Standards of conduct
Discussion
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.
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 said:
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.
'According to The Guardian. . . . .'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.
Innocent until proven guilty, just like the police officers who allegedly conspired against Andrew Mitchell.
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.Innocent until proven guilty, just like the police officers who allegedly conspired against Andrew Mitchell.
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 said:
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.Innocent until proven guilty, just like the police officers who allegedly conspired against Andrew Mitchell.
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.)
So Cameron is going to have a word in the ear of the judge so he can duly influence a jury so she's acquited?
Doesn't Leveson go much further than Brooke's...who will also unlikely ever work in the news business again?
And you wonder why a lot of us have had enough and are turning to Farage.
We 'know' the past and current incumbents of power don't give a toss for us, many of whom are and were in it for themselves.
We don't know (yet) if Farage is, but sod it, we are going to give him the benefit of the doubt!
I truly believed when I first saw that top pic of Cameron (just behind Brookes) it shows him in his true light.
Slippery and sinister.
We 'know' the past and current incumbents of power don't give a toss for us, many of whom are and were in it for themselves.
We don't know (yet) if Farage is, but sod it, we are going to give him the benefit of the doubt!
I truly believed when I first saw that top pic of Cameron (just behind Brookes) it shows him in his true light.
Slippery and sinister.
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...
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...
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...
Hardly comparable. Most of these were 'open' communications. As someone local to me (Witney Consituency) put it: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...
'The vast majority of the population of this country are honest and hard working and do not have friends due to appear in court for perjury and corruption.
How on earth have we come to a state, where this man and his government are able to behave like this with impunity?'
Derek Smith said:
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.Innocent until proven guilty, just like the police officers who allegedly conspired against Andrew Mitchell.
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.)
Cameron and her have been friends for some time. They talked at a party. Cameron is legally speaking nothing to do with the court case against her and as far as I am aware there is no bar on MP's talking to constituents who are on bail. Like wise if Cameron was to talk to the police officers accused of framing Andrew Mitchell I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Whatever you think of Cameron, if there was anything sinister in this meeting, I doubt it would've been conducted in public at a family party.
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.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...
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.
London424 said:
Derek, have you got lots of leftover tinfoil from Xmas or something?
Who cares that he talked to a friend of his. Do you think they were planning the downfall of labour and the lib dems...you know, while she doesn't have a job? You think it's his sole decision on Leveson? Jeez...
Derek is beginning to strike me as a slightly more intelligent version of crankedup.Who cares that he talked to a friend of his. Do you think they were planning the downfall of labour and the lib dems...you know, while she doesn't have a job? You think it's his sole decision on Leveson? Jeez...
I'm dissappointed.
Don
--
She no longer works for Murdoch, he wont decide on levison (the whole of parliament will) so I don't see a priblem who he mixes with. As has been said there wouldn't be many people left to talk to if he could only have whitrr than white friends after all most MP's have fiddled expenses or mixed with wrong'uns for votes or money.
And what of chief tax dodger Blair should he be able to talk to him aftrr all he did take us to an illegal war.
And what of chief tax dodger Blair should he be able to talk to him aftrr all he did take us to an illegal war.
Edited by NoNeed on Friday 4th January 23:47
Brookes won't go down, she knows too much and is in too deep with Doleful Dave.
The only way she could be kept quiet is for the boys to do a David Kelly on her, most unlikely I feel, she is too street-wise to be caught with her pants down (ahem) and will have all kinds of incriminating s
t stashed away just in case.
You heard it here first.
The only way she could be kept quiet is for the boys to do a David Kelly on her, most unlikely I feel, she is too street-wise to be caught with her pants down (ahem) and will have all kinds of incriminating s
t stashed away just in case.You heard it here first.
dandarez said:
We don't know (yet) if Farage is, but sod it, we are going to give him the benefit of the doubt!
I'll spoil my ballot papers every time, until there are credible parties to vote for 
. Admittedly UKIP is as yet an unknown on the UK-wide scale (as per the aim of this thread), but from seeing generic 'independent' politicians on the county/metropolitan council scale alongside their "big 3" colleagues...Sorry
. Actually, no, I'm not 'sorry' at all
- but until the whole politics thing sorts itself out, cleans its act up and provides credible 'choice' between the different parties, I'm not going to stop spoiling ballot papers...aw51 121565 said:
I'll spoil my ballot papers every time, until there are credible parties to vote for . Admittedly UKIP is as yet an unknown on the UK-wide scale (as per the aim of this thread), but from seeing generic 'independent' politicians on the county/metropolitan council scale alongside their "big 3" colleagues...
Sorry .
Actually, no, I'm not 'sorry' at all - but until the whole politics thing sorts itself out, cleans its act up and provides credible 'choice' between the different parties, I'm not going to stop spoiling ballot papers...
If nobody votes for something different we get more of the same. . Admittedly UKIP is as yet an unknown on the UK-wide scale (as per the aim of this thread), but from seeing generic 'independent' politicians on the county/metropolitan council scale alongside their "big 3" colleagues...Sorry
. Actually, no, I'm not 'sorry' at all
- but until the whole politics thing sorts itself out, cleans its act up and provides credible 'choice' between the different parties, I'm not going to stop spoiling ballot papers...At least a big vote for UKIP might wake a few of these bellends up.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff