Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Chris Bryant: Queen warned Cameron about Coulson


It was, perhaps, only a matter of time before the Queen herself became embroiled in the hysteria surrounding #hackgate. The saga has already ruined the lives of hundreds of journalists; humiliated editors and media barons; destroyed confidence in Parliament and the police; brought down a 168-year-old newspaper; and cost a man his life. Now Labour’s Chris Bryant alleges that David Cameron was warned by senior members of the Royal Family about the unsuitability of Andy Coulson.

Entries at 9.10am, 9.26am, and 9.46am on The Guardian’s live-coverage of the phone hacking scandal (20 July 2011) read:
9.10am: Did the Queen tell David Cameron not to hire Andy Coulson? That's what the Labour MP Chris Bryant has just suggested on BBC News. He did not name the Queen, but he talked about "very senior" members of the Royal Family having doubts about the appointment of Coulson as Cameron's communications chief. Bryant said that he thought these warning had been passed on to Cameron's office.

The Queen's grandchildren had their phones hacked. And quite probably other members of the Royal Household ... I think it would be perfectly natural for very senior members of the Royal Family to be very troubled about the appointment. After all, Andy Coulson was the editor of the News of the World when the royal princes' phones were hacked. That is not in dispute. And Andy Coulson indeed resigned from the News of the World expressly because of the hacking of the royal princes' phones ... My understanding is that members of the Royal Family were very troubled about [the appointment] and that there were certainly attempts to make sure that the prime minister understood that.

Bryant said he knew this indirectly from "a very good source". He said that he had not spoken to the person involved directly, but that he had spoken to a person who had spoken to the person (a member of the Buckingham Palace staff, he seemed to imply) who "made quite clear to people that there was a high degree of anxiety about this". The message was passed on not directly to Cameron, but to "members of his team", Bryant said.

9.26am: On the BBC News Mark Harper, the Cabinet Office minister, has just said he cannot comment on Chris Bryant's allegations. (See 9.10am.) According to the BBC, Downing Street sources are already dismissing Bryant's claims as "complete rubbish".

9.46am: Chris Byrant says he has it on good authority that the Royal Family tried to warn David Cameron about hiring Any Coulson. (See 9.10am.) Number 10 says this is "rubbish". (See 9.26am.) Is there any way we can resolve these two claims? Perhaps the warning went to Ed Llewellyn and he just failed to pass it on?
This is curious. The Queens has the constitutional right to warn her Prime Minister on any matter she sees fit. But it would be very odd indeed for her to comment personally on No10 staff, and it would also be rather irregular for ‘very senior’ members of the Royal Family or the Royal Household to express any such opinion. Further, one might ask how on earth Chris Bryant knows about such a warning – who is this ‘very good source?

Come on, Mr Bryant. You’re a theologian, a former Anglican vicar, and a stickler for truth, openness and transparency. So, assuming Her Majesty isn't a personal mate of yours, would you please disclose the identity of the friend of the friend of the very senior members of the Royal Family who warned the Prime Minister’s Office about the unsuitability of Andy Coulson?

You may do so privately via email if you prefer.

Bless you.

50 Comments:

Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Bryant is a sodomite, and therefore his opinions on morality count for nothing.

20 July 2011 at 11:29  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Very enlightened and mature, Mr English Viking. Do you apply such draconian judgement to all whose morality falls short of perfection? If so, by what right do you judge? If not, by whose authority do you differentiate?

20 July 2011 at 11:33  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

You may consider those who stick things where the sun don't shine as on a par with those who promote the institution of Christian marriage, I don't.

There is a difference in a 'falling short' and a deliberately behaving in a manner which provokes god to ensure such persons receive their due reward, in their own bodies.

On the matter of differentiation, I usually distinguish between persons who are merely 'getting on with their lives', albeit in a manner I disagree with, and those which promote perversity and outrageous sin, sometimes dressed only in their underpants, cruising for fellow sodomites on gay web-sites, whilst milking the public purse for heaps of expenses, when I start to criticise others who wish to inflict their amorality on me and my nation with their absurd opinions and wicked laws.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5334791/Chris-Bryant-changed-second-home-twice-to-claim-20000-MPs-expenses.html

http://eotp.org/2008/07/17/131-chris-bryant-m-p/

Any further clarification required, just ask.

20 July 2011 at 11:57  
Anonymous Greg Tingey said...

English Viking: (I'm a Viking too, as my name testifies) ...
So the following people's judgement was worthless was it?
Leonardo da Vinci, Michealangelo, Alan Turing, Frederick the Great ???

Archbish. Cranmer: the source is almost irrelevant. What matters is is it true?
If so, Cameroon is finished, and HM will have to call on another tory (largest party) to be PM.
Any money on Kenneth Clarke?

20 July 2011 at 12:16  
Blogger English Viking said...

Greg,

Their opinions on matters of morality were worthless, yes (you may be doing LDV a disservice, though). I don't doubt that those you quote were not great inventors, artists, mathematicians and invaders of other's nations (although what that has to do with a high moral standard, I'm not sure).

Chris Bryant might well be very good at golf, for all I know. I just don't want those with what the Bible calls 'darkened minds' making laws and judgements on how I should live my life, especially when they are proven thieves to boot.

BTW My reply was to HG, a Christian, by all accounts, and so if you are not a Christian, please don't bother arguing with me as I don't expect you to be familiar with nor submit to the authority of scripture.

20 July 2011 at 12:27  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Greg Tingey @ 12.16, 'Any money on Kenneth Clarke?'

No. Nor on the resurrected Ted Heath.

20 July 2011 at 12:37  
Blogger English Viking said...

Greg,

BTW Earliest use I can find in the UK of your surname is around 300 years too late to be Scandinavian. Probably means 'nail-maker'. Appears in Cambridge around 1400.

If you have more info, I'd be interested.

20 July 2011 at 12:39  
Blogger English Viking said...

I don't think Cast Iron Dave has the integrity to resign, nor HM the will to remove him.

There could well be a
smoking gun, yet to be revealed, which will trigger a no confidence vote, but apart from that, we're stuck with this liar for the time being.

20 July 2011 at 12:42  
Anonymous Greg Tingey said...

EV
Means "0ne who speaks at the THING"
( As in Al-thing ot Tyn-wald )

AND
As someone who escaped evangelical xtianity, and who has read all the bible except Numbers and parts of Duteronomy ... I probably know more about it than you.
Which is why I'm an atheist.
Yes, I've read the "recital" as well - makes a horrible sort of "sense" if you imagine Ian Paislet ranting it out ....

20 July 2011 at 13:13  
Blogger English Viking said...

Greg,

With respect, I doubt it. If you have not read the entire Bible, you cannot claim to be so knowledgeable.

You don't seem much of a Viking to me. They were not atheists. BTW I think you are mistaken in the etymology of your surname.

20 July 2011 at 13:25  
Anonymous LCF said...

Yes. Retrospectively, Cameron made a mistake in hiring Coulson. A mistake which he readily admits in hindsight, provided that he is actually foud guilty of anything. Seems fair enough to me.

Coulson resigned from News of the World, and Cameron gave him a second chance. I can't see a problem with that - I've been given more than one second chance by good (usually Christian) people in my life, and I'm incredibly grateful for them, and I hope I've lived up to any assurances I've made.

What I cannot stomach, however, is the constant hypocritical and unchallenged, 24/7 moralising on the BBC from such moral heavyweights as "underpants" Bryant, Prescott, Tom Watson, Alastair Campbell, Kevin Maguire, etc. etc.

20 July 2011 at 13:56  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace paints a most contrasting post :)

Indeed were it not for "the" and "a" the seriousness of the name of the source would be an important matter.

20 July 2011 at 14:41  
Anonymous Ethelred Bottoms-Up said...

Isn't Sodomite a town in West Texas?

20 July 2011 at 14:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So a labour person puts out rumour to add to the other ones put out by the Labour/BBC/Grundy that are still waiting any proof ! mind this is a good one as what ever the palace say's he will say it backs him up and the BBC will dutifully report it ! again!

20 July 2011 at 15:03  
Blogger English Viking said...

EBU,

Dunno. There is a Sodom in Shetland though.

20 July 2011 at 15:13  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Bit like the playground and Chinese whispers this one.

"Please Miss so and so said such and such about this or that person to so and so."

Do grow up and act like a responsible journalist! Can any of you be trusted?

Time to put up or shut up Mr Bryant. It's far too easy to quote an anonymous source and stir up mischief. Is your "very good source" a cook, a butler, a gardener or maybe even a Palace Guard?

