VIDEO - Did Rebekah Brooks THREATEN David Cameron?

Did Rebekah Brooks threaten David Cameron?




I love Jay's "Mmm" responses...especially the one at the very end

I watched this on the Armageddon thread Annabel has posted , together with stuff about Goncarlo and Redwood. Paola Reis has written the Article and
threatened to expose everything in his Book which will be published in December, have a look, it's very interesting.

Thanks HiDeHo,
Along with suffering a 'bad hair day' she seems to have succumbed to a 'bad liar day'.

i cant see the Armageddon thread, or is it called something else.

malena stool wrote:Thanks HiDeHo,
Along with suffering a 'bad hair day' she seems to have succumbed to a 'bad liar day'.

I think she's been to the same elocution school as the Tapas 9: errrrr....emmmmm....!!!

tanszi wrote:i cant see the Armageddon thread, or is it called something else.

Its here tanzi, in the World News section
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t15948-is-this-armageddon-for-murdoch-and-newscorp

Like all good and reasonable investigators
and barristers, you don't frame a question
unless you are sure of your source and you
are pretty sure of the answer.
So, the 'Theresa May question' as posed to
RB, must be a credible one and with a reliable
source. Therefore, the answer was predictable,
and I believe it has placed RB into a dire situation
where she has been exposed as a lyer under
oath, and as head of an organisation which had
mastery over democratic elected politicians.
The T May question was asked by Jay IMO
to undermine and reveal any past or present
strangle-hold the Murdoch empire had on
political personalities. A bad hair day for
RB me thinks.

marxman wrote:Like all good and reasonable investigators
and barristers, you don't frame a question
unless you are sure of your source and you
are pretty sure of the answer.
So, the 'Theresa May question' as posed to
RB, must be a credible one and with a reliable
source. Therefore, the answer was predictable,
and I believe it has placed RB into a dire situation
where she has been exposed as a lyer under
oath, and as head of an organisation which had
mastery over democratic elected politicians.
The T May question was asked by Jay IMO
to undermine and reveal any past or present
strangle-hold the Murdoch empire had on
political personalities. A bad hair day for
RB me thinks.

and he asked the question twice, followed by Lord Leveson asking it a different way. Clearly a very important question, and one which they want to be sure RB understood.

marxman wrote:Like all good and reasonable investigators
and barristers, you don't frame a question
unless you are sure of your source and you
are pretty sure of the answer.
So, the 'Theresa May question' as posed to
RB, must be a credible one and with a reliable
source. Therefore, the answer was predictable,
and I believe it has placed RB into a dire situation
where she has been exposed as a lyer under
oath, and as head of an organisation which had
mastery over democratic elected politicians.
The T May question was asked by Jay IMO
to undermine and reveal any past or present
strangle-hold the Murdoch empire had on
political personalities. A bad hair day for
RB me thinks.

The fact that the question was posed twice makes me think the source was reliable.

Wintabells wrote:

marxman wrote:Like all good and reasonable investigators
and barristers, you don't frame a question
unless you are sure of your source and you
are pretty sure of the answer.
So, the 'Theresa May question' as posed to
RB, must be a credible one and with a reliable
source. Therefore, the answer was predictable,
and I believe it has placed RB into a dire situation
where she has been exposed as a lyer under
oath, and as head of an organisation which had
mastery over democratic elected politicians.
The T May question was asked by Jay IMO
to undermine and reveal any past or present
strangle-hold the Murdoch empire had on
political personalities. A bad hair day for
RB me thinks.

and he asked the question twice, followed by Lord Leveson asking it a different way. Clearly a very important question, and one which they want to be sure RB understood.

Hi Wintabells, yes indeed, on the face of it, it
appears benal and insignificant, but it is a question
that exposes the culture of blackmail, apart from
already known culture of bribery that has corrupted
so many cops and mps.
RB i think, had no way out of that question. Admitting
would be disasterous, likewise denying it when Jay was
probably aware of its honesty was equally bad.
Ya don't pay barristers peanuts!

marxman wrote:

Wintabells wrote:

marxman wrote:Like all good and reasonable investigators
and barristers, you don't frame a question
unless you are sure of your source and you
are pretty sure of the answer.
So, the 'Theresa May question' as posed to
RB, must be a credible one and with a reliable
source. Therefore, the answer was predictable,
and I believe it has placed RB into a dire situation
where she has been exposed as a lyer under
oath, and as head of an organisation which had
mastery over democratic elected politicians.
The T May question was asked by Jay IMO
to undermine and reveal any past or present
strangle-hold the Murdoch empire had on
political personalities. A bad hair day for
RB me thinks.

and he asked the question twice, followed by Lord Leveson asking it a different way. Clearly a very important question, and one which they want to be sure RB understood.

Hi Wintabells, yes indeed, on the face of it, it
appears benal and insignificant, but it is a question
that exposes the culture of blackmail, apart from
already known culture of bribery that has corrupted
so many cops and mps.
RB i think, had no way out of that question. Admitting
would be disasterous, likewise denying it when Jay was
probably aware of its honesty was equally bad.
Ya don't pay barristers peanuts!

I think Rebekah Brooks landed herself in deep doo-doo!!

AnnaEsse wrote:

marxman wrote:Like all good and reasonable investigators
and barristers, you don't frame a question
unless you are sure of your source and you
are pretty sure of the answer.
So, the 'Theresa May question' as posed to
RB, must be a credible one and with a reliable
source. Therefore, the answer was predictable,
and I believe it has placed RB into a dire situation
where she has been exposed as a lyer under
oath, and as head of an organisation which had
mastery over democratic elected politicians.
The T May question was asked by Jay IMO
to undermine and reveal any past or present
strangle-hold the Murdoch empire had on
political personalities. A bad hair day for
RB me thinks.

The fact that the question was posed twice makes me think the source was reliable.

Yes, and asking it twice made sure there was no ambiguity and gave her the chance to properly 'bury' herself.

AnnaEsse wrote:

marxman wrote:Like all good and reasonable investigators
and barristers, you don't frame a question
unless you are sure of your source and you
are pretty sure of the answer.
So, the 'Theresa May question' as posed to
RB, must be a credible one and with a reliable
source. Therefore, the answer was predictable,
and I believe it has placed RB into a dire situation
where she has been exposed as a lyer under
oath, and as head of an organisation which had
mastery over democratic elected politicians.
The T May question was asked by Jay IMO
to undermine and reveal any past or present
strangle-hold the Murdoch empire had on
political personalities. A bad hair day for
RB me thinks.

The fact that the question was posed twice makes me think the source was reliable.

And I'm pretty sure that Jay has his 'ace up
his sleeve' ready to denounce RB when it
comes to final conclusion.

It will be interesting to see what Cameron is asked when he appears, he too is under oath. The McCanns won't like it being mentioned that they received £1 million.!!!

AnnaEsse wrote:

malena stool wrote:Thanks HiDeHo,
Along with suffering a 'bad hair day' she seems to have succumbed to a 'bad liar day'.

I think she's been to the same elocution school as the Tapas 9: errrrr....emmmmm....!!!

As far as telling the truth goes she certainly wouldn't stand much chance of winning a game of snap.....

What are the chances off her being charged today...

kitti wrote:What are the chances off her being charged today...

No idea but I guess there must be some evidence for the charges to be brought. What is noticeable is that her husband is also charged. I wonder if part of it it has anything to do with the laptops in the garage dustbin story.


ETA I believe they have been charged the decision today is a decision whether or not to proceed with a prosecution.

ETA (again!) I stand corrected they hadn't previously been charged but it does look like the laptops will figure in the trial.

The way she presented herself, her expression and attempts to sidestep direct answers at the Leverson enquiry screams out to me that she is trying it on but, who knows what the official line will be?

Chris wrote:

kitti wrote:What are the chances off her being charged today...

No idea but I guess there must be some evidence for the charges to be brought. What is noticeable is that her husband is also charged. I wonder if part of it it has anything to do with the laptops in the garage dustbin story.


ETA I believe they have been charged the decision today is a decision whether or not to proceed with a prosecution.

I'd go along with that, Chris. RB admitted that she persuaded Cameron by putting pressure on him which doesn't allow for a completely free choice in the matter.

I wasn't taken in by RB's "Little girl lost" dress and demeanor...smart, but on a very sticky wicket and it showed.

Brunt just announced she and husband are to be charged with perverting the course of justice.

mossman wrote:Brunt just announced she and husband are to be charged with perverting the course of justice.

Excellent News .............. this all might be painfully protracted, but it gives the lie to the idea that widespread malpractice in a Democratic society can prevail.

Latest

Monday former Prime Minister Tony Blair will be giving evidence.

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16236564

Mark White, Home Affairs correspondent
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair will be asked whether he struck a deal with Rupert Murdoch, for the media tycoon's support, when he testifies at the Leveson inquiry into media ethics on Monday.

Mr Murdoch, who appeared before the hearing on April 25th, denied there was ever a deal between the pair.

He told the inquiry: "I, in 10 years of his power, never asked Mr Blair for anything. Nor indeed did I receive any favours."

A growing number of those who served in the Blair government have conceded the relationship was too close at times.

News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch

Mr Murdoch met Mr Blair many times when he was Labour leader

In his evidence to Lord Justice Leveson, the former Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said the relationship had "arguably" become "closer than wise" but dismissed claims of a "Faustian pact" involving commercial concessions for News Corp in return for support from its newspapers.

There is no doubt though that the former Prime Minister and Rupert Murdoch were close. Mr Blair is godfather to the media tycoon's daughter Grace.

He met Mr Murdoch on around 40 occasions during his time at the top British politics and Mr Blair secured something no other Labour leader had ever managed, a decade of support from Mr Murdoch's UK newspaper titles.

Under Tony Blair's leadership, New Labour actively chased that support. He personally travelled to Hayman Island in Australia to address News Corp executives in 1995, as part of the party's strategy to communicate with newspapers that had unfavourably portrayed previous leaders Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock.

Phil Hall, who was the News of the World's editor at the time Mr Blair came to power told Sky News he did not buy into the theory there was any deal between New Labour and News Corporation.

Peter Mandelson

Lord Mandelson said Mr Blair may have got too close to Mr Murdoch

He said: "There's been all this talk of a faustian pact, I don't believe that actually existed. I think what Murdoch saw in Tony Blair was a future Prime Minister who was more conservative than the Conservatives. He was young, he had flare and the two men became very close."

In her evidence to the Leveson inquiry on May 21st, Blair's former Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said when she took over the role in 2002 she sought assurances from the then Prime Minister that there had been no backdoor deal with Rupert Murdoch.

She told the hearing: "I asked him whether or not any deal had been done on the cross-media ownership rules. He gave me an absolute assurance, which I completely accepted, that there had been no prior agreement."

Lance Price, who was part of Tony Blair's Downing Street communications team told Sky News: "The truth of the matter is that the Murdoch empire did have a closer relationship with Number 10 than the other organisations did.

"It was a two-way process, they both could see that there were benefits to them from it and it was a relationship that from both sides had its benefits and its downsides."

Tessa Jowell

Tessa Jowell: 'No backdoor deal with Mr Murdoch'

Mr Blair's testimony will mark the beginning of a week of evidence from political heavyweights.

On Tuesday, the Education Secretary and friend of the Murdoch's Michael Gove will give evidence, as will Home Secretary Theresa May.

She is likely to be asked about claims that former News International Chief Executive Rebekah Brooks threatened her with sustained negative headlines in the Sun newspaper, if she refused to order a renewed investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

On Wednesday, the Business Secretary Vince Cable will appear. He will face some awkward questions over comments he made "declaring war on Rupert Murdoch." He lost his responsibility for overseeing News Corporation's bid for BSkyB after those revelations were made public.

That responsibility was handed to Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who is now fighting for his political survival, after evidence at the Leveson inquiry revealed close communications between his department and News Corporation during that bidding process.

His Special Adviser, Adam Smith resigned last month after the email evidence between him and News Corp lobbyist Fred Michel was released.

Jeremy Hunt will have his day before Leveson on Thursday.
Recommended Stories

Annabel wrote:Latest

Monday former Prime Minister Tony Blair will be giving evidence.

It will be grotesque to watch.
He will slither and gurn that false squirming smile of his, which is nothing more than an obsessively cultivated series of facial muscular poses, as he employs the same tactics that he has used throughout, namely to slip around any impugning questioning, in every way possible, to evade saying anything that might even remotely resemble the truth.

I just hope with every beat of my heart that Lord Leveson and Mr. Jay QC, who, in my opinion, have both been magnificently incisive to date, will be able to cut the mustard with this slippery little sucker.

In a weird kind of way, I'm looking forward to watching him!