We now have one such story ... and I can't understand ...
, A guy goes to work for a big company who may have been and still is unethically involved in possible malpractice ... but then this man resigns because of his disapproval, or just resigns because he decided he didn't want to work for that firm anymore. His resignation gets 'accepted' and he leaves. Unemployed, he now needs a job.
, since he was not charged with anything and his resignation was accepted by , someone else then considers giving him a job. But because of the 'rumours' surrounding him and his ex place of work and the sensitive nature of the new job, despite no legal proof, he gets to endure a much harder than normal and very lengthy interview. During which he, whether true or not, denies any wrong doing and since he can do the job well, and as he resigned [1[ on his own accord too, he gets appointed. Grateful, he then goes on to serve for a period of time with total dedication to that new office and those who gave him that opportunity - but because his ex place of work's involvement in what we now know for certain as huge 'illegal' not very nice practices still, pressure mounts on him again for whatever he was presumed to have done there before he took that new office. Even though he decided and left  himself. Meaning that at heart, he didn't approve of their practices, even if it's later proven that he took part. Because this would be a case of a bad culture that ruined a good man, until he woke up and said No ... and good for him he did! Then, on his own yet again, he decides and resigns so as not to cause any further unease to his new boss in job .
Where is the problem then?! Actually, I would have given him that job! Because regardless of his past involvement in whatever, I commend this man for the stand he took when he resigned the two jobs he needed, liked and was good at. A man who had the decency to break his own bread for not once when he walked out saying No, but for the second time to protect his new employer from the 'rumours' surrounding himself. To me, this is a good and honourable stand that should appreciated and taken into account during his current investigation. Don't forget that whether he is guilty or not, it was the culture of that and other organisations that did it! It was the culture that allowed those illegal offences, and it was the lack of someone watching and holding them to account that caused them to behave with such absolute power and be above the law - absolute power corrupts!
He then seeks another job and gets one in a charity ... but has to leave again because of the same 'rumours'! Of that, his job  boss says:
"Every time I have had a conversation, and I spoke to him at the beginning of this week, he said: 'If you feel you need to step away, step away.' And to be honest with you, I was just going: 'I'm so devastated and so sorry.' The whole thing was absolutely horrific. I keep saying to myself: how naive are you really? I never asked him what the truth was. I said: 'What do you think your position is?' – this was months ago – and he said: 'It has been a terrible thing, I don't know that it is over.'
"And he always said: 'I will try to tell you what I know if I think it is going to be terrible, I don't want to damage One Young World in any way.' I accept the guy has now been arrested, but it is still a case of innocent until proven guilty."
What?! Why all the negative talk if when this 'charity' employed him they had no 'firm' reason not to then?! An irony to follow it up by that mention of 'innocence and guilt' too!
Again, where is the problem then?!
It doesn't matter whether you are low or high profile in front of the law, or when it comes to rights, because here too we're all the same, isn't it?
No! Loads of people are now holding loads of knives and are saying they warned job  about him. They say they had 'secret' information about him that warranted these warnings. Why didn't 'they' take that to the police themselves then?! Well, they didn't, and his previous place of work  didn't too! Wasn't it all those now talking responsibility to do so? Of course! Then again, some would say that they couldn't because of ongoing legal investigations, or to protect themselves ... etc, but, for the sake of public interest, if they had really wanted to, they would have at least leaked the information they knew ... as always happens ... when it suits them!
And there is now talk that he was given a 'second chance' when job  took him on, but 'second chance' is for the 'proven guilty'! This far Coulson was never convicted of anything! So, job  offered him 'a chance', and not a 'second' one and that goes for job  too. Infact, he was like anyone else applying for job  and, like anyone else, it would have been unfair if he was excluded simply because of some 'rumours'. Same goes for .
Then again, even for those with proven guilt, are we saying that as a society people should never be allowed a second chance? How else are we going to rehabilitate those who offend so that we can include them again into society?! ... and why are the real culprits, those organisations with 'a culture', who encouraged all that illegal hacking into people's privacy in this media mess still running free despite their much bigger role than Coulson in this saga?! Some big ones haven't even resigned as Coulson did but are ironically still holding tight to their places simply because they are protected by the very corrupt and needing arresting media's biggest 'power' that not only caused but wanted and encouraged all this illegal mess! Are those above the law?! Mind boggling! Really!
I have lots more respect for Coulson, and for the man who gave him a 'chance' to build his life again. Indeed, it is PM's duty to ensure giving those people who need chances and second chances and I commend him for that!
Murdoch told to face the music: MPs summon him for grilling, along with his son and Brooks [click] and [google]
Phone hacking: David Cameron turns against Murdoch's BSkyB takeover
[click] and [google] and [more]
As it happened: Phone-hacking row [click] and [google] and [more]
News International rejects Gordon Brown criticism [click] and [google]
NHS ready for hacking investigation [click]
Phone hacking: pressure in United States to investigate News Corporation [click]
British hacking scandal could gain U.S. legal scrutiny [click] and [google]
Phone hacking: Sir Paul Stephenson's resignation statement in full [click] and [google]
Phone hacking: inquiry leader Lord Justice Leveson [click] and [google]
Rebekah Brooks arrested by hacking police [click] and [google]
PM calls for two enquiries into hacking allegations [click]
David Cameron: Andy Coulson should be prosecuted if he lied over phone hacking [click]
“Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.”