DAVID CAMERON AND REBEKAH BROOKS
AND A LAUGHING HORSE
UPDATE: 25 November 2012 -- Every other person would have been forced to hand them over or their house invaded by the police. Is the government, including the Prime Minister above the Law? Lord Leveson is publishing his report on the findings this week. How can he without having all the facts?
UPDATE 15 November 2012 -- Apparently up till now he still has not handed over the emails which should not be allowed. This is an investigation in to a crime committed of phone hacking and therefore David Cameron should be forced to hand it over. It concerns about 150 emails between David Cameron and Rebekah Brooks and also Andy Coulson. Is that not called perverting the cause of justice?
THE VERY FACT THAT DAVID CAMERON REFUSES TO HAND THEM OVER PROVES THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE TO THE CASE IN IT.
Apparently dozens of emails between David Cameron and Rebekah Brooks were not handed over to the Levenson’s inquiry. According to Cameron he was acting on personal legal advice. Since we talking about legal, isn't withholding evidence from an inquiry is surely perverting the cause of justice and therefore not legal besides a criminal act? He also kept the emails from the inquiry between him and the ex-News of the World editor Mr Coulson whom he employed as the Tories’ top spin doctor.
It was also discovered that some emails where sent when Coulson was still working for Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper.
All this came to light just weeks before Lord Justice Leveson is going to deliver his final report on Press standards.
A Government lawyer decided that these emails were not ‘relevant'. Of course, it would be a government lawyer who would state this. The fact is that these emails would reveal the apparently unusual close relationship between the PM and former Sun editor and Chief Executive Brooks.
Rebekah Brooks and her husband Charlie were at Eton with Mr Cameron and were members of the “Chipping Norton“ set based in his Oxfordshire seat.
No report would be without the sponge from Downing Street wiping the slate clean. A spokesman said that all the material the inquiry asked for was given to them, In common with previous Prime Ministers, the PM received Government legal advice in order to co-operate fully with a judicial inquiry. Now here we have it. Just one question. Would a Government Legal advice be different if there was any evidence in the emails pointing to a wrong doing, in other words criminal offence?
All these happening quietly in the background but came to light when the news broke that Brooks received a pay-off of over £7million. At the time she was forced to quit because of the phone hacking evidence. This includes cash, which most properly means tax avoidance, pension’s payments and use of a chauffeur driven car.
Brooks’ court case was postponed till next September when she faces charges on phone hacking.
First of all, who is paying all these over £7million?
It seems to escalate; many bankers who made nothing but creating bankruptcy. The higher they are the unaccountable they will be for their various diabolical and sometimes criminal actions. Not only that but when they eventually get sacked they get one of the highest payout plus pensions and that wouldn’t be a state pension, would it? How is all this justifiable at a time of UK's recession?
Any ordinary worker getting sacked gets nothing. Besides all these undeserved millions are getting paid by the taxpayers. That’s where David Cameron’s AUSTERITY plans should start. The problem is they are all buddies and friends and he certainly stands by them.