Coffee House

Maria Miller and the anatomy of a Tory row

7 April 2014

The papers are trying to keep the momentum going in the Maria Miller row this morning, with a fresh angle in the Telegraph. Such is the seriousness of an adviser’s threat that a valid investigation into a politician’s expenses could restrict the freedom of the press, and such was the inflammatory nature of her non-apology apology that the press will be very keen to keep the row going until some sort of conclusion or concession from the Tory leadership. Likewise, David Cameron is sufficiently stubborn on these matters that he will continue waiting until the row dies down.

Last night a group called Conservative Grassroots called on Miller to go with immediate effect. But this group has long opposed gay marriage and has links to the Bow Group, whose members also opposed the measure that Miller led on as a minister (it is, however, quite separate to another group apparently representing the Tory membership which is also called Conservative Grassroots. The People’s Front of Judea could provide some useful branding advice). This complicates the situation and the Prime Minister is standing by his minister partly because he does not want to see a combination of newspapers angry about press regulation and Conservatives still smarting from the introduction of same-sex marriage driving Miller out.

Claim your gift

What complicates this issue further in the eyes of the Parliamentary Conservative party is that many MPs hate any row over expenses. Some have had their own painful clashes over their own affairs since 2009, others are still sustaining abuse from constituents and the media for their part (or their predecessor’s part) in the original scandal. Expenses tends to make the Tory party bunch together for safety.

The Miller row does bear a number of striking similarities to the early days of the Andrew Mitchell saga. The Prime Minister was then quick to back his chief whip, then called for the media to move on. But colleagues within the party started to stoke the story by briefing against Mitchell and support among MPs began to ebb away, forcing him out. We are not at that final stage. But MPs who I spoke to over the weekend who are currently supportive of Miller feel that this week’s 1922 Committee meeting will – as was the case with Andrew Mitchell – be crucial in determining whether this row quietens down or whether it becomes a great deal more serious. But one MP pointed out to me that ‘quite a lot regret rushing to judgement on Mitchell, so she may get more support’. It will be interesting to see whether the party has learned from the Mitchell saga. So far the PM at least seems to be conforming to the same pattern.

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • perdix

    The comparison with the Mitchell affair is appropriate. Both situations saw most of the MSM screaming for a scalp regardless, with the surprise exception of Rentoul who corrected much of the misinformation. The need to exaggerate and sensationalise in order to sell papers shows the press in a poor light, to those who care.

  • SilentHunter

    This is not just a case of the Tories shooting themselves in the foot . . . they are now in the process of machine gunning both their own legs, prior to the election.

    People struggling to pay their bills will remember “Mrs Miller” when that old lie “We’re all in this together” get’s used again.

  • Mr Creosote

    Isabel – heard you on Woman’s Hour this morning. Aside from your other many attributes, you have a very good “radio voice”.

  • Smithersjones2013

    But one MP pointed out to me that ‘quite a lot regret rushing to
    judgement on Mitchell, so she may get more support’. It will be
    interesting to see whether the party has learned from the Mitchell saga.
    So far the PM at least seems to be conforming to the same pattern.

    And once again the headless fowl of the Tory party get it rear end about face. The Mitchell saga was nothing but superficial Labour fuelled inverse class bigotry (who in their right mind gets so exercised about the word ‘pleb anyway outside the Westminster Freakshow’?) whereas this it is clear is based on the dubious expenses behaviour and subsequent arrogant dismissiveness of a Cabinet Minister far too full of their own mythology.

  • southerner

    I am delighted that Cameron has left her in her job. It will hurt him electorally both in the forthcoming Euro elections and in 2015. When we are rid of that buffoon the un-conservatives may think about becoming conservatives again.

    Maria Miller. The gift that keeps on giving.

  • keith

    no mention in the article of how it looks to the wider public, Isabel your in the bubble, i know you have to keep in with the troughers but surely even you with your blinkers on can see the damage its doing

    • Wessex Man

      Whay exactly do you mean, ‘how it looks to the wider public, Isabel your in the bubble, i know you have to keep in with the troughers but even with your blinkers on can see the damage its doing’

      What planet are you on these arn’t the days of Edward the 8th’s ‘scandal’ with Mrs Simpson, we live and pay our taxes to keep these chancers in the luxury to which they think they should be kept by us plebs, hence the rise of UKip and the whines of people like you and Hooky!

      • keith

        i live on the same planet but apparently you don’t perhaps you get your blinkers from the same place as Isabel, (read my post again stupid) but all i have heard from people at work today is the same, MPs filling there boots at the expense of the public and if you aren’t brainy enough to see that’s how it looks, well you shouldn’t be supporting UKIP you ought to toddle of to Clegg country and don’t put me in the same boat as that idiot hooky

  • Tom Tom

    Culture Secretary is so Soviet as a term anyway……no doubt we will have Party Approved Writers and Performers……

  • DrDavidLowry

    If Maria Miller’s SPAD Jo Hindley rang the Daily Telegraph to draw attention to the newspaper’s editor that Mrs Miller was in the process of deciding on press regulation as its reporters were investigating her expenses claim as an MP, surely that is an abuse of the role of the SPAD, as these advisrs are employed – with taxpayers’ money – to assist ministers in their work as a minister, not to provide support to the minister in their other role as a constituency MP, for which resources are provided for constituency researchers and admin staff.

    • Colonel Mustard

      The whole SPAD system needs investigation and reform. It is preposterous that young whippersnappers who have never done a proper job in their lives should draw up policies and act as heavies and minders for the spin operations of ministers. They are also feeding into and perpetuating a career elite that has rock-all to do with representing anyone. 33% of the Cabinet and 44% of the Shadow Cabinet are now ex SPADS, researchers or speechwriters.

      The number of SPADs, and their cost, has risen steadily since Major’s government when there were only 34 across the whole of Whitehall. Cameron now has 20 reporting to him alone despite his promise to cap the number.

    • Dougie

      Perhaps you ought to take the time to read the transcript/listen to the tape on the Telegraph website. Hindley seems to me to be complaining that, in the post-Leveson era, one would have hoped a broadsheet like the Telegraph would not be adopting the very tabloid tactics of which Leveson was so critical, by door-stepping an elderly relative of Miller’s. But don’t take my word for it, or rely on the headlines, do some proper research.

      • DrCoxon

        I have read and listened to the transcript several times.
        I am more inclined to follow Dr Lowry’s understanding.

  • swatnan

    This demonising of Maria Miller by the Press and Media continues with avengence. The reason is the Press don’t like regulation one bit. They think that they should have the right to intrude on anyones privacy if they think its in the public ( ie the Press’s) interest. The Press need to grow up, and the Public show their distaste by boycotting all printed media.

    • SilentHunter

      It’s not just the press and the media . . . read what the voters of Basingstoke are saying about their MP.

      Just take your pick of any number of petitions now underway to get this corrupt minister out of parliament and read the comments.

      She is a CROOK.

  • jesseventura2

    This is a fat low class greedy cow in the Cherie Blair mould.

  • Peter Stroud

    Keep the story alive: Justice demands it.

  • jesseventura2

    A fat low class thieving cow who cannot even wash her hair should face a judge at court of law.

    • HookesLaw

      Another saddo.

    • realfish


  • DrCrackles

    Hardman lickspittle

  • Stuart Crow

    I greatly resent the innuendo, based on extrapolation of the views of the insignificant Conservatives Grassroots group, that those of us Tories who think Miller has to go want her to go because of her support for equal marriage. I supported equal marriage and think Miller should go.

    It is equally appalling that Labour are arguing that “she won’t be sacked because Cameron already has a ‘woman problem'”. There are plenty of able Tory women kept out of office by useless Lib Dem men (and dishonest ones like David Laws). The attempt to turn MP’s general venality, which has led to plenty of Labour prosecutions, into a specifically Tory problem, is transparently dishonest.

