What The Fark Is Jeremy Hunt's Promotion About?

Would someone please explain to me how it is that Jeremy Hunt, who made a fool of himself over the G4S Olympics fiasco and who is mired in the BSkyB controversy, has been appointed as Health Secretary?

What the fark is going on here?

Advice To John Major

The Leveson inquiry is about Murdoch, not our disastrous membership of the ERM.

You would be best discussing that with the Greeks and other periphery Eurozone states, as a means of advising them how best to exit the Eurozone.

Advice To David Cameron - Love Is A Many Splendoured Thing

When texting your chums in News International in the future, please do remember that "LOL" means "Laugh Out Loud" not "Lots of Love".

Murdoch Not a Fit Person To Exercise The Stewardship of a Major International Company

Those politicians who have cosied up to media moguls in the past may care to read the report issued today by The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee entitled "News International and Phone-hacking Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12".

The conclusion is damning, and will affect Murdoch's business in the USA:

"On the basis of the facts and evidence before the Committee, we conclude that, if at all relevant times Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications.

This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International. We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company. "

The report includes in detail:

"This report concentrates on the issue of whether witnesses have previously misled a select committee of the House of Commons. We have deliberately refrained from drawing conclusions about the evidence of any individual who has been arrested as we do not wish to risk prejudicing any future criminal trial. The Committee intend to produce a supplementary report when all criminal proceedings are finished.

275. As to the veracity of the evidence the Committee has received, we are able to draw the following conclusions about certain of the witnesses, and about News International corporately:

• Les Hinton misled the Committee in 2009 in not telling the truth about payments to Clive Goodman and his role in authorising them, including the payment of his legal fee. He also misled the Committee about the extent of his knowledge of allegations that phone-hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire to others at the News of the World (see paragraphs 84, 85 and 91).
• Tom Crone misled the Committee in 2009 by giving a counter-impression of the significance of confidentiality in the Gordon Taylor settlement (see paragraph 118) and sought to mislead the Committee about the commissioning of surveillance.
• Tom Crone and Colin Myler misled the Committee by answering questions falsely about their knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone-hacking and other wrongdoing (see paragraphs 130 and 140).
• Corporately, the News of the World and News International misled the Committee about the true nature and extent of the internal investigations they professed to have carried out in relation to phone hacking; by making statements they would have known were not fully truthful; and by failing to disclose documents which would have helped expose the truth. Their instinct throughout, until it was too late, was to cover up rather than seek out wrongdoing and discipline the perpetrators, as they also professed they would do after the criminal convictions. In failing to investigate properly, and by ignoring evidence of widespread wrongdoing, News International and its parent News Corporation exhibited wilful blindness, for which the companies’ directors—including Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch—should ultimately be prepared to take responsibility (see paragraphs 32, 33, 60, 62, 132 and 141).

276. The effect of these actions and omissions is that the Committee’s Report to the House in February 2010 on Press standards, privacy and libel was not based on fully accurate evidence. False evidence, indeed, prevented the Committee from exposing the true extent of phone-hacking.

277. Rupert Murdoch's final admission at the Leveson inquiry that a cover up has taken place at the company may mean that the investigations conducted by Burton Copeland have been used by people at News International to perpetrate a falsehood. As such we believe there is a strong argument that the company has no right to restrain disclosure of the file. We call on the company to waive legal privilege, so that the Burton Copeland advice and investigations can be published and submitted to the Leveson inquiry.

278. While our select committee may have been constrained in some of its lines of inquiry or in the witnesses we chose to summon, nevertheless our committee has been able to uncover key information thanks to parliamentary privilege. It should be acknowledged that some vital information has only been revealed due to the powers of Parliament, that would not have been able to be produced for the Leveson inquiry or other ongoing civil litigation. 

Indeed, as a result of our questioning, important changes to financial governance at News International have been made. Hindsight is a wonderful tutor, though News International will regret that they did not use our predecessor committee’s 2010 report to undertake a thorough investigation of the wrongdoings within their business.

279. The integrity and effectiveness of the Select Committee system relies on the truthfulness and completeness of the oral and written evidence submitted. The behaviour of News International and certain witnesses in this affair demonstrated contempt for that system in the most blatant fashion. Important lessons need to be learned accordingly and we draw our Report to the attention of the Liaison Committeewhich is considering possible reforms to Select Committees.

280. We note that it is for the House to decide whether a contempt has been committed and, if so, what punishment should be imposed. We note that it makes no difference—in terms of misleading this Committee—that evidence was not taken on oath. Witnesses are required to tell the truth to committees whether on oath or not. We willtable a motion inviting the House to endorse our conclusions about misleading evidence.

Hungry Like The Wolf - Next Course Jeremy Hunt

Oh dear, it appears that throwing Adam Smith to the wolves last week may not be enough to save Jeremy Hunt's career.

Cameron is now saying that if new evidence emerged showing Hunt's direct relationship with News Corporation had been too close, he will fire him.

Quelle surprise!

Cameron et al should know that wolves are very hungry creatures, and are not easily sated by just one or two courses!

If In Doubt, Say Nothing

Oh dear, it seems that Hunt's Permanent Secretary is not publicly backing Hunt's version of events wrt Adam Smith's interactions with Murdoch.

"Five times in the House of Commons yesterday the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, told MPs that the Permanent Secretary (the most senior civil servant) at his Department approved the arrangements for the dealings with the Murdochs over their planned takeover of BSkyB.

Twelve times in the Public Accounts Committee this morning , the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport himself refuses to answer questions about whether he DID approve those arrangements - namely that Adam Smith, Mr Hunt's special adviser who resigned yesterday, could liaise with News International."

Adam Smith's Resignation and The Invisible Hand

Politicians can be rather a loathsome bunch of individuals. Aside from breaking election promises and habitually lying to the voters, they treat each other with contempt (especially when they try to save their own skins).

Such is the treatment meted out to Adam Smith, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt's special adviser, who has been forced to quit in order to try to save Hunt's skin.

For why has he been forced out?

The enormous row (that is growing in strength and ferocity) over contact between Hunt's office and News Corporation re the BSkyB bid. Emails released on Tuesday showed that Adam Smith had been in contact with the company about its takeover bid.

Smith therefore has been sacrificed, in the hope that Hunt won't need to be.

It is of course ironic, and very instructive (as to how politicians stab each other in the back), to see that last night Number 10 insisted that Smith would not go.

Doubtless Number 10 will blame Smith's departure on an "invisible hand", but we know better don 't we children?

Here is Smith's "resignation" statement issued (and I assume written) on his behalf:

"While it was part of my role to keep News Corporation informed throughout the BskyB bid process, the content and extent of my contact was done without authorisation from the Secretary of State. 

I do not recognise all of what Fred Michel said, but nonetheless I appreciate that my activities at times went too far and have, taken together, created the perception that News Corporation had too close a relationship with the department, contrary to the clear requirements set out by Jeremy Hunt and the permanent secretary that this needed to be a fair and scrupulous process. 

Whilst I firmly believe that the process was in fact conducted scrupulously fairly, as a result of my activities it is only right for me to step down as special adviser to Jeremy Hunt."