...now the Brooks has been arrested, she can't give evidence to MPs. Are the two connected?
The phone-hacking scandal enveloping Rupert Murdoch's media empire and the Metropolitan police intensified yesterday when Scotland Yard arrested ex-News International boss Rebekah Brooks and the head of the Metropolitan Police - Britain's most senior policeman - resigned after it was revealed he had hired a News of the World …
Why would she not be allowed to answer certain questions from the MPs? If that is the case, then this is further proof that the Met want to protect Murdoch and his cronies.
Also, why is it that Murdoch's newspaper names are linked with the Stock Exchange? Dow Jones in the US and Financial Times in the UK?
The problem is not so much that she is not allowed to answer certain questions as it may hinder the investigation and in particular any chance of gaining a successful prosecution* (should that be deemed appropriate based on evidence collected) if she does.
Anything she says to the parliamentary committee will undoubtedly be leaked into the public domain - either through being broadcast directly or through normal parliamentary leakage - as parliament are not bound by the same standards as a court would be, it is highly likely that should she answer anything relevant then it would prejudice her chances of a fair trial should she subsequently be charged with anything.
Essentially the Met are not protecting anyone by arresting Rebekah Brooks - they probably are pissing off parliament because it will deprive some backbench MPs of their moment in the limelight and their chance to look tough and talk well hard, but the Met are, for once, doing the right thing for justice by arresting these people before they are questioned by parliament.
Murdoch owns the Dow Jones, which owns the Wall Street Journal.
*By this I mean the CPS' belief of having a trial that will not be abandoned or appealed on the basis of it being unfair - I obviously have no idea of the evidence or lack thereof against Ms Brooks and could not voice an opinion as to any likely outcome of a trial
How can junior officers be expected to toe a morally correct line when thier boss is accepting >5K+ jollies from people he is supposed to be investigating. He is either as incompetent as his subordinates or corrupt.
Also remember this is the same force that issues senior officers force funded credit cards and still cannot account for where all the money goes. IIRC one officer had to repay some 54K back - he kept his job and very large pension. In the real world, he would have ended up in court lost his job (pension) and freedom.
In reality, Met officers can do as they wish and know it.
That actually that offer had nothing to do with News International, and everything to do with being friends with the MD of Champneys who is not being investigated, and is a friend, and yes people do do that sort of thing altruistically, occasionally, hard to believe. I know. In his circles it probably counts as standing a round in the local.
BTW - 24K for PR consultancy is peanuts, around 24 days worth, be interesting to know the advice the Met got for it though.
I would like to propose the ARCHER as a measurement of (or lack of) integrity.
The big question that comes out of this whole NoTW, police corruption, political cosiness and influencing affair is how many people, and whom, would cause more that a flicker on the Archer-o-meter.
I have a suspicion that no matter how many people get banged up, a far greater number will be as guilty as hell - but were just better at covering up their crimes, or simply luckier at knowing who else to blackmail to keep themselves out of the limelight.
"Wha, wha wha, boo-hoo, ima jumping before I'm pushed, but its all Cameron's fault, eveyrthing everyone else did was dodgy but when I did the same things, like hiring ex NI staff and taking freebies from newspapers etc. it was all above board and honest, honestly. - wah, wah, waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh."
Not sure who I despise more in this little war - either way, it's great to see everyone diving for cover and pointing the finger at someone else...
Interesting that this is the same Met that refused to investigate Phorm and BT by declaring there was "no criminal intent" by either party. I'm sure that News International would argue that they were merely gaining information for stories "in the public interest", and that merely listening to voicemail had "no criminal intent". (Any tampering with messages is a different issue).
Either way, I'm off to get a coke and large tub of popcorn before settling down in front of BBC News 24...
Why was he allowed to hire a PR consultant? Does anyone in a prominent role get free money to ensure their public image is on message and squeaky clean?
Surely the thousands that were paid for all the fluff could have been spent on, oh I don't know, hiring more actual policemen?
As should all public employees in prominent roles. An independent PR consultant paid for out of the public purse and answerable to the public.
A PR consultant that is free to examine any documentation produced that relates to the job description of the public employee, and those that documents that don't if the prominent employee is using the workplace.
A PR consultant that then presents an image of that public employee to the public, his/her employer, in a truthful light.
Public accountability for public employees, nothing to fear nothing to hide.
