xenia Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I note that Ed Miliband has called for Hunt's resignation, or Cameron to sack him. It is not opportunism whenever the opposition party calls for the resignation of a government minister, but such calls are always based on hard facts that come into the public domain. I think Hunt needs to appear before the Levenson Inquiry quickly, and be allowed to give his version of events. If, however, Hunt is unable to satisfactorily rebut the claims that he acted as a back channel during the Murdoch BSkyB bid, then he must go by one means or the other. But in the interests of natural justice, I think Hunt should be allowed his say and to refute, if he can, these serious allegations that have been made against him. Your second paragraph is nonsense, it is always opportunism that prvookes calls for resignations. It can only be opportunism from Labour as they are shown time and time again to have no moral foundation and seek power at any price. They would love Hunt to go today as this will take the heat off them when Murdoch senior spills the beans about his relationship with Blair and Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Hunt has demanded that he be allowed to give evidence, under oath, to the enquiry to refute these allegations. Sounds pretty confident to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Sounds like he was doing his job. It was a big decision to undertake whether to allow the takeover ov BSkyB, it's only right that he hear all sides, including the Murdochs AND those against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Sounds like he was doing his job. It was a big decision to undertake whether to allow the takeover ov BSkyB, it's only right that he hear all sides, including the Murdochs AND those against it. He's not been accused of not hearing all sides. He's been accused of leaking through an intermediary confidential and market-sensitive information to News Corp before he spoke to parliament. One of the emails was even marked "absolutely illegal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Is it time for Hunt to go? Only if everyone from the previous government goes too. 13 years of courting Murdoch while in office must surely be punished more heavily than 13 weeks? Today is going to be an interesting day with Rupert Murdoch up in front of the Leveson Enquiry. Let's have some daylight on these murky backroom dealings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Only if everyone from the previous government goes too. 13 years of courting Murdoch while in office must surely be punished more heavily than 13 weeks? Totally accurate and a more honest appraisal than the OP's usual knee-jerk nonsense. Can't really blame him. He's probably been watching the biased BBC which never passes up an opportunity to give airtime to lying, hypocritical Labour wallahs. Harridan Harman was on Newsnight last night & BBC Breakfast News this morning spouting the usual 'not our fault, guv.' when it was Labour who started this Murky Murdoch love-in. But then, when we see Ed Balls given endless opportunities to 'advise' the Tories on how to run the economy , what do you expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newstar Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I think whichever party had power, they would have given it the green light they as they relied on the support of the Murdock press. Should Hunt - Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 He's not been accused of not hearing all sides. He's been accused of leaking through an intermediary confidential and market-sensitive information to News Corp before he spoke to parliament. One of the emails was even marked "absolutely illegal".From what I heard about that evidence, the intermediary (PR Director) did the leaking, and there is no evidence the intermediary was acting on Hunt's instructions. Until and unless evidence of such instructions is adduced, and/or the intermediary is deposed on oath. For all we know, the PR Director might have been in the Murdoch's pocket just the same as police officers and others, through bribery, whereby the leak was not actually sanctioned. And you can't exactly unleak a leak once it's been made. In other words, the evidence is being interpreted for political posturing, and what it actually proves (and nothing more) is conveniently sidelined by the opposition to gin up a good 'scandal'. In that context (which will be very well-known to most if not all relevant political actors, expectedly schooled in basic facts of legal proceedings and rules of evidence), Labour's calls for resignation are at least as hypocritical as the supposed bias of Hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Sounds like he was doing his job. It was a big decision to undertake whether to allow the takeover ov BSkyB, it's only right that he hear all sides, including the Murdochs AND those against it. He was doing his job but there is a problem with the way he did it Opening secret back-channel communications with the Murdochs was not the correct way to proceed given that 1. Before Cable's ousting Hunt was a supporter of the BSkyB takeover 2. To 'hear all sides' he did that need to use separate comms channels 3. He had a kind of judicial role in which he had a duty to appear unbiased No doubt he will point to elements of his task he did do properly while trying to gloss over the bits he messed up. Not the first time we've seen it recently, after Theresa May's debacle with the extradition. This is an incompetent government and heaven help us we have an incompetent opposition too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 From what I heard about that evidence, the intermediary (PR Director) did the leaking, and there is no evidence the intermediary was acting on Hunt's instructions. Until and unless evidence of such instructions is adduced, and/or the intermediary is deposed on oath. In other words, the evidence is being interpreted for political posturing, and what it actually proves (and nothing more) is conveniently sidelined to gin up a good scandal. In that context (which will be very well-known to most if not all relevant political actors, expectedly schooled in basic facts of legal proceedings and rules of evidence), Labour's calls for resignation are fairly hypocritical. Nice argument but even the rabidly Tory press today are interpreting this as a serious problem for the government. Quite simply if Hunt's staff were not following his instructions then his office was out of control and that calls into question the judgement and calibre of the man. He is toast but let us seem him wriggle on the hook a little more please. It's great viewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.