egafd.com

Like I said, not in the stuff I read/watch. There has been loads and loads of stuff about it. Not just a brief mention.
Cheers
D

"I believe it's the PCC guidelines. The medical condition of a child is a private matter, and if its parents had told the newspaper not to publish, they would have broken the guidelines, not the law, but they still wouldn't have done it, there is no public interest justification. "

First, this is one of the most naive replies I have ever read on this forum.

"I believe it's the PCC guidelines". Okay so you are obviously guessing.

Mmm, we are talking about the NOTW here, you know? Do you seriously think the NOTW gives/has given a flying fuck about PCC guidelines in the last few decades?

Have you been asleep whilst all these allegations have come about about Millie Dowler's phone being hacked along with approx 4,000 others and the emails about Coulson authorising payments to police officers? Do you think that all of that was within the PCC guidelines?

"but they still wouldn't have done it, there is no public interest justification. "

You aren't related to Rebekah Brooks are you? Have you ever read the NOTW?

The NOTW has built a reputation over a century of pushing stories like who Ryan Giggs is shagging or "nudist welfare man's model wife falls for the Chinese hypnotist from the Co-op bacon factory" which have "no public interest justification".

The NOTW has destroyed thousands and thousands of the lives of ordinary citizens so that it can titillate the great British public over their Sunday roast and flog a few extra papers.

As to Brown's hypocrisy, the whole point is that the British political class both Tory and Labour have been scared of Murdoch. They are all culpable. Hopefully now this story has broken, the press Emperors really do not have any more clothes.

Cheers
D

charles wrote:

> LOL, What is PH?

The same as BS, apparently.

David:

I realise you lurve Gordon Brown, but you are unable to defend him on this one. No newspaper could print the details of a child's illness without breaking the PCC guidelines. There is no public interest defence. Brown could have told Rebekah Wade not to publish even if she wasn't his "friend." The fact that even after the nasty lady made him cry he continued to suck up to her shows he is a hypocrite of the worst sort, a coward who will only fight back when his opponent is down and out.

"no newspaper could print the details of a child's illness without breaking the PCC guidelines. There is no public interest defence. Brown could have told Rebekah Wade not to publish even if she wasn't his "friend."

The NOTW apparently broke the PCC guidelines around 4,000 times with phone hacking. Do you think the same company would have decided "Oh no we cant break the PCC guidelines" Gordon has asked us not to print this story. The vast majority of stories the NOTW has printed in its long history have "no public interest defence"

Are you bonkers?

Cheers
D

David Johnson wrote:

> "I think Lizard meant those around today."
>
> Do you? Nothing in his post would indicate that.

Commonsense perhaps?
>
> "Unemployment was going down (and indeed still is) because
> Brown put huge swathes of people on the public payroll. "
>
> In 2008, 19.6 per cent of all jobs were in the public sector.
> In 1997, it was 19.5 per cent. Even in 2010 , the proportion of
> public sector jobs remains lower than it was at the end of the
> early nineties recession: 23.1 per cent of jobs were in the
> public sector in 1992, compared with 21 per cent. The Tories
> were as reliant on public sector employment as Labour.

Yes if David Cameron is the heir to Blair, then John Major was his prototype.

>
> By the way I noticed that you utterly failed to respond to my
> point "In the last 9 months under Boy George, the economy has
> flatlined. It is a
> whisker away from a double dip recession." Any comments?

I agree with you.

>
> "Labour inherited an incredibly strong economy in 1997"
>
> Oh really! if that was the case why was the deficit generally
> bigger under the Tories of Thatcher and Major than under the
> Labour government prior the GLOBAL recession of 2009 onwards?

I think Messrs Brown and Balls might agree with me that they inherited a strong economy. Indeed, they agreed to match Tory spending plans.

>
> "The Sun did not hack Brown's phone to get the Fraser story. It
> was a tip-off from a member of the public. Brown says that he
> and Mrs Brown cried after the call from Rebekah Brooks. The
> same Rebekah Brooks for whom Sarah Brown arranged a 40th
> birthday party and who had "sleepovers" at Chequers."
>
> No-one is denying that both Labour and Tory governments
> kowtowed to Murdoch. That does not invalidate in any way the
> point I am making i.e. if Brown had said, dont print this
> story, would it have had an effect?

No, but then having realised that NI were not to be trusted, why did he not cast them adrift? As always with Gordon, it shows his innate cowardice.

>
> "How many people could name/recognise any of the MPs/peers
> jailed? Gordon Brown fiddled his exes, so did H. Blears, M.
> Beckett, A. Darling, E. Balls, Y. Cooper as well as numerous
> Tories and Liberals. Funny how none of the big names got sent
> down"
>
> You are showing a complete lack of understanding of what the
> expenses scandal was about. The problem with the expenses
> scandal, is that there were few, if any guidelines as to what
> could/could not be claimed i.e. gardening expenses etc etc so
> MPs took advantage of very weak, almost non-existent
> regulation. Nor is "flipping" your primary residence to take
> advantage of expenses a criminal offence which is why MPs were
> not charged in a law court. Those MPs who were charged were
> people who had been fraudulent i.e. invented substantial
> expenses with forged receipts that they had never actually
> incurred.