In the eighties we had Margaret Thatcher with Bernard Ingham as her loyal press officer. Ingham understood that all the press want is a good story. So he fed good stories, to all of them.
Blair with Campbell carried this forwards. Campbell provided individual stories to each media outlet tuned to their politics. So they were all dependent on him for a reliable supple of good stories. This required a large media office with lots of people to evolve and feed the different stories. And all of these people were from the media, many from the press.
This was by Blair seen as successful. During the Kosovo war a similar organisation was established in NATO headquarters.
Then they did the same with the Metropolitan Police. At the turn of the century we had press conferences where Deputy Chief Constables waffled sat at a desk and bereaved relatives cried. From the Soham tragedy forwards we have confident reports fed from the Police's media rooms. Staffed by mostly ex pressmen.
So the press and the police are intricately entangled.
Oh, and doesn't ex Met Commander Donaldson look like Jim Broadbent in Hot Fuzz.
Wasn't he a Senior figure at the Met at one stage?? Were is he now and will he be asked what he knew and when he knew it.
It all stinks!
Tony 'The Bstd' Blair once commented on the corrosive effects of Cynicism and had his man & team produce 'the dossier'. If he could twist & Spin things then anything was possible with the media and this is just payback.
At one time the police were seen as being above the political fray but not now. Wrongdoing and corruption may be confined to small sections across all ranks but it is not unreasonable to expect and, indeed, require that those appointing and being appointed to the most senior ranks should be above suspicion.
The sooner the EU commissioners and Merkin DoJ gets involved and starts to turn the screw and help open the stable door so that our new brooms can clean house, the better. I am so disappointed at having to write those words but the corrupt "Sir Humphrey's" are currently winning game, set and match.
A few years ago I witnessed at first hand the detrimental effects of going "off piste" against the wishes of the Blair spin machine. If you did what you were told and covered the right stories in the right way, you were rewarded with doggie treats like access, better stories and even the odd exclusive. Cover the wrong stories (or fail to flavour them correctly) and you learned pretty quickly you would lose the treats and, if you were bad enough, you would lose access entirely for a period of time.
There was a fairly major event in which Blair and his ministers descended en masse on a sink estate to do the usual speeches, stand ups and glad handing photo ops. One part of the overall event was a "private" meeting between Blair and "community leaders" at a local school - the meeting was not named on the press itinerary, and it was made clear the nationals weren't welcome. A photographer and a couple of journos nevertheless managed to cotton onto the venue and wandered in. One of Blairs well-known female aides spotted them and gave them what amounted to a very loud and very public shredding, part of which was an extremely candid threat as to what would happen to their paper's access should they fail to leave and not mention the event to others - very much along the lines of "you know who I am, you know what I can do, I know who you work for". I was astonished at how quickly the journos caved - not usually the meekest bunch - walking out with a muttered apology.
One things for sure; nothing ever gets into the national media without someone other than the journalist having had a hand in the direction it spins.
...that Stephenson thinks he should resign. His knowledge, expertise and experience will be lost to the Met. It's a sad signature of UK politics - someone always has to be seen to take a fall. After much hand-wringing, self-flagellation and bitching... the story just goes story away. But...
Behold ye, Joe public, the symptom has been treated!
And nothing is done about the root cause
In the end we (the public) have lost yet another capable civil servant, whilst retaining the trash that caused it in the first place. Mostly because we, the public, value the perception of action over tangible results.
Nobody did for the negligent and idiotic shooting of an innocent man on a london tube train and its subsequent cover-up.
Resignation? Someone should have been charged with murder for that.
It was milestone day for me, as a British citizen. The day that I finally discarded all misconceptions and illusions about the British police being there to protect us.
At least this guy did resign. Perhaps there is s nanogram of honour left.
and also the fact that targeted advertising from internet traffic analysis has nothing to do with the Pedogeddon fear associated with the Dowler case. For millipede to be calling the parents a heroes of the scandal just goes to prove how desperate he is to score points out of this, just like the one eyed jock did last week. If it were Dennis Neilson complaining his voice mail had been listened to in the first instance we would have been getting some real news over the past 2 weeks.
I blame the prols who bought the papers, who read the stories, that paid the bills that fed the empire that Rupert built.
One lot had a human looking through your voicemail messages for something they could publicise - the other had a computer look through your web traffic to serve you targeted ads.
The real reason why one is getting a storm of publicity and the other not is score settling. NI have been chