Thanks to the votes of Labour MPs, David Cameron handily defeated a rebel backbencher’s wrecking amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Former children’s minister Tim Loughton tabled an amendment that would have allowed heterosexual couples to form civil partnerships. Right now, they are only available to homosexual couples. Loughton argued that it is unfair to discriminate against heterosexual couples, and he claimed that allowing them to enter into civil partnerships would encourage many of Britain’s cohabiting couples to formalize their relationships.

“Cohabitation is the fastest-growing form of family in this country, and we need to recognise that our society is changing, whether or not we approve,” he said.

“People choose not to get involved in the whole paraphernalia of formal marriage for a variety of reasons: it is too much of an establishment thing to do; it is too much of a religious institution for some, and even if done in a register office, it has religious connotations; there is a patriarchal side to it; it is a form of social control—there are a whole load of complex motives as to why many of our constituents do not go down the formal marriage route,” he continued.

Cameron opposes extending civil partnership rights to opposite-sex couples on the grounds that it could undermine the institution of marriage, and if Loughton’s amendment had passed, it could have proved fatal to the bill’s progress.

To add to Cameron’s woes, many Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs are known to support heterosexual civil partnerships. In the lead up to the vote, there was rampant press speculation that Cameron was headed for defeat, and some papers predicted that as many as 150 Tory MPs could defy Cameron and vote for the Loughton amendment.

In a bid to steal the rebels’ thunder, Culture Secretary Maria Miller tabled an amendment of her own that would provide for a comprehensive review of the Civil Partnerships Act 2004. Increasingly worried Tory whips repeatedly asked Labour to support their amendment, and at the eleventh hour, Labour leader Ed Miliband agreed to vote against the Loughton amendment in exchange for a commitment to begin the review as soon as possible.

The Loughton amendment was ultimately defeated by a vote of 375 to 70, while the government’s amendment passed 391 to 57. The Labour amendment regarding the timing of the review was subsequently agreed to without a division.

Image credit: David Cameron via Facebook

The article Gay Marriage Bill Survives ‘Wrecking’ Amendment appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The British House of Commons voted to legalize gay marriage by an overwhelmingly majority of 400 to 175 despite a major rebellion by Conservative MPs.
Although Britain has allowed same-sex couples to enter into civil partnerships since 2004, Prime Minister David Cameron has long stated his belief that they should be entitled to full equality before the law.

In late January, the government introduced the Marriage (Same-Sex Partners) Bill into Parliament’s lower house. The legislation would allow same-sex couples to marry in religious as well as civil ceremonies, though a much-vaunted “quadruple lock” would ensure that no religious organization would be forced to solemnize same-sex unions. The Church of England was particularly anxious about the bill, fearing that since it is the state church, it could be forced to host gay weddings. However, the bill specifically states that the church can continue to pass legislation that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman (under the terms of an act passed during the reign of Henry VIII, ecclesiastical laws must always yield to secular law).

But while the move to legalize gay marriage proved popular with his Liberal Democrat coalition partners, it exposed bitter divisions within Cameron’s own party. Last weekend the chairs of 20 local Conservative groups presented Downing Street with a letter urging the Prime Minister to delay the vote, claiming that the government had no mandate to redefine such a key institution.

They also claimed that Cameron’s support for gay marriage would lead to an exodus of local party members, a finding echoed by a recent poll commissioned by opponents of gay marriage that reported that 20 percent of Conservative voters would vote against the party in the next election due to its stance on the issue.

As is typical with matters of this sort, the leaders of all three major parties allowed their MPs to vote according to their consciences. Over the weekend, the British media reported that up to 180 Conservative MPs might ultimately vote against the bill. In the end, 139 voted against and 30 abstained. The dissenters included two Cabinet ministers (Environment Secretary Owen Paterson and Welsh Secretary David Jones), as well as three junior ministers. Defense Secretary Philip Hammond and Attorney-General Dominic Grieve both abstained.

The debate on the bill was often quite emotional. Openly-gay Conservative MP Mike Freer urged his colleagues to support the bill. “I am not asking for special treatment. I am simply asking for equal treatment.

Speaking in opposition to the bill, Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale claimed that the government was entering “Alice in Wonderland territory.” Instead of redefining marriage, he called on ministers to “withdraw the Bill, abolish the Civil Partnership Act 2004, abolish civil marriage and create a civil union Bill that applies to all people, irrespective of their sexuality or relationship. That means that brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters would be included as well.”

Meanwhile, his colleague Matthew Offord warned that the bill represented a slippery slope that could lead to the legalization of polygamous relationships. Referring to the law on marriage, he said that “another government can simply change the definition to include as many partners as they want.”

The bill will now receive clause-by-clause scrutiny from a Public Bill Committee, and when it returns to the full House, MPs will have another chance to vote on it. Then it goes on to the House of Lords, where it may face stiffer opposition. While it is highly unlikely that peers would reject the bill outright, they may try to kill it by passing amendments that the Commons are unlikely to accept. If that happens, there could be a lengthy period of ‘ping pong’ as the two houses try to iron out their differences. If agreement cannot be reached, the government may have to reintroduce the bill in the next parliamentary session and use the Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949 to override peers’ objections.

Image Courtesy :  Robyn Ramsay

The article MPs Vote Overwhelmingly for Gay Marriage appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

When Lord Hill of Oareford takes up his new role as Leader of the House of Lords, he will also take up the historic office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. But what is the Duchy of Lancaster, and why is its chancellor a member of the Cabinet?

The Duchy of Lancaster is essentially a source of private income for the British monarch. Its origins date from the 14th century when King Edward III conferred the title ‘Duke of Lancaster’ on Henry of Grosmont as a reward for his service in the Hundred Years’ War. At the same time, Lancaster became a county palatine, which meant that its duke would enjoy considerable autonomy within the kingdom. When Henry died without a male heir, the title was conferred on his son-in-law, John of Gaunt, who happened to be the younger son of Edward III.

John’s son, Henry of Bolingbroke, inherited the title upon his father’s death. When he eventually took the throne of England, the Duchy of Lancaster merged with the Crown. The new king decreed that the duchy would always remain separate from the rest of the Crown’s holdings. In 1760, George III agreed to let Parliament have the revenues from Crown lands in exchange for a fixed payment called the Civil List. But the Duchy of Lancaster was not part of the deal, and it remained the monarch’s private property.

The chancellor is the duchy’s chief administrative officer, though much of the day-to-day business of running the duchy is delegated to the Duchy Council. The chancellor does, however, advise the Queen on a number of appointments within the duchy, including High Sheriffs and certain ecclesiastical positions. Although the Queen appoints the chancellor on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the chancellor is accountable to her, and not Parliament, regarding the duchy’s affairs. The uniquely personal nature of the relationship is reflected in the fact that, unlike the rest of the Cabinet, the chancellor receives the seals of office during a private audience with the Sovereign.

Since the chancellorship itself has few duties, its occupant is free to act as a sort of Minister without Portfolio. The three most recent chancellors, however, have combined the job with the leadership of the House of Lords. Because the position of Leader of the House of Lords has no statutory basis, its occupant is not actually entitled to a salary. Therefore, in order to pay the leader, they must be given another office that actually draws a salary. Fortunately, the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 provides salaries for a number of sinecure offices (including that of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) for that very purpose.

Of course the Leader of the House of Lords is not the only one in this predicament. The Government Chief Whip in the Lords also holds the office of ‘Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms,’ while junior Government Whips in the Commons are appointed to an assortment of positions in the Royal Household. Even the Prime Minister ultimately derives his authority (and his salary!) from the sinecure office of ‘First Lord of the Treasury!’

The article Why Will Lord Hill Be Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Lord Strathclyde has resigned as Leader of the House of Lords, ending a 25-year career on the front bench.

In his resignation letter to David Cameron, Lord Strathclyde wrote that “when I was invited to join the government by Margaret Thatcher in 1988, I never believed it was a career for life. I didn’t expect it would consume me for as long as it has or that I would one day lead the Lords and sit in a Cabinet.”

“The Lords is an extraordinary and vigorous place, but recently I’ve been considering a change of direction,” he continued. “I started my working life in the private sector and at some stage always hoped to return, I would now like to do so. While I have the highest respect for the privilege and duty of public service, I do not see a political career as the cap of everything and would like, while there is still time, to take up other threads of my life and other interests.”

Lord Strathclyde has been the Tory leader in the House of Lords since 1998 when his predecessor, Viscount Cranborne, was sacked for entering into secret negotiations with the Labour government over their proposals to expel the hereditary peers. When the Tories entered into a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats in 2010, Lord Strathclyde retained the leadership and received the sinecure office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in order to let him sit in the Cabinet.

