crisis in Europe, and many other issues that require parliament time, and one side of the spectrum was busy trying to make hay and add more flames to a scandal that most people were getting rather tired of.
Relevant enquiries are underway, a begrudging apology from Cameron, an admisison he got it wrong, see what the investigations on both sides of the Atlantic discover and in the interim there's plenty enough to keep the politicians busy. 2 of the major parties have running the country to do, the other one can try coming up with alternatives to government policy.