Actually, I understand exactly what the expenses scandal was about. I used to work for The Daily Telegraph. Of course, MPs wanted the rules on claiming to be as lax as possible. You are absolutely right flipping homes is not illegal, just immoral and even Hazel Blears realised that, hence her repaying the stamp duty she didn't pay on her second home.

>
> CHeers
> D

"Actually, I understand exactly what the expenses scandal was about. I used to work for The Daily Telegraph. Of course, MPs wanted the rules on claiming to be as lax as possible. You are absolutely right flipping homes is not illegal, just immoral and even Hazel Blears realised that, hence her repaying the stamp duty she didn't pay on her second home."

Then you possibly should understand that being immoral is not necessarily a criminal offence in itself which is why I corrected your statement below which suggests that criminal offences were not punished by criminal convictions. If you believe that big names dont get sent down, maybe you need to research Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken. I also recall that an ex Labour Cabinet minister got sent down in the expenses scandal.

"How many people could name/recognise any of the MPs/peers jailed? Gordon Brown fiddled his exes, so did H. Blears, M. Beckett, A. Darling, E. Balls, Y. Cooper as well as numerous Tories and Liberals. Funny how none of the big names got sent down"

I see that you have moved away from your anti-Brown rant in "Brown appraisal" by

1. Accepting that the Tories were as reliant, if not more reliant on increasing public sector workers than Brown.
2. Implicitly complimenting the Labour government in that you appear to accept/argue
a. The Tory government left a strong economy in 1997 even though the NHS, school buildings were on the point of collapse and yet the Labour government, despite increasing substantially spending on the NHS, the police force, school buildings etc, did all of that with a deficit which was less than the majority of the Tory government's time, prior to the global recession.

Some achievement eh, Essex Lad?

Cheers
D

David Johnson wrote:

> "Actually, I understand exactly what the expenses scandal was
> about. I used to work for The Daily Telegraph. Of course, MPs
> wanted the rules on claiming to be as lax as possible. You are
> absolutely right flipping homes is not illegal, just immoral
> and even Hazel Blears realised that, hence her repaying the
> stamp duty she didn't pay on her second home."
>
> Then you possibly should understand that being immoral is not
> necessarily a criminal offence in itself which is why I
> corrected your statement below which suggests that criminal
> offences were not punished by criminal convictions. If you
> believe that big names dont get sent down, maybe you need to
> research Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken. I also recall
> that an ex Labour Cabinet minister got sent down in the
> expenses scandal.

As you well know Archer and Aitken got sent down for perjury not fiddling their expenses. Which ex-Labour cabinet minister got sent down for expenses theft/fraud? Last Labour chap I can recall going down was John Stonehouse in the mid-1970s.
No, something that is immoral is not necessarily the same as illegal but people in positions of power - politicians, police, teachers, doctors - must be held to a higher standard of morality because their behaviour can have a wider impact on society as a whole than say, a travelling salesman who bumps up his mileage.

>
> "How many people could name/recognise any of the MPs/peers
> jailed? Gordon Brown fiddled his exes, so did H. Blears, M.
> Beckett, A. Darling, E. Balls, Y. Cooper as well as numerous
> Tories and Liberals. Funny how none of the big names got sent
> down"

Brown claimed for Sky Sports and Sky Movies on his exes. Illegal? No. Immoral? Yes, very definitely. He claimed to have a moral compass but how can he possibly justify asking me and you to pay for his TV watching? He and his brother did up the kitchen in their London flat and then deliberately placed the claims over two accounting periods so they could claim the most money. Illegal? No. Immoral? Yes, very definitely.
>
> I see that you have moved away from your anti-Brown rant in
> "Brown appraisal" by
>
> 1. Accepting that the Tories were as reliant, if not more
> reliant on increasing public sector workers than Brown.
> 2. Implicitly complimenting the Labour government in that you
> appear to accept/argue
> a. The Tory government left a strong economy in 1997 even
> though the NHS, school buildings were on the point of collapse
> and yet the Labour government, despite increasing substantially
> spending on the NHS, the police force, school buildings etc,
> did all of that with a deficit which was less than the majority
> of the Tory government's time, prior to the global recession.

Why is praising someone a reasoned argument but criticising them a rant? Labour did pump more money into schools, police and NHS - that cannot be denied. Unfortunately, they also failed to put into place mechanisms to ensure that the money was spent properly and that managers were held accountable. One policy embraced by Gordon Brown as Chancellor with some gusto was PFI because it kept the debt off the government books. We will be paying back PFI deals for many years - another example of Gordon and his mate Prudence?


>
> Some achievement eh, DJ?
>
> Cheers