20 July 2011 at 15:21  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Greg Tingey said ...
"Yes, I've read the "recital" as well - makes a horrible sort of "sense" if you imagine Ian Paislet ranting it out ...."

Pray tell, what is 'the recital'? I've never heard of this and Google is no help.

20 July 2011 at 15:27  
Anonymous IanCad said...

He only gets worse. Now he has appointed Cressida Dick as head of counter-terrorism. She of the Directorate of Diversity and the slaying of Jean Charles de Menezes. That hairy jobsworth should have been drummed out of the force long ago, and now Good Judgement Dave has done it again. May The Lord help us!

20 July 2011 at 15:27  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Finally, someone has identified a Dragon to slay!

20 July 2011 at 15:54  
Anonymous Oswin said...

If true, Cameron is finished.

20 July 2011 at 18:06  
Anonymous IanCad said...

I should have said 'Endorsed the appointment'

20 July 2011 at 18:12  
Blogger Span Ows said...

It's obvious:

Journalist: What do you think about this Coulson business then?

Royal: Who?

Bingo! The doubt was expressed!

20 July 2011 at 18:25  
Anonymous Oswin said...

LCF @13:66 : I quite agree, giving a 'second chance' is admirable in many circumstances. However, if it is true that Her Majesty, or some 'significant other' Royal, tipped Cameron the wink, then he is culpable.

20 July 2011 at 18:37  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Well, we have been informed by our respected Abp Cranmer of this Blog that Mr Bryant is "a theologian, a former Anglican vicar, and a stickler for truth, openness and transparency", and that he has been publicly invited to "disclose the identity of the friend of the friend..."

Mr Bryant has been pleased enough with himself to have publicised his proclivities, as a commenter has mentioned above.

He may be a very sad case. But in my view the Guardian piece is beneath the gutter.

20 July 2011 at 20:30  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Can someone explain to me why the BBC and the Guardian are being criticised here by some for reporting Mr Bryant's comments?

Surely the 'suggestions' by this trouble maker were 'news worthy'? Certainly, if true, very serious indeed. We now know the Palace has denied his allegations.

20 July 2011 at 22:09  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

If so, Cameroon is finished, and HM will have to call on another tory (largest party) to be PM.
Any money on Kenneth Clarke?

IMO, it only matters if it is true, if Cameron himself wishes to make it matter. Which would have more to do with how good his alternative employment prospects are made to look to him, then anything to do with the will of the country, the media, his party, or parliament as a whole.

Not much over a year ago we finally got shot of the last Labour government. A government that gave us one prime minister that lied this nation into a ten year old war and counting, and another that lied this country into a financial abyss from which it will never fully recover.

How be it then, that David Cameron is apparently finished, after only 18 months, because of what precisely?

Not doing what her majesty may have politely suggested, or employing someone that may have turned out to be a dodgy crook, or both?

If the truth was known, which is very rarely is, all of our journalists, as well as ALL of our MP's, would be currently in the dock for a whole list of mainly differing offenses. There is some degree of honor between these crooks, just absolutely none towards you or me.

However one charge that they should all be arrested for tomorrow morning is obtaining moneys by deception, or false pretenses, known as extortion.

How do you know when a politician or a journalist is lying?

Answer; their lips start moving.

Question, how do you know when a journalist or a politicians are being economical with the truth, or as thick as two short planks of extremely dense wood?

Answer; their lips stop moving.

How do you spot true evil in a politician or a journalist?

( The easy method would be noting that their first name is either Polly, Denis, Will, Tony, Gordon, Kenneth or Peter. )

These are the ones who make you genuinely feel that they are your friend, on your side, or indeed give a monkeys, whether you, or your family live, or die. In other words, Masters of The Black Art of Deception.

This is because, none of them are your friend, on your side, or give a monkeys, or a bent penny for that matter, whether you, your family, your nation, or just about every one else but them, die the most horrible deaths imaginable.

The above has always been the case in the distant and not so distant past. Only an utter fool would seriously delude themselves into thinking that in this regard things essentially work any differently today then they did hundreds or indeed thousands of years ago.

You 'elected/selected' known political elites are where they arrived, and then allowed to stay, simply because they have proven beyond doubt that they don't care for anyone else but their own self-interest.

We are but a virus to those who long since enslaves us, but unfortunately for them, not deadly enough to ourselves, without their particular well tried and tested brand of assistance.

