I see that Cameron is scheduled to be the only witness at the inquiry on Thursday. There is one question, partly raised during Hunt's appearance, which I believe will be most significant and which has not been discussed thus far in the media to my knowledge.
It concerns the decision to replace Cable by Hunt. Cable was replaced because he told undercover reporters that he was at war with Murdoch. So he was prejudiced against News International. Cameron has subsequently stated that it was the right decision to appoint Hunt in place of Cable, despite Hunt having made his prejudice in favour of N.I. quite clear. So one prejudiced person is not acceptble but another is. Cameron has confidence in one being able to act fairly and with integrity, despite eing prejudiced, but not the other.
In my view, there are only three possible reasons why Cameron acted as he did and all of them spell big trouble for him.
" and all of them spell big trouble for him"
Remember that these people are politicians, so being in big trouble means very little, because at the end of the day they hold the power and say, for how long it takes?.
And what's so important about this Leveson Inquiry, other than its going to cost possibly £millions, and the general public will have very little say on events.
But that's just my opinion!.
So why don't we do like they do in the USA, and the reason the Murdoch's took out US citizenship, and ban our media from being n foreign ownership?
why don't we do like they do in the USA....and ban our media from being in foreign ownership?
... and apply the same ban to car manufacturing, domestic fuel supplies, water supplies, electronics, transportation,banking, telecoms etc, etc, etc?
No can do,Americas policy is based on a simple principle...'do as i say and not as i do',so they can do what they like.
British policy is to adhere to the neo-liberalist dogma as close as possible,what can be sold they will sell.
The Global before the local,so to speak.
They have no control over private concerns,unless they cry National Security,and want no control over the few public concerns left.
Well, one thing to hope for as a result of Leveson is a regulator who will be able to exact exemplary penalties on newspapers which publish information about individuals without their consent and which cannot be shewn to be of public benefit.
As far as the Cable/Hunt situation is concerned, the first question seems to me to be whether Cameron concluded that he could trust Cable to act impartially on the matter or not. If not, then it was necessary to replace him but it raises questions about Cable's integrity or Cameron's judgement thereof.
If he could trust Cable, then there is no justification in replacing him, especially with someone else with prejudice, unless there was some other reason for doing so than simply exercising power for the sake of it. Since having no further reason invalidates the case for replacement, the public will assume that there must have been one and Cameron is naive not to appreciate that. Could that reason have something to do with Murdoch?
I think you have summed up the situation nicely. Both parties were obviously far too greatly in thrall to Murdoch, and neither will come out of this well. I remain sceptical of all politicians motives.I wish they had a history of "proper jobs" before becoming MP's (with a few exceptions)
Any particular reason to be concerned about a Labour member and a LibDem member hoisting ideas up th eflag pole to see if they get saluted? It must happen all the time with all three major parties.
Ignore my last post. No idea what I was on about. Apologies.
Still, it must happen a lot.
My knowledge of what happened during Cameron's evidence is limited to news reports. From these, the rationale behind the replacement of Cable by Hunt does not seem to have been investigated. That being the case, I can only say that my confidence in Leveson and his team was sadly misplaced.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.