What do you you think RB meant when she communicated to the PM that they were in it together?

That they were in the same ideological group, looking to promote the same aims.

Playing it with an awfully straight bat there I see minty

Oh my lord this gets funnier.
Cameron comes back and now he has info that his wife keeps a diary and they met the Brooks only about once every 6 weeks.
Exactly who is he trying to kid here?
A very interesting point from Glen Oglaza (on twitter) that being 'will she ever publish?'
I bet not and that diary will be unfortunately 'lost'

That may well be true, especially when you consider the wording

i.e. they met, as two couples, only about once every 6 weeks

Fair point.

Cameron is coming out if this looking like a liar IMHO.

Now he is saying that apparently he just happened to have 'forgotten' about the memo Hunt sent him when he gave him the SKY job.
Although Jay may not land the killer blow I doubt anyone will be able to believe a word that comes out of Cameron's mouth in the future.

That plus he may have other question to answer when the Brooks case goes to trial.

This is why Jay has often appeared stunted in his questioning of certain participants. A number have people have been charged and many more are still under arrest, pending further enquiries, this has had an effect on the questions and the areas of enquiry that Jay can follow.

It may appear that some seem to have got off lightly, I seriously doubt that the participants themselves feel the same way. This whole saga has still, very much got legs.

I've really good friends that my wife and I don't see that often. "Just how close" then?

Cameron stated today that the Tories had no pro Murdoch agenda. How does he explain that when James Murdoch made speech to the Edinburgh Television Festival in 2009 calling for the shrinking of the BBC and the limiting of Offcom's power, both he and Hunt made similar speech almost immediately afterwards? How does he explain that almost the first act of Hunt when coming to power in 2010 was to tell the BBC it would have to take a 16% cut in its budget, and gave them 48 hours to come up with some proposals? Exactly what the Murdochs had been calling for.
The question is how interested are the general public in what's going on? I'm interested but then I'm interested in politics - but most people aren't. e.g the woman on The Chase tonight when asked whether there'd been more Labour, Tory or Liberal PM's in the twentieth century got the answer wrong. I'd have thought anyone who was only moderately aware of politics would have known that but she didn't. Is she typical? And if she is is all this Levison stuff going over most people's heads?

Yes Joe Public doesn't care.

I think a lot has got to do with people forgetting the reasons for setting up Leveson in the first place. It is to establish the culture, practice and ethics of the British press. Once these have been established, Leveson will then make recommendations of how to tackle any shortcomings.

Those who have been anticipating new revelations of any whiffs of scandal will be disappointed. What it has shown so far is that those involved: press, newspaper proprietors, politicians etc, although they may or may not have lied under oath, have certainly been more than economic with the facts and collectively seem to have a memory shortfall to a greater or lesser degree. So much so that I sincerely hope Andrew Lansley has got a few quid stuffed away somewhere because it looks like Altzheimers will reach epidemic proportions, if Leveson is anything to go by.

The real scandals and I am in no doubt that there will be some very real scandals, will start to be made public once Leveson has finished and Operations Weeting, Elvedon and Tuleta see more people appearing before the courts. This whole exercise has the potential to be as damaging to the current establishment as the Profumo affair was in the 1960s

I entirely agree Cod'ead, the difference being that in the sixties people were shocked that their leaders may only be human after all.
These days, we don't even expect that much out of them.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/22/rebekah-brooks-southwark-hearing_n_1617941.html?utm_hp_ref=twBrooks and her old man back in court today[/url

And just when you thought it was safe, we are now faced with [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/19/rebekah-brooks-movie-announced_n_1529374.html?1340357539&just_reloaded=1Rebekah - The Movie[/url

On a slightly related note I've been thinking for a while that some of this lot will be prime candidates for PR rehabilitation by reality TV when the dust finally settles.

Wonder what price Rebekah has negotiated for her book deal? That alone will set her up for several lives.

lets hope its a prison diary then.

Her brief has already complained that she is being tried by internet and the judge has promised to look into what can be done to curb any comments that may prejudice a fair trial.

Mulcaire's fooked.

[url=http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2012_0038_ps.pdfMulcaire loses appeal over naming who instructed him to hack phone messages[/url

I would imagine he isn't the only one.

Another arrest this morning apparently under Operation Weeting.

youtube - Three Humans Comedy present:

Leves Miserables: The Phone-Hacking Inquiry Musical

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/phone-hacking-the-full-charges-against-the-seven-news-of-the-world-journalists-and-glenn-mulcaire-7972880.htmlEight facing 19 charges[/url

[url=http://blog.qualitysolicitors.com/2012/07/18/watch-what-you-tweet/Some timely advice[/url

Absolutely.

Tempting though it may be to comment, given what has been discussed in the last year or so, we need to be very aware that this is now sub judice.

I thank you.

Doesn't stop Rebekah, who does have one or two media contacts, mounting her campaign of innocence, though, as well as evidence of good character making it unlikely that she would do this sort of thing. Not that I expect any future juror is at all likely to have read any of her comments, as they have only been reported on every news channel and all the papers.



In fact, I don't know why she made them, since all her family and friends presumably already know that she is innocent, so it's very hard to see at what audience these remarks could be aimed.

I believe Coulson made a similar statement. The fact that they try to portray themselves as some kind of paragon of virtue, bravely fighting the system to stand up for victims like Millie Dowler just makes me hate the b&stards more.