Indeed one of our more infamous owners actually admitted on record, to wishing he could be reincarnated as a fatal virus, so he could wipe-out billions of the more common, bottom feeding masses.



If you are stupid enough to believe that you are being lied to, when you are really being told the truth. As well as stupid enough to believe you are being told the truth, when you are so obviously being lied to virtually all of the time. Then you have proven yourself so fundamentally stupid, that you fully deserve whichever painless, or otherwise fate your masters have planned for you.

20 July 2011 at 22:35  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I believe it is referring to the closing verses of Romans Chapter 1.

20 July 2011 at 23:21  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Please let me define for your instruction a Master of Deception.

A true master of deception is a person who is capable of deceiving not only others but themselves that they are most earnestly speaking the whole truth, while repeatedly stating the precise opposite.

They so effortlessly achieve this by first deceiving themselves into often genuinely believing that they are only lying for an almost infinitely higher moral, social or spiritual end, or Common Purpose.

Therefore, not because of the initiated particular self-interest, mental disorder, political, nationalistic, or religious indoctrination, personal status, or more natural inclination towards self-preservation.

The most infamous Master of this form of the darkest of Black Arts, was of course Adolf Hitler; more recent examples IMO, would be Polly Toynbee, and Tony Blair.

20 July 2011 at 23:26  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

English Viking said...
"Dodo, I believe it is referring to the closing verses of Romans Chapter 1."

Thank you English Viking.

A very inspiring and revealing Scriptural passage indeed.

21 July 2011 at 00:57  
Anonymous greg Tingey said...

Anything by the woman-hating Saul of Tarsus is likely to be unpleasant .....
And vs 24-32 do seem to be a really good foaming rant, don't t hey?

21 July 2011 at 08:39  
Anonymous Disraeli said...

Your Grace. At what point in these proceedings does the pernicious influence of secret societies have on the establishment of this country come to light? Isn’t the reason why individuals may freely move from police to media to government, enjoying privilege and immunity, is for the sake of the widows son?

21 July 2011 at 08:57  
Anonymous Paleo said...

Tough luck Greg Non-Viking, your opinion is as pearls before swine.

I'm with the heretic English Viking on this one.

21 July 2011 at 09:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Romans 1 verses 24 - 26 = "The recital"?
sounds like a good description of the whole human race to me!

21 July 2011 at 09:48  
Anonymous IanCad said...

gregg Tingey @ 08:39

"Anything by the woman-hating Saul of Tarsus is likely to be unpleasant ....."

Woman-hating!? Hardly!

"Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."
Ephesians 5:25

21 July 2011 at 09:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous

Just so long as any behaviours are on The Square for the sake of the Widow's Son.

(I saw that film too!)

21 July 2011 at 09:53  
Anonymous Oswin said...

IanCad @ @08:39 :

Saul's/Paul's supposed misogyny is pretty small beer considering his earlier proclivities; a bit of a brute, wouldn't you say?

21 July 2011 at 10:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris Bryant's comments should certainly be taken with a large measure of salt when it is remembered that it is he who has done more than most to meddle with the Act of Succession and the sovereign's position vis-a-vis Parliament.

Also remembering that the Royal Family's employment of homo/bisexuals is not unknown, could this not be a case of "sour grapes" or "one-upmanship" between the "courts" of Royal Family members?

21 July 2011 at 11:07  
Anonymous Greg Tingey said...

Saul/Paul is well-known for ensuring the subservient posture of women in christian socisties ... taken of course from his Roman Citizenship.
The attitude to women by official christianity (as opposed to some individual christians - who have just enough sense to ignore some parts of the bible) is just about better than that of islam, but that is about all....

21 July 2011 at 11:21  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Oswin,
Prior to his conversion Saul of Tarsus was, likely, a member of the Sanhedrin who was present at Stephen's trial. As a member of that zealous order he lived up to all the light, or I should say darkness that he knew.
He is a shining example of the mercy of Christ in accepting the vilest offender who truly believes.

Gregg,
The "subservience" of women in Christian societies is a perception clouded by viewing the past through the lens of today.
The nature of ladies as we know them is no different than in the days of yore. They are and were more than capable of dealing with men who offend them and, doubtles, will remain so.
"Yes Dear, I'll shut the computer down right now and do those dishes." "What's that? I didn't put out the trash?" "Sorry Honey, consider them both done then I'll start supper."