Lord Strathclyde’s time in government has not been particularly easy. The Lords have defeated the government on more than 50 occasions since 2010, and the House’s burgeoning size has led to frayed tempers. Thanks to an influx of newly-created peers when the coalition took power, there are now 775 members of the House of Lords, putting its longstanding tradition of self-regulation under increasing strain.

To thank Lord Strathclyde for his lengthy service, Cameron has asked the Queen to appoint the peer to the Order of the Companions of Honour. The same honor was given to Sir George Young, Lord Strathclyde’s counterpart in the Commons, after he briefly stepped down from government last year.

Downing Street also announced that Lord Hill of Oareford will succeed Lord Strathclyde as Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Lord Hill is a relative newcomer to the Lords, having only entered the chamber in May 2010. Since then, he has served as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools in the Department of Education. According to reports in the British media, Lord Hill tried to resign during last summer’s reshuffle, but Cameron was not paying attention and simply told him to “keep up the good work”!

Image Courtesy : UK Parliament

The article Lord Strathclyde Resigns as Leader of the House of Lords appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

After two days of grueling debate, the House of Commons voted to give the controversial House of Lords Reform Bill a second reading, but the bill faces an uncertain future after ministers were forced to scrap their proposed timetable for further debate.

The House of Lords Reform Bill would transform the chamber into a 450-member body whose members are 80 percent elected/20 percent appointed. The Church of England’s General Synod would also elect 12 bishops to sit in the reformed House of Lords as Lords Spiritual. Members who are not Lords Spiritual would serve for a single 15-year term.

The House of Commons spent two days debating whether or not to give the House of Lords Reform Bill a second reading. A second reading debate is concerned with the general principles behind the bill, and an affirmative vote allows the bill to progress to committee stage. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg began the debate by saying that the bill was about “fixing a flawed institution.”

“We believe that the people who make the laws should be chosen by the people who are subject to those laws,” he continued. “We are only one of only two countries in the world —the other being Lesotho—with an upper parliamentary chamber that is totally unelected and instead selects its members by birthright and patronage.”

“At the heart of the Bill is the vision of a House of Lords that is more modern, more representative and more legitimate—a Chamber fit for the 21st century,” he said.

Speaking for the opposition, Labour MP Sadiq Khan endorsed the broad principles behind the bill. “The Labour party remains very much in favour of reforming the second Chamber and will support the Bill on Second Reading,” he said. However, Khan went on to warn that “our support for giving the Bill a Second Reading should therefore not be taken as a blank cheque.”

He went on to identify a number of areas where Labour felt that the bill needed major work. He felt that clause 2, which declares that the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 will continue to apply to the reformed House of Lords, would not be a sufficient safeguard to ensure the Commons’ primacy.

The Parliament Acts to which Khan referred prevent the Lords from blocking legislation indefinitely. They can, however, still delay it for a year. A year is an eternity in politics, and few governments would want to wait that long to see their proposals become law. In practice, it is usually a moot point since the House of Lords usually defers to the Commons before the Parliament Acts come into play. But it is far from certain that a predominantly elected chamber would feel the need to show the same deference. “Why should elected Members of the second Chamber be bound by conventions that bind a Chamber of hereditary and appointed peers?” asked Khan.

“The Bill recognizes that conventions may evolve, and assumes this will happen of its own accord during the transition phases. We believe that that is too passive and is a dangerous position. The obvious questions requiring clarification include the following. What is the position on the Salisbury-Addison convention about Bills and the prevention of manifesto commitments? What about the convention that the Lords does not usually object to secondary legislation? More than 1,000 pieces of secondary legislation go through Parliament each year; the Parliament Acts do not cover this,” Khan continued.

Khan also objected to the fact that the reformed House of Lords would still have appointed members. “By allowing some Members still to be appointed, the Deputy Prime Minister is weakening his own arguments for having elected Members in the second Chamber.”

In addition, Khan castigated the government for its refusal to allow a referendum on its proposed changes. “[Nick Clegg] said a referendum was not needed because proposals to reform the House of Lords were in all three main parties’ manifestos. The manifestos said very different things, however. While Labour and the Lib Dems called for a wholly elected second Chamber—albeit Labour wanted a referendum as well—the Conservatives sought only to find consensus.”

As the debate wore on, the scale of Conservative discontent became increasingly apparent as backbencher after backbencher rose to voice their opposition to the bill. Conor Burns, a ministerial aide to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, went so far as to quite in order to vote against the bill. Another ministerial aide, Angie Bray, was sacked when she too voted against the bill.

Although the bill ultimately received a second reading by a vote of 462 to 124, the government chose not to move the program motion that would have set out a timetable for its future progress. Labour had announced that it would not support the motion because it did not allow enough time for debate, and there were enough Conservative rebels that the motion would have failed without Labour’s support.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Downing Street has set up a special team to negotiate with the rebel backbenchers over the summer. Prime Minister David Cameron is said to have told his MPs that he is willing to consider a range of concessions, from reducing the number of elected members to allowing more time for debate. If he cannot win over more of his backbenchers, he is said to be willing to completely scrap the bill when Parliament returns from its summer recess.

Image Courtesy of  The Prime Minister’s Office

The article Lords Reform Bill Gets 2nd Reading, Faces Uncertain Future appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Britain’s Conservative/Liberal Democrat government faced a humiliating setback on July 10 when ministers had to cancel a key vote on their flagship plans to reform the House of Lords.

The government wants to replace the present appointed chamber with a chamber whose members are 80 percent elected/20 percent appointed. The legislation is widely seen as the Liberal Democrats’ baby, and it is bitterly resented by many backbench Conservative MPs. Over the last few weeks, more and more Conservative MPs have announced their intention to vote against the bill, and the number of rebels eventually reached 100.

The Labour opposition has committed itself to voting for the bill’s second reading, which is when the Commons endorses the general principles behind the legislation. Because the government controls the timetable in the Commons, a vote on second reading is usually followed by a ‘program motion’ that sets time limits for the remaining legislative stages. But Labour objected to the amount of time that the government proposed to allocate to the bill, and the party decided to instruct its MPs to vote against the program motion.

Without Labor’s support, it seemed highly unlikely that the program motion would pass. In the absence of a timetable, opponents of the bill would be able to filibuster it. Back in 1968, an earlier attempt at House of Lords reform foundered because of just such a filibuster.

The government whips must have gotten spooked, for when the Commons began the second day of the debate on second reading, the Leader of the House, Sir George Young, announced that the program motion had been withdrawn. “For Lords reform to progress, it needs those who support reform to vote for reform and to vote for that reform to make progress through this House. It is clear that the Opposition are not prepared to do that, so we will not move the program motion tonight.”

“We remain committed to making progress on Lords reform, and with second reading behind us we will then consider how best to take this agenda forward and how best to secure progress through the House for reforms that have the backing of this House,” he continued.

In the absence of a program motion, the bill will be in legislative limbo even if it receives a second reading. The government leadership in the Commons face a dicey situation. Finding a timetable that will please Labour could be difficult, but if they decide to go ahead and commit the bill to a Committee of the Whole House without any sort of time limits, it is almost certain that rebel Conservative MPs will do their best to filibuster it. Newspapers are already reporting that the rebels have drawn up extensive plans to table wrecking amendments and fight any subsequent attempts to curtail debate.

If the House of Lords Reform Bill ultimately fails, the coalition will be placed under incredible strain. Bad blood between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats seems to be growing by the week, and many Liberal Democrats would probably see the bill’s loss as a Conservative betrayal. There are already rumblings that, if there is no Lords reform, the Liberal Democrats will retaliate by blocking forthcoming boundary changes that could help the Conservatives at the next election. If the coalition descended to that level of infighting, it is hard to see how it could continue until the next scheduled election in May 2015.

The article UK Government Cancels Key Vote on Lords Reform appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

On March 20, Britain’s Parliament presented Queen Elizabeth II with ‘humble addresses’ to mark the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne.

Humble addresses are the traditional means by which Parliament communicates with the Sovereign. In most cases, these are mundane affairs that take place without much ceremony. But since this was a special occasion, both Houses assembled in their entirety to hear their respective Speakers present their addresses.

Upon arriving at the Palace of Westminster, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were met by a host of dignitaries, including the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Lord Speaker, and the Speaker of the House of Commons. Both Speakers wore elaborate black silk robes adorned with gold lace and decorations.

But while the Lord Speaker, Baroness D’Souza, opted to wear traditional court dress (including knee breeches and tights) underneath it all, the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow chose to wear morning dress with a green House of Commons tie.

In addition to her husband, the Queen was accompanied by a number of courtiers, including the Countess of Airlie (one of her Ladies-in-Waiting), Colonel Dan Rex (her Equerry-in-Waiting), and Sir Christopher Geidt (her Private Secretary). Led by the Lord Great Chamberlain and his white wand of office, the royal party made its way into Westminster Hall, which is the oldest portion of the Palace of Westminster.

Because the House of Lords is technically the senior house, the Lord Speaker addressed the Queen first. “You have personified continuity and stability while ensuring that Your role has evolved imperceptibly, with the result that the Monarchy is as integral a part of our national life today as it was 60 years ago,” she said.

“We rejoice in this Jubilee and we give thanks for all that it represents,” she continued.

The Speaker of the House of Commons spoke next. “If, as Gandhi asserted, ‘the best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others,’ then Your Majesty must have found Yourself countless times over the past six decades.”

“You have dedicated Your life to others.  The daily example that You set, mirrored by our courageous armed forces of which You are Commander-in-Chief, is extraordinary,” he said.

Bercow, who has long been an avid supporter of gay rights, spoke of how Britain was “a land where men and women today are equal under the law and where Your people are respected, regardless of how they live, how they look or how they love.”

He went on to call Her Majesty “a kaleidoscope Queen of a kaleidoscope country in a kaleidoscope Commonwealth,” much to the apparent annoyance of Prime Minister David Cameron, who scowled at the Speaker.

When Bercow had finished speaking, the Queen thanked her Parliament for their addresses. In doing so, she paid tribute to her husband’s tireless support, saying “Prince Philip is, I believe, well-known for declining compliments of any kind. But throughout he has been a constant strength and guide.”

Referring to the elaborate stained-glass window that had been commissioned to mark her Diamond Jubilee, she mentioned that “the happy relationship I have enjoyed with Parliament has extended well beyond the more than three and a half thousand Bills I have signed into law. I am therefore very touched by the magnificent gift before me, generously subscribed by many of you. Should this beautiful window cause just a little extra color to shine down upon this ancient place, I should gladly settle for that.”

“We are reminded here of our past, of the continuity of our national story and the virtues of resilience, ingenuity and tolerance which created it. I have been privileged to witness some of that history and, with the support of my family, rededicate myself to the service of our great country and its people now and in the years to come,” she concluded.

Image Courtesy of  Zoran Karapancev / Shutterstock.com

The article Parliament Pays Tribute to Queen Elizabeth II appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Rioters in London and other cities around England over the past week have caused senseless violence and criminality on a scale that hasn’t been seen for decades.

Causing millions of pounds worth of damage, rioters have turned a number of English cities upside down, showing complete disregard for the safety of citizens.

The trigger
It began as a peaceful demonstration following the death of the 29-year old Mark Duggan from Tottenham who was shot death by police on Thursday August 4. Around 300 people gathered outside Tottenham police station on Saturday August 6 in their quest for justice for Duggan and his family. Later the same evening the violence broke out.

The scale
Gradually going completely out of control, the predominantly teenage part of the population of England set buildings on fire, smashed and looted shops, attacked policemen and caused chaos on the streets of English cities. The looters seemed to be always one step ahead of the stretched police forces, taking full advantage of the disorder.

Some of the cities outside London affected by the riots include Manchester, Salford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Gloucester, Leicester, Bristol and Leeds. Turning those cities into war zone, the rioters left people without homes and businesses.

Some of the most shocking disturbances included:

• Malaysian student Asyraf Haziq was attacked and injured by rioters in London and then mugged by a group of young men who at first appeared to try to help him.
• Haroon Jahan, 21, Shahzad Ali, 30, and Abdul Musavir, 31 died having been hit by a car in Birmingham after they tried to protect their neighbourhood.
• An estimated 60 people who were made homeless in London as a direct result of homes and businesses being burnt down.

These represent just a small portion of the consequences from the volatile acts of the looters. Eventually, it became clear that it was not about protesting – it was about robbery and pointless vandalism.

The clean-up action
During this week of distressing events, people have seen the worst of Britain – the angry and rather greedy youngsters destroying their own community — buildings being burned down, businesses being wrecked, property being stolen, innocent people being injured.

Nonetheless, following these disturbances, onlookers now see the best of Britain: the volunteers who gather on the streets of London and other affected cities to clean up the mess left by rioters.

“Bring gloves, heavy duty sacks, brooms, brushes and marker pens,” instructed a Twitter account, @RiotCleanUp. For just more than an hour, the Twitter account attracted more than 70,000 followers and brought together the people of England who got together to pick up the pieces and restore the order in their cities.

‘The fightback’
With regards to the rioters themselves, they will pay for their acts. Having seen “the most sickening scenes of his career,” Greater Manchester Police’s Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan made the following statement:

“Hundreds and hundreds of people, we have your image, we have your face, we have your acts of wanton criminality on film. We are coming for you, from today, and no matter how long it takes, we will arrest those people responsible.”

Prime Minister David Cameron also gave a speech warning the rioters that they “will feel the full force of the law” and if they are “old enough to commit these crimes” they are “old enough to face the punishment.” He further urged the country to pull together and promised to compensate anyone whose life has been affected by violence.

In fact, almost 2000 people have been arrested across the country using CCTV images. More than 600 have been charged. The offenses range from violent disorder (including robbery, assault, carrying a weapon and obstructing a police officer) to burglary and related offenses (including handling stolen goods), arson and drug-related offenses.

The events of the past week have been extremely overwhelming. Now that the cities are being cleaned up and offenders are being punished, a question arises as to why it happened in the first place. Cameron admits that the riots were caused mainly by social and cultural problems.

He blamed it on “children without fathers; schools without discipline; reward without effort; crime without punishment; rights without responsibilities; communities without control.” Seeing the riots as a “wake-up call for the nation,” Cameron gives a promise to “mend our broken society” by reviewing all aspects of policy, including education, welfare, parenting and drug addiction.

Padmayogini / Shutterstock.com

The article London Riots, The Events That Shook Britain appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Sean Hoare, former News of the World reporter and first to blow the whistle on the endemic phone-hacking at the paper, was found dead at his home on Monday, according to British media. Hoare, who was fired from NoW for alcohol and drug abuse, also went on the record to the New York Times, saying that Andy Coulson, former communications chief for the British prime minister and editor at NoW while Hoare was employed there, not only knew about the phone-hacking but actively encouraged the practice. Coulson has so far denied any knowledge of the matter.

The tragic news of Sean Hoare’s death is another shocking turn in the media scandal that has already engulfed the Murdoch media empire and threatens the stability of the British government. His body was found at his home in Watford near London, UK. According to local police, who has yet to confirm Hoare’s identity, “Upon police an ambulance arrival [...], the body of a man was found. The man was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after.” Despite unexplained cause of death, the police does not suspect foul play.

His death is another bombshell in the unfolding events, arriving just after the high profile resignation of two top policemen of the Scotland Yard. Questions have been raised about the cosy relationship between NoW and the police department and whether it led to negligence on behalf of the official effort to get to the bottom of the phone-hacking scandal which has been years under way.

Hoare was the first reporter to officially confirm the claims of phone-hacking. He described in an interview with the BBC that he was personally asked by Andy Coulson, his editor at the time, to tap into phones – which makes Coulson’s insistence upon ignorance ‘a lie’, according to Hoare. Last week, he revealed to the New York Times that NoW reporters had access to police technology that locates people by using their mobile phone signals. The service was allegedly provided in exchange for payments to police officers. The use of “pinging” can pinpoint the location of a person using calculations of distances between phone masts.

The Guardian was able to publish further details about ‘pinging’ as Hoare explained the procedure of obtaining the target location. A reporter would ask a news desk executive about a person and “within 15 to 30 minutes someone on the news desk would come back and say ‘Right, that’s where they are.’”

“The chain of command is one of absolute discipline, and that’s why I never bought into it, like with Andy [Coulson] saying he wasn’t aware of it and all that. That’s bollocks,” told Hoare.

The unexpected death of Sean Hoare has come at the most critical time for the UK. British Prime minister David Cameron is under considerable pressure and has cut a 5-day-trip to Africa short to attend a special sitting of parliament Tuesday for an emergency discussion on the scandal. Opposition labour party members are accusing him of extreme failure of judgement when it came to hiring Coulson and some MP’s have even called for his resignation.

Rupert Murdoch, his son James Murdoch and former chief executive of News International, Rebekah Brooks are expected to appear at the parliament hearing as well. Considering the pressure, the exchange could turn out to be very dramatic.

Former colleagues have been remembering Hoare today through public statements and social media updates. David Yelland, former editor of the British tabloid the Sun tweeted “Sean Hoare was trying to be honest, struggling with addiction. But he was a good man. My God.”

Image by Mig_R

The article News of the World Whistleblower Found Dead, Cause Still Unknown appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.