But but but – I thought you hated whataboutery?

Coulson has so many skeletons in his bulging closet. Very dangerous to Cameron, questioning his judgement. Bu then he’s happy for his party to cosy up to eurofascists too.

“This case has been the subject of the most careful investigation by very experienced detectives. It has also been scrutinised in detail by both the CPS and leading counsel. They have carefully examined all the evidence and prepared the indictments that they considered appropriate.

“No additional evidence has come to light since this case has concluded.

“I therefore consider that no further investigation is required

Assistant Commissioner John Yates

Andy Coulson has made crystal clear that:

1. He did not know of the phone hacking that went on during his time as editor.
2. He was a victim of the phone hacking himself.
3. The cash payments for these activities were hidden from him and his managing editor.

Nevertheless, as editor he carried the can for what had happened through no direct fault of his own and honourably resigned his position when the scandal broke.

It seems to me that his behaviour throughout has been impeccable.

What does it say about Coulson, and Cameron, indeed.

It says about Coulson that he is a decent bloke who lost his job through being a bit too naive and trusting.

It says about Cameron that he’s a decent bloke who’s willing to recognize that Coulson is smart enough not to make the same mistake twice and has therefore been prepared to give the guy a break.

Indeed, the only ones to come out of this badly are the sneering cowards and pompous asses on the Left who continue to try to assassinate Coulson’s character by peddling cheap innuendo.

@flowerpower

“Andy Coulson has made crystal clear that: 1. He did not know of the phone hacking that went on during his time as editor”

That’s ok then.

We must not question him further about it. He is obviously telling the truth about it.

“It seems to me that his behaviour throughout has been impeccable”

Must trust Coulson. He says he knew nothing. Why would he lie about this? What would he have to gain?

Andy Coulson has made crystal clear that:

1. He did not know of the phone hacking that went on during his time as editor.
2. He was a victim of the phone hacking himself.
3. The cash payments for these activities were hidden from him and his managing editor.

If that is true, (a big if) then it shows what an incompetant manager he is too allow this culture to happen on his watch

It says about Coulson that he is a decent bloke who lost his job through being a bit too naive and trusting.
You have met him ?
I think this is one of the funniest sentences ever written on LC. He was editor of the news of the screws. Who have destroyed more lives than the Ebola virus

It says about Cameron that he’s a decent bloke who’s willing to recognize that Coulson is smart enough not to make the same mistake twice and has therefore been prepared to give the guy a break.
Why wouldn’t he make the same mistake twice ?

Indeed, the only ones to come out of this badly are the sneering cowards and pompous asses on the Left who continue to try to assassinate Coulson’s character by peddling cheap innuendo.
So it dodn’t happen and should not have been investigated.

Flowerpower more like flower pot men

Andy Coulson – editor of News of the World – finds out subordinates have broken law and resigns. All of this happens some years ago. Story dragged up again because of unsubstantiated account which does not implicate Mr Coulson directly.

David Wright – MP for Telford and minister of the crown – not only uses fairly insulting language of political opponents but then lies about doing so (suggesting he himself realises it is wrong). Story broke this week.

So why do you think the media may have more interest in the latter than the former? Because it is a current story? Because the transgressor is a public figure still in that role? Because he acted dishonourably?

The digging up of the Andy Coulson story is based on the testimony of lawyers for Max Clifford. Do I really have to point out the problems with believing what is said in such a context?

This is effectively a sad attempt to switch attention rather than deal with the problem. David Wright (who is not named in this or Sunny’s other article trying to downplay the actually relatively minor issue for some reason) has clearly made a mistake. Perhaps if everyone just admitted this, the issue would pass and we could get on with proper politics, not name-calling. Trying to ignore the fact and hide behind what is not yet and may never be a story which you claim is more serious just inflames the story.

There are questions about Coulson’s testimony to the Court. He suggested that one of the protagonists in the hacking was a recently hired office boy, when in fact the person in question had written articles and been involved with the paper for some time. The matter is, I believe, currently under investigation.

When has any journalist ever lied about anything?

Of course we should believe Andy Coulson, and give him a “second chance”, which David Cameron himself said “everyone deserves at least one second chance”.

I am so looking forward to throwing that line back in his face in the middle of an election – everyone, all criminals, paedophiles, catholic priests, muggers wearing hoodies or burkhas, deserve a second chance.

this is good Watchman:

“The digging up of the Andy Coulson story is based on the testimony of lawyers for Max Clifford. Do I really have to point out the problems with believing what is said in such a context?”

I read it in Private Eye several months ago, before Clifford had got involved. And lawyers don’t testify, witnesses do.

Flowerpower: that is indeed the case Andy Coulson has made. But it’s a case that is being challenged by the Clifford court case, which is why I think the case is an important one – especially as we’re about to find out if key relevant evidence is going to be kept secret.

Of course, if you’ve prejudged the case and/or are 100% confident that there is no possibility of evidence contradicting Coulson’s version of events then the case has no interest. However, if you’ve got an open mind, then whether or not we get more evidence to chew over is of interest.

Oops, sorry – missed out “in this respect” at the end of “… then the case has no interest” in the second paragraph.

Mark Pack @ 12

This blog seems to prefer to give more credence to Binyam Mohammed than to Andy Coulson.

Now it’s all agog at what Max Clifford’s lawyer might say.

Oh well……. you pays yer money and takes yer choice.

Under other circumstances I doubt we’d have got to comment 13 without a helpful reminder of the presumption of innocence. We normally extend that to people who have been charged with an offence. So, how come Coulson doesn’t get presumed innocent even after the police and CPS have said they’ve looked long and hard and can find no good reason to charge him?