21 July 2011 at 13:46  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Changing sides does not always mean changing one's nature.

21 July 2011 at 14:19  
Anonymous Ethelred Bottoms Up said...

English Viking - Indeed there is. I wonder if they host activity holidays.

Nomen est omen.

21 July 2011 at 15:32  
Blogger len said...

Iancad,
Paul ,Saul of Tarsus. In my mind a big question mark hangs over Paul.Man of God or Pharisee?.
Paul seems to have taken the message of Jesus and turned it into the 'religion of Paul'.
Thoughts anyone?

Mohammed had an encounter with an 'angel', Paul a blinding light.
Jesus said I saw Satan fall like 'lightning from Heaven'.Satan himself appears as an Angel of Light.

21 July 2011 at 18:42  
Anonymous Greg Tingey said...

Oh dear.
Ther is no god or satan either.....

There ARE good and evil people, and mixtuires of the two,
Imaginary sky fairies of either sort are just excuses

21 July 2011 at 19:40  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Len,

In Acts 9 Christ told Ananias that Paul was His chosen vessel to bear His name before the gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith claimed revelations from God. As have many others. By their fruits you shall know them. If what they claim is not in harmony with the word of God then they are false prophets.
Luke 10:18 is most likely symbolic and perhaps interpreted in conjunction with Rev 12:7-12.
God's ways are not our ways. We do not know who will answer the call of the Holy Spirit.
Why John Newton? Slave trader and mighty man of God.
Why Martin Luther? So full of faith, but with venom for the Jews.

21 July 2011 at 21:25  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

My answer from an earlier thread.

God chose Peter, the man of faith, and John, the poet, mystic and evangelist. Both were simple, uneducated men, called by Jesus. In His wisdom, after His death and resurrection, He chose Paul, the biblical scholar steeped in a detailed knowledge of Judaism. Why?

Paul brought the great completion of Judaism in Jesus Christ to light. Alongside Peter's faith and John's mystical insight, Paul's intellect, drive and passion for the Torah completed the Apostles.

Where would the Christian Church be today without the inspired writings of Saint Paul?

21 July 2011 at 22:33  
Blogger English Viking said...

Len,

You're kidding, right?

It's not really you, is it?

22 July 2011 at 00:38  
Anonymous Homo Hamed said...

Is this the same Chris Bryant who advertised himself on the internet for gay sex?

http://bit.ly/pcTfVb

Nice to have such an "upstanding" guy holding the moral high ground

22 July 2011 at 08:47  
Anonymous RJ said...

I have to say that I don't see why it would be inappropriate for senior royals to comment in private on important political appointees, which Coulson was.

22 July 2011 at 15:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Homo Hamed: "[link]"

So much for Kelvin's comment in the link: "Perhaps I could remind them what he said on his gay site: "I'm as horny as *******. I'd love a good long ****." And come the next General Election I know who will give it to him. His constituents." Well Kelvin, he was voted in with 55.17% of the vote, compared to 18.08% for the next best and 6.4% for the Conservatives.

24 July 2011 at 17:09  
Blogger len said...

Dodo and E V ,
I think Paul epistles are open to misinterpretation and can( emphasis on can) lead people astray.
When Paul is compared to Christ there are' apparent' differences in theology particularly regarding Grace and Works.
The problem as I see it is there is legalism on one hand and licence on the other.
The problem is that Christendom thinks salvation is to believe in Jesus and thereby escape Hell after death, leaving their believers still captive to sin until death. When Christendom tells their sinning believers that the law is dead, they are really saying that for their believers there is no sin; no law, no sin. What better tale could the devil have spun? Christendom has cast the law behind their backs, calling evil good, calling the wicked righteous, while totally ignoring the Bible's many stated exclusions, requirements, and qualifying conditions of salvation.
Whereas Gods moral law still stands, the moral core of the law is, love your neighbor as yourself; honor your mother and father; do not steal; do not commit murder; do not lie; do not commit adultery; do not covet; do not steal. They are summed up in the command: do to others as you would have them do to you. Until you are walking under total control of the Spirit of God, we (Christians) are still required to be obedient to the moral core of the Law, which law is also written on every man's heart to excuse or accuse their actions, and by which God will judge all men. Rom 2:8-16.

26 July 2011 at 20:11  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older