Inappropriate or forgettery

There is a saying in our family that sometimes people have a convenient forgettery as opposed to a memory.

The Prime Minister in the House yesterday

Yesterday David Cameron while making his statement and answering questions kept saying he did not any inappropriate conversation with Rebekah Brooks. He also said they he could not recall every conversation that he ever had when being questioned about specifics about conversations with John Yates.

I have just one question how come he is certain that not once in all the 26 meetings with Rebekah Brooks he can be sure that not one he spoke about BSkyB, yet at the same time when talking to the anti-terrorist chief from the Met he cannot recall talking about phone hacking even once. How are we tracing some of these terrorist threats to the UK if not by occasionally sanctioning phone tapping in the public interest? Surely such discussion could lead unto the phone hacking subject?

But as Mark Thompson points out, how can a senior executive at News Corps not take the opportunity of access to the Prime Minister (on one of the 6 occasions in the last year) to talk about her boss's burning ambition. If it was an inappropriate conversation surely the Prime Minister could have stopped her there, and said so in the House yesterday. Something along the lines of:

"Mrs Brooks did attempt to talk to me about BSkyB, but I stopped her from going further with that conversation."

Instead the formulaic "I had no inappropriate conversations, with that woman" sparks memories of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

One thing that the 138* MPs questions to him yesterday did highlight. The PM had a convenient forgettery over conversations with John Yates, but was crystal clear in his recollection of conversations and their appropriateness with Rebekah Brooks.

I suspect a convenient forgettery was in evidence over both.

* Mr Speaker was right the Prime Minister was wrong, he probably could not  recall all the 138 MPs conversations with him. Still with a 1.45% drop off rate after a couple of hours who knows how much the PM can forget in a year.

The Prime Minister: I think it is ingenious, after 136 questions, to come up with something entirely new, so I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. I am sure the judge will be able to look at all vested interests and the power that they wield in our country.
Mr Speaker: I thank the Prime Minister and all Members. I was advised that there were 138 Members, but we will settle for 136, who have had the opportunity to question the Prime Minister, and I thank everyone for participating.

Hansard Vol. 531 Part 191 Col. 962 20 July 2011

Parliamentary Phantom Flan Flinger

Today was meant to be about the questions asked to Andrew Stapleton, the James & Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks. Now due to one numpty it will be remembered for one custard pie and Wendi Deng, Rupert's wife's left hook.

All fingers are pointing towards Jonnie Marbles who on his Tweeted profile has a UK Uncut Twibbon. He said earlier in the afternoon "I'm actually in this committee and can confirm: Murdoch is Mr. Burns." before just a minute before the disruption Tweeted this.

As someone who says they are an "Activist, comedian, father figure and all-round nonsense." who Tweets "in an impersonal capacity" However, comedian's who are activists should look at people like Eddie Izzard, Lenny Henry and Steve Coogan amongst others for the correct mix of being serious and funny to get their points across. This timing and way in which he tried to use humour has actually buried what should be the story tonight and tomorrow and changed the focus.

The action that he has actually carried out had turned Rupert Murdoch into a victim in the space of 60 seconds from being someone that on Twitter was being mocked, just minutes before. Also it is a common assault on an individual, it happened in full view of a largest than normal BBC News audience that time of the afternoon.

It's also result in the end of the Murdoch's questioning and all of Rebekah Brooks to be carried out without a public gallery. It has already been hinted at that a review may have to go underway into how Select Committees happen in the future. I assume that involves the access of members of the public to such hearings.