    • HookesLaw

      Laws was entitled to rent accomodation. He did. His new rental arrangements cost us more money.

      • SilentHunter

        Ahhh! M’Lud . . . so it’s not a question of moral judgement; its just how much it costs.

        Case closed. >:o)

  • HookesLaw

    ‘The papers are trying to keep the momentum going in…’ So the papers have their own agenda? Thanks for admitting it.

    • Kitty MLB

      Well of course they have their own agenda Hooky. What with 24 hr news
      and the internet they have a huge amount of competition. Saying that
      the newspapers are our voice and bring things to light . Can we say the same
      about politicians, all of them that is. Especially Labour and this wretched Miller
      woman who should do the decent thing and resign.

      • Wessex Man

        If Call me Dave had a backbone she would be gone long ago!

        • Kitty MLB

          He doesn’t have one of those. My leader is a octopus.

          • DrCoxon

            More a poor puss.

    • SilentHunter


      You must be one of those fantastic prosecuting lawyers you see on tele.

      It even sounds like one of those snazzy American law series . . . “Hookes Law”.

      “A man alone against the system, waging his pointless war to protect the corrupt and sleazy of society”

      Cue closing titles and brash music! LOL

  • Colin56

    It’s a bit difficult to understand why Mrs Miller is so keen to hang onto her non-job. After all, being ‘Culture Secretary’ could only be regarded as some form of compensation for coming second in the egg-and-spoon race. It’s not a real cabinet post with proper responsibilities. In any other efficient organisation – and modern-day government has no claim to be either modern-day or efficient – DCMS would be abolished by lunchtime, and the work given to a 10-person unit grafted on to Mr Gove’s Dept of Education – which is where it thematically belongs. Some poor hapless Minister of State would be deputed to deal with PQs etc. The saving would be immense – financially and symbolically.

    Maybe at some future reshuffle / new administration, the PM will have the courage to take an axe to the number of Government Departments, and reduce the number blethering round the Cabinet table to something manageable, like 12 or 14. It’s time the inexorable growth in government and the number of Departments required to carry it out was stopped.

    Meanwhile, Mrs Miller, who in her published correspondence has made a prize chump of herself, plaintive, whiny, legalistic and totally not getting it, should accept the inevitable and start packing her office into boxes. then we could all move on to something more important.

    • HookesLaw

      Non job? You are confusing Britin with Australia. Yhis rather undermines your diatribe.

      • Colin56

        Sorry, really don’t get what you are saying here. I never mentioned Australia – how is that relevant? My point is that DCMS is an irrelevance in Britain today, it could eb abolished at huge saving (including cabinet-level salary) and its minor remit dealt with by a few civil servants housed in another Department (e.g. Education) and thus Miller’s post would become redundant – as it already is in reality. However, cabinet ministers don’t usually ‘do’ reality, do they?

        Weather’s better in Australia though …!

        • HookesLaw

          Of course you did not mention Australia, if you had then you could not have been confused.

          • Wessex Man

            My dear Hooky, there’s only one here who is confused and that unfortunately is you yet again, ah well mustn’t grumble at least it’s not anyone important.

    • Colonel Mustard

      It adds insult to injury that this department boasts that it is “supported” by 44 “agencies” and “public bodies”, the majority of which are also taxpayer funded or subsidised.

      It originated as a John Major hybrid by aggrandising two minor ministerial posts held in other departments and given the pompous title Department of National Heritage in 1992. An irony since it was about from that time that our true national heritage, the birthright of the British people not the government, began to be seriously and systematically undermined.

    • Dougie

      Perhaps she was just hacked-off at having to spend so much effort dealing with a politically-motivated enquiry originating from a Labour MP’s complaint when she knew, as the Commissioner concluded (eventually) that she was innocent.

  • Colonel Mustard

    Might we expect Ms Hardman to rise, Campbell-like, as a media advisor in any future Labour regime after her Long March into the Spectator?

  • coplani



    Like Greece was….see what happened.

    The Government will not dare change the rules or the law on TAX….so obviously the Culture Secretary will resign…even though she hasn’t done anything illegal.

    And the message is…..


  • Kitty MLB

    There is No comparison between this and Andrew Mitchell, So Cameron
    has decided he’s protecting one of his hard working ministers from the
    savage press who in their dying days, like wild animals around a ever decreasing
    waterhole are tearing the flesh from whatever piece of red meat they can find- Hmmm!
    Mitchell, was sabotaged by the police, who went on to deceive politicians and
    he never said that word ‘ pleb’ and was innocent.
    Whereas Miller is guilty and she was not even good at her job.
    Cameron’s judgement is abysmal. Have any of them learned anything from
    the expenses scandal. And I should like to point out that Labour should stay
    in hiding in regards to that subject- they would not want to remind us of their

    • Mr Grumpy

      Quite, and as for the gay marriage angle, Isabel has conveniently forgotten that IDS voted for it.

      • Chingford Man

        Indeed he did, and now I won’t be voting for him.

        • HookesLaw

          What a saddo you are.

          • Chingford Man

            Really Hooky? You demonstrate it on this site every few minutes. Now put the PC away and get back to your crayons.

        • Kitty MLB

          Oh Wow! Gay marriage, which is I am sure has no affect on your life or anyone else’s apart from those getting married,
          and most certainly doesn’t damage the economy ( unlike Labour) is a really logical and thought provoking reason
          not to vote for a party.
          You could have mentioned going in to coalition, not allowing us
          a referendum earlier and a few other issues if you like..
          but gay marriage.. says rather a lot about you.

          • DrCoxon

            On the eve of the election what did Cameron deny?
            Elected, what did he introduce?
            Was the consultation about WHETHER or HOW?
            Was there a green paper – white paper?
            What did his mother say about him?
            Did Theresa May go into secret conclave in Europe about the timetable for the introduction of the legislation?

            • the viceroy’s gin

              Yes, the Camerluvvies decided they’d do it, and not bother worrying about what anybody might think about their unilateral decision. That’s how socialists work.

              • DrCoxon

                Cameron is a socialist as far as I can see.
                Thank you for your post.

        • Mr Grumpy

          I’m anti too, and as far as that goes I would like to keep Maria Miller in the Cabinet as the perfect poster girl for the cause of bogus equality .Her commitment to the principle that some are more equal than others is so wonderfully transparent.

          But really my point was that it’s nothing more than a smokescreen.

    • kb32904

      “Mitchell, was sabotaged by the police, who went on to deceive politicians andhe never said that word ‘ pleb’ and was innocent.”

      Mitchell has not been declared innocent yet. The officer that claimed he said pleb has not withdrawn the allegation & continues to pursue the case in court. Until that is concluded, it is not possible to verify whether Mitchell said it or not.

      • Kitty MLB

        Just a thought. On the day after this false allegation the
        policeman that wasn’t even there made, in front of a massive
        crowd that wasn’t even there. They were wandering around wearing
        Tee Shirts saying : ‘ I am a Pleb’ they were made very quickly
        were they not ? This was a deliberate plan for the police to get
        a Tory and because Mitchell is arrogant and wealthy he was the perfect choice. Another thing, on those tapes which we eventually saw Mitchell didn’t even break step, he was on his bike until
        he reached the gates and the officer opened them, this
        took less then a minute- hardly time for a long rant.
        But I appreciate there is a court case.

    • Mynydd

      I understand Labour MPs who broke the rules ended up in jail.

      • Kitty MLB

        Really, if that were the case the entire Labour party ( especially Brown)
        should be in jail. I think leaving a country practically destitute and producing a note bragging about it happens to be breaking the rules.
        I am not sticking up for this woman. But Labour, of all parties doesn’t
        have a leg to stand on when it comes to giving lectures.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Er, they ended up in jail because they broke the law. This woman might deserve jail but that would require a prosecution first.

        • Kitty MLB

          Oh No Colonel. Labour prefer their own caterwauling lynch mobs, for anyone who is not a member of their own party.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Yes, please refer to my exposé of the “stepping over the homeless” myth in the previous thread. Google the alleged quote and you find it everywhere repeated as gospel by the leftist collective. But go to the Hansard record of the exchange and you find a very different picture of how it arose.

      • Wessex Man

        not for long enough though!

  • Colin

    How come MPs have rules and the rest of us have The Law? Just askin’.

    The truth is, the expenses scandal is unfinished business, as far as the rest of us are concerned. This recent eruption just goes to show that the rest of us are still angry about the scandal and that the political class have learned nothing.

    I listened to some tory buffoon on radio labour, last night, going on about how there would be constitutional issues if MPs were to be subjected to objective, external scrutiny. The main reasons for the constitutional issues are the arch criminality and egregious contempt for tax payers, at the heart of a rotten political system.

    Bring in HMRC. Let’s have a proper de-lousing process and make it retrospective.

    • Colonel Mustard

      “How come MPs have rules and the rest of us have The Law?”

      Because the fundamental proposition now emerging from our Parliament is “Do as we say, not as we do”. That funny old notion of representing us and our wishes and protecting our liberties is long gone.

    • HookesLaw

      Everyone has expenses rules – different rules for different people in different jobs. Where someone commits fraud as several labour MPs did then they go to court.

      Are you suggesting everyone in the country who makes mistakes with their expenses should go to court? But then I do not expect any sense from any of the usual numpties

      • Colin

        In my experience, a mistake in my expenses is to under claim, usually when I’m up to my neck in work. I don’t have a taxpayer funded team of people to keep me on the right side of the rules. If it’s clear that rules have been broken deliberately and egregiously, then the law should kick in. I’m confused as to how many MPs could have gotten the rules so wrong, for so long. I’m aware of several cases in the workplace, where expenses rules have been broken that have led to the law being applied. In one case, the individual was thrown at the mercy of HMRC. The politicians defence of, “everyone was at it, so I piled in” doesn’t really wash.

        I don’t think that honest, administrative mistakes should be subjected to the full force of the law. For example, if I claim £16.25 for dry cleaning whilst on a five day business trip, because I spilt some claret and cigar ash on my smoking jacket, but the rules say that you can only claim for dry cleaning after seven days, then obviously no need for a P45 and Inspector Knacker. A polite reminder of the rules, from Kylie in accounts will suffice.

        On the other hand, if you get creative in the way that many of the UK Political class have, in relation to housing claims…

        • Colin56

          Something not quite right here . What sort of ‘business trip’ involves ‘claret and cigar ash’ and the wearing of a ‘smoking jacket’? MPs on a tax-payer funded ‘fact-finding’ junket perhaps? A BBC strategy blue-skies away-day? A DCMS love-in for luvvies? I think we should be told …

          • Colin

            You’re obviously working for the wrong company ! :-)

      • GnosticBrian

        You are putting up a straw man – Colin did NOT suggest that everyone who has made “mistakes” in their expenses should be brought before a Court. The question in this case is whether there was a mistake or deliberate intent. Whether MPs, looking into their own, can come to an impartial judgement on that question is open to serious debate.

        • ButcombeMan

          The selection and naming by MM, of her rented accommodation in Basingstoke as being her main home, against the evidence, was a VERY deliberate act.

          Her main home is not optional, it turns on facts, the facts were against her. they were always likely to be against her based on what we know. It is very hard to believe she did not understand that.

          Her intent was absolutely deliberate. yes others flipped their properties. The fact that others did it does not make it, or her, honest.

          If she had been wise and not greedy, she would not have claimed as she did, if having done it and been caught out during the expenses clean-up, she had owned up and paid it all back immediately, with a decent apology, she would not be where she is.

          Her problem almost certainly stems from insufferable arrogance, a guilty mind and ultimately maybe, being married to a lawyer.

          • GnosticBrian

            I agree with pretty well everything that you say. But there is a problem with taking issue with Ms Miller’s “flipping” – no one took action against the hundreds of other MPs (including Cabinet Ministers) in the previous Government who did exactly the same. If she is treated differently on the same facts she will be able to take Judicial Review proceedings.

            The Chairman of the committee that reviewed Miller’s offence, the Labour MP Kevin Baron, sold his taxpayer funded house for a half million pound profit and began renting a property from a fellow MP for £1500 a month and passes the bill on to taxpayers.

            The whole rotten system needs radical reform. MPs simply cannot be trusted to regulate themselves; there are far too many MPs and their expenses / pensions and other perks are far too generous.

            • ButcombeMan

              “If she is treated differently on the same facts she will be able to take Judicial Review proceedings”.

              No one is suggesting she should be treated differently. That decision has been taken. Murky as it is, we are stuck with it.

              None of that affects her position, which is damaging the Tories and particularly Cameron.

              She is the author of her own situation

      • Tom Tom

        Most people are covered by HMRC regulations but MPs have an Exemption in
        The Finance Act…….they are curiously employee- self-employed

      • Aberrant_Apostrophe

        How does one ‘mistakenly’ increase one’s mortgage to nearly twice the purchase price of the house? It seems to me that she looked at the maximum claimable amount for mortgage interest payments and thought “I’ll make my claim close to that”, completely ignoring the main overriding rule that claims should only be for costs incurred in running a second home. What did she use the rest of the mortgage for, and why were the taxpayers paying for it?

      • Mr Grumpy

        Can we have the names of some MPs who have made five-figure mistakes in the taxpayer’s favour?

  • Barakzai

    ‘So far the PM at least seems to be conforming to the same pattern.’

    Indeed he is. Regrettably, that pattern so often leads to a U-turn, criticism of his judgment, or plain embarrassment.

  • judyk113

    The analogy with the Andrew Mitchell injustice is gross and absurd. Nobody forced Maria Miller to make the expenses claims she did. Nobody forced her to send the threatening/lobbying messages she and her sidekick sent. The Parliamentary official who originally concluded that Miller had improperly claimed £40K which she was not entitled to claim is not a member of an organisation currently engaged in a guerrilla campaign against the government. On the contrary, the committee of MPs who decided to overrule the findings of the official and find that she had improperly claimed “only” £5K in expenses could be said to be a group engaged in an undeclared guerrilla war against the public will to stop abuses by MPs of their privileged position on expenses. Ask yourself what would happen to any employee who admitted to overclaiming such amounts of public money without any acceptable reason to do so.

    • John Lea

      Well said, Judy! Why are journalists making comparisons with plebgate and putting overly-generous constructions on this toxic woman’s actions? It’s all very odd, and I imagine it has something to do with staying onside with Cameron.

      • ButcombeMan

        The journalists mentioning the redefinition of marriage issue is hopeless spinning and distraction. Playing the PMs game.

        Cameron would no doubt like to pretend the animosity about MMs expenses activity is linked to other issues. it is not.

        MM behaved absolutely disgracefully, she has shown no repentance and was difficult beyond belief when the matter was flushed out and inquired into, by those legitimately charged with that task.

        Cameron regularly shows quite astonishing lapses of sound judgement. He has done it again with MM, it will not go away. He has also reneged on his promise to clean the stables.

        If the lady had any decency at all, she would have resigned her cabinet post by now. Every moment she stays is a reminder to waverers of the attractions UKIP.

        In the absence of an Opposition able to call MM to account (because they are also thoroughly compromised), it must fall to the public, the bloggers and the press to do it.

        It is noteworthy that decent honest Conservatives like Tebbit are saying she should go.

        Cameron should listen, for once.

        • John Lea

          Agree – yet another example of the gap that exists between the Westminster political class and the general public. Bring on Farage’s ‘People’s Army’!

    • HookesLaw

      Both Hudson – the official you refer to – and Barron the Labour chairman of the committee issued a joint statement to clear up ‘misconceptions’ – a polite way I suspect to describe lies and slander – about the reduction. They said it was because of information that Hudson did not have at the time of her report.
      (if you do not like paywalls go to The Guardian and find out).

      It seems to be clear that the anti gay lobby are at work. Nasty crass bigots know no shame.
      Re the Mitchell comparison, if you had half a brain and could engage in English comprehension you would see that Ms Hardman is not comparing the two events but the backnebch reactions.

      • Tom Tom

        ” the anti gay lobby are at work”

        So Maria Miller is gay and uses the same excuse as David Laws ? Curious

      • Barakzai

        ‘It seems to be clear that the anti gay lobby are at work. Nasty crass bigots know no shame.

        Yes, it is always is clear to you, isn’t it? Your shrill , Pavlovian intolerance on this issue is instructive. Still, if you never get up from the slavering kneeling position in front of your sainted leader, it’s to be expected.

        • Wessex Man

          oh, naughty but nice!

    • Shinsei1967

      The reason the sum involved was reduced from £40k to £5k was that the £40k was an initial “estimate” of what Miller had claimed, which was subsequently found to be too high when the actual mortgage payments were discovered.

      (or so I believe).

      • Frank

        The Commissioner thought that Maria Miller should only (assuming that she was actually eligible for anything, given that her parents lived in the house) get interest reimbursed on her original mortgage and not on the subsequent much larger sums added to the mortgage. I assume that this is because the Commissioner did not feel it appropriate for the public purse to be funding the interest on this added mortgage (since Maria Miller would not provide details on how the money was spent) as this extra money might have been spent on investments, etc.
        For anyone to suggest that the vast majority of the people who are objecting to Miller’s troughing are doing so because they are anti-gay is spinning worthy of Alistair Campbell.

    • jesseventura2

      Good on yer Judy the luvvies cannot police themselves and carry on cottaging.

      • telemachus

        This is a true witch hunt
        The homophobic media (shame on the Telegraph) want her gone
        The anti regulatory media want her gone (shame on Speccie)
        In the grand scheme of things she has done no worse than a good dozen MP’s
        Let’s get back to the issue of regulation of the press

        • Whizjet

          And a lot have been jailed and/or forced out!
          Winterton x 2?
          and the ‘Lords’:

          • telemachus

            But the Telgraph has high jacked the issue to finally kill press regulation

            • Whizjet

              Press Regulation badly needs killing.
              You cannot possibly think we’d have heard about this if Hugh Grant had his way?
              HOWEVER – MP regulation needs changing, and enforcing hard; MPs can and DO cause us far more trouble individually and nationally than all the newspapers put together.

              • telemachus


                • Whizjet


    • Tom Tom

      Duncan Smith should announce an amnesty for benefit cheats and tax fraudsters………sauce for the goose……

  • WatTylersGhost

    The comparison with plebgate is poor. There the police attempted to deceive the politicians, with the Miller fiasco, it’s the politicians trying to deceive the public.

  • Thatcherite Lee

    In the days after plebgate the reaction from the press was ‘AM should resign or be sacked and the PM is weak for not doing and proving he only stands up for his rich mates’ then months later when it became clear that he was stitched up those same people in the press changed their tune to ‘AM should have kept his job and the PM was weak for not standing up for him for longer’. And that includes you Isabel.

    • HookesLaw

      The press want their cake and eat it. The press have a self serving agenda and we should all be very worried about the way it is behaving.
      Lets face it Paul Dacre is the PCC’s Editors’ Code of Practice Committee. Says it all really.

      • Wessex Man

        Much as Hacked-off says it all about press regulation really.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here