Andy Coulson arrested on suspicion of perjury
Discussion
Liszt said:
Steffan said:
One of the defining moments in the Prime Ministers political life was the appointment of this scumbag to head his office.
Cameron has crap judgement of people, surrounding himself with the likes of Jeremy Hunt (bent) Liam Fox (bent) George Osbourne ( Bent and useless) Rebekkah Wade (Bent) and the grandaddy amongst them Andy Coulson (Bent and overlayered with Bent with a bit of bent added on).
Or possibly Cameron chooses colleagues that match his own tendencies. Bent.
As opposed to campbell, Mandelson and Brown/Darling?Cameron has crap judgement of people, surrounding himself with the likes of Jeremy Hunt (bent) Liam Fox (bent) George Osbourne ( Bent and useless) Rebekkah Wade (Bent) and the grandaddy amongst them Andy Coulson (Bent and overlayered with Bent with a bit of bent added on).
Or possibly Cameron chooses colleagues that match his own tendencies. Bent.
Darling, Brown, Mandelson ,Campbell, and all the spin merchants, including Blair, who was the real promoter of this kind of institutional dishonesty and indeed David Cameron and his cohorts are as bad as each other.They could ALL sleep comfortably in a corkscrew. They are ALL tarred with the same brush. Not an honest man amongst them. Including Mr Coulson.
Clever, charming, smarmy, oily, unprincipled (save serving themselves, first) to the core. Good looking, well spoken, articulate, quick thinking, intelligent, educated and driven by self serving ambition. Utterly facile. That is the definition of modern politicians. Hence the mess our country is in.
Then there is the awful prospect of ED Ballsup and Yvette Snooper. Too depressing to even contemplate.
Jasandjules said:
matchmaker said:
He hasn't even been arrested!
I would say (famous last words!) that the police don't usually go round unless they have something reasonably solid........When the Police get rattled in high profile cases, they can and very occasionally do jump the gun. With catastrophic results for the individual, wrongly accused and the senior police concerned, who usually leave shortly after.
I doubt if that is the case here. But as you will know, there is a presumption of innocence.
Given the extent of the dishonesty and perjury and the number of serious major crime ongoing investigations, in which Andy Coulson was a major and central player, I do think it very, very, very, unlikely.
Indeed laughably unlikely. But, he might?
Steffan said:
Jasandjules said:
matchmaker said:
He hasn't even been arrested!
I would say (famous last words!) that the police don't usually go round unless they have something reasonably solid........When the Police get rattled in high profile cases, they can and very occasionally do jump the gun. With catastrophic results for the individual, wrongly accused and the senior police concerned, who usually leave shortly after.
I doubt if that is the case here. But as you will know, there is a presumption of innocence.
Given the extent of the dishonesty and perjury and the number of serious major crime ongoing investigations, in which Andy Coulson was a major and central player, I do think it very, very, very, unlikely.
Indeed laughably unlikely. But, he might?
The police do not accuse by arresting. The offender here is the media. Oh, and given some of the comments on this forum, forums as well.
High profile suspects are treated very carefully indeed, more so than scrotes. There would probably have been inolvement of senior officers before this 'detention'.
B Huey said:
No, they drove him all the way to Glasgow for a quick chat.
The distinction seems a technicality to me. He had no choice nut to accompany the officers. That is, a think effectively an arrest. Once your free will is gone, on such a situation, then you are in fact, in custody IMO.Steffan said:
B Huey said:
No, they drove him all the way to Glasgow for a quick chat.
The distinction seems a technicality to me. He had no choice nut to accompany the officers. That is, a think effectively an arrest. Once your free will is gone, on such a situation, then you are in fact, in custody IMO.A suspect can be detained where the police have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime and like to investigate further by questioning. Whereas arrest is generally only used when there is reasonable (until recently, corroborated) evidence for criminal proceedings to commence - i.e. on the verge of charging the suspect.
Until Cadder, if you were detained you didn't have a right to see a solicitor whereas after arrest you did.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/CarlowayReview/CR...
A moot point now, because he has been arrested and charged with perjury
essayer said:
A moot point now, because he has been arrested and charged with perjury
Well, that's a real shame....... No really....Just to simplify matters it's been reported on the BBC that Andy Coulson has been arrested.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-182627...
edit- beaten to it and I spent ages formatting the link on my phone too.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-182627...
edit- beaten to it and I spent ages formatting the link on my phone too.
Edited by rohrl on Wednesday 30th May 22:28
Andy Coulson's life has changed quite dramatically in the last 24 months, hasn't it? The Courts really don't like perjury so he'll be looking at decent time inside if found guilty.
I can understand why a good majority of the people are "bored with" and don't understand the fuss and monies spent on Leveson and Operations Weeting and Elvedon but for me if it helps bring about a more open, truthful and honest media and clarifies relationships between the media and the body politic all the better. If they could also help lift general journalistic and editorial standards I'd be very happy - but immensely surprised. Sadly the public seem to want the standards of truthfulness, honesty, balance and integrity they hoover up delightfully every day in the Mail, The Mirror and the Express et al.
If being an awful, vindictive editor were a crime I'd personally like to see someone take on Andrew Pierce.
I can understand why a good majority of the people are "bored with" and don't understand the fuss and monies spent on Leveson and Operations Weeting and Elvedon but for me if it helps bring about a more open, truthful and honest media and clarifies relationships between the media and the body politic all the better. If they could also help lift general journalistic and editorial standards I'd be very happy - but immensely surprised. Sadly the public seem to want the standards of truthfulness, honesty, balance and integrity they hoover up delightfully every day in the Mail, The Mirror and the Express et al.
If being an awful, vindictive editor were a crime I'd personally like to see someone take on Andrew Pierce.
Just HOW hard is it to tell the truth in court ?
So there I am (Witness for the Prosecution), having explained how my mate left the road and ran over an old guy who later died.
I'm asked how fast he was travelling "40 mph or there abouts" (in a 60)
I'm asked how I know this "Because I got my motorbike out and rode around that bend at different speeds between 20 mph and 50 mph, and I'm sure that he was travelling at 40 mph or there abouts"
I'm asked if the defendant is my freind "He is"
I'm asked if I'm lying to help him out "I've just sworn in the bible to tell the whole truth, and if I lie and are ever found out I could go to prison, so it's not likely that I'm going to do that for anyone, even my own mother, or my fiancee, and I wouldn't expect anyone of them to that for me"
Prosecution decides their star witness is not worth asking any more questions to.
I'd like to think that anyone who lies under oath will get at least 6 months, even if the original offence was a parking ticket, to 40 years if they provide a fake alibi for a murder.
So there I am (Witness for the Prosecution), having explained how my mate left the road and ran over an old guy who later died.
I'm asked how fast he was travelling "40 mph or there abouts" (in a 60)
I'm asked how I know this "Because I got my motorbike out and rode around that bend at different speeds between 20 mph and 50 mph, and I'm sure that he was travelling at 40 mph or there abouts"
I'm asked if the defendant is my freind "He is"
I'm asked if I'm lying to help him out "I've just sworn in the bible to tell the whole truth, and if I lie and are ever found out I could go to prison, so it's not likely that I'm going to do that for anyone, even my own mother, or my fiancee, and I wouldn't expect anyone of them to that for me"
Prosecution decides their star witness is not worth asking any more questions to.
I'd like to think that anyone who lies under oath will get at least 6 months, even if the original offence was a parking ticket, to 40 years if they provide a fake alibi for a murder.
New POD said:
Just HOW hard is it to tell the truth in court ?
You are allowed to be mistaken. You are allowed to have a faulty memory. All you have to say is what you believe to be the truth.The one thing you should not depend on is eye-witness evidence. What CCTV has shown is just how poor people are when it comes to observing an incident. The more certain a person is, the more likely they are to be contradicted by CCTV. Oddly enough, some people are so certain that even when you confront them with the evidence they still stick with what they think happened.
I used to work in a control room where my every word was recorded. When I've been i/c major incidents, or even minor ones that went badly or well I used to pull a tape and then listen to it when things were quiet at work or in the car to and from. Alwyas, but always, on any fairly long incident I'd hear me say something that I would have sworn I hadn't said.
Memory is partial.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff