Standards of conduct

[Derek Smith]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257106/Da...

There are certain standards of conduct which go with certain positions. High office does not mean that one can ignore the standards. In fact I think the standards increase in both number and the requirement to comply with them.

Given that Brooks is on bail for 3 offences, one of which carries a penalty of life imprisonment, I would suggest that a long and intense conversation with her is improper conduct. If one adds into the mix the Leveson enquiry, which Cameron has to make a decision on in the near future, and the fact that she is one of the main protagonists just makes it worse.

To be fair, I am of the opinion that Cameron is merely inept. I'm trying to think who might have organised the assignation. Perhaps the one who had most to gain.

[Derek Smith]

Caulkhead said:

'According to The Guardian. . . . .'

Innocent until proven guilty, just like the police officers who allegedly conspired against Andrew Mitchell.

You miss the point, and by some distance.

The woman is on bail for a very serious, indictable only offence.

The problem is not with whether she is or is not guilty but that Cameron is associating with someone on bail for a serious offence - which is bad. Cameron has influence.

On top of that, he has to make a decision on Leveson, and soon. So should he be associating with one of the main suspects in the whole turgid business?

(Rhetorical by the way.)

[Derek Smith]

voyds9 said:

If Cameron wasn't allowed to speak to anyone who was charged or convicted or imprisoned

then 944 serving police officers http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/02/police-94...

what about Nelson Mandela (27 years imprisoned)

Berlusconi, Charles Taylor, G.W.Bush (for Guantanamo)

15 more presidents here http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-5404-15-p...

MP's unknown as this information appears to be purposefully not requested http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sitting_memb...

I'm not sure you have grasped the full implications of the problem.

Cameron will have to make a decision on Leveson and Brooks is in with Murdoch who has considerable investment in the media in this country. Further, the woman has been charged with a very serious offence. He should not be fraternising with her. He's the PM.

As for the leaders of other countries - do you need me to spell out why he must meet with them?

And the 944 police officers: take out the ones convicted of motoring offences, those committed when juveniles and those not waiting to be tried on a serious, indictable only offence which has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, then no, he should not perhaps engage in conversations with them at parties, especially if he could do them a favour after a judicial enquiry.