Awake. You seem to believe that this heralds some earth shattering change that will end the monopoly of power, wealth and influence by a small priveliged elite and give the majority access to the same. I hope very much you are right, but I doubt it. They (the elite) have too much clout, and time is on their side. Already, the fall of Ghaddafi is swinging attention away from Mudoch/Coulson/Wade, the riots, the thieving bankers and MPs, etc. They´ll bury it all in the end, and the UK publics´attention span is not that long. Englands´cricket XI is the best on the planet and Cameron was there at the Oval talking to another public schoolboy, Aggers: what a world!.

The reference to DSK's career - he isn't innocent. He still faces rape charges in France.

Cameron hired Coulson, who started to work for the Tories in July 2007 at a reported salary of £275,000. News International was still paying him. Yet when Tom Watson asked Coulson, "So your sole income was News International and then your sole income was the Conservative party?" he replied, 'Yes'.
Looks like he was lying.
A greedy liar - no wonder he fitted
in well at Westminster.

Thanks Coffee Time, I should have said that there was no transcript provided in the article (as there was for other exchanges referred to).

I'm still not convinced that the transcript you provided backs up the assertion in the article that "Coulson told the select committee that he didn't receive a penny from NI after he started working for the Tories". He stated clearly he got what he was contractually entitled to. To equate these contractual entitlements to a subsidy for his work for the Conservatives over eggs the pudding.

Leave the woman alone.
Sometimes wild rumours and accusations can damage promisng careers, just like DSK's. And no amount of apologies can put things back as they were.

Coulson is probably literally correct in saying he didn't "receive a penny" from News International after he resigned . There's a world of difference between "a penny" and several hundred thousand pounds, though. That kind of distinction seems to have been used as a trademark tool of evasion by NI spokespersons during the whole murky business. Yet, astonsishly, some people - like JohnP above -continue to make light of it.

To claim that Coulson's Tory wages were 'subsidised' by NI is wrong on this evidence. To back up that claim, there would have to be evidence that the payments made to Coulson were in recognition of his work for the Tories. It sounds like this is severance pay and would have been received by Coulson irrespective of what work, if any, he went into after NOTW.

If Coulson did incorrectly tell the committee that he had received no payment from NI after he started work for the Tories, then he's in hot water, but there's no transcript of that exchange so I reserve judgment. Surely what matters is whether Coulson continued to act for NI after starting to work for Cameron. Exactly when his severance package (agreed at the time of his departure for work already completed) was paid is irrelevant, surely?

DSK is as guilty as hell Ray. The scientific evidence bears his accuser out and his track record is sufficient evidence which should have ben weighed equally with defects of accuser's character. He faces rape charges in France and happily is out of French politics for good.

Awake! (or so you would have us believe), that's an extravagantly elaborate and dyspeptic way of saying '@ coffetime, I don't agree with you'. What would be more persuasive would be for you to present a reasoned argument to show why you disagree rather than resort to that sort of nonsense.

John wrote, "If Coulson did incorrectly tell the committee that he had received no payment from NI after he started work for the Tories, then he's in hot water."
True.
Tom Watson asked Coulson, "So your sole income was News International and then your sole income was the Conservative party?"
He replied, 'Yes'. If the Tories were paying him from the start, then Coulson was lying.
The Tories could and should have discovered whether he was receiving money still from NI.
It's still the case that Cameron showed bad judgement in hiring Coulson - Mrs Cameron didn't trust Coulson, and told her husband that hiring him would be a mistake. She was right; the PM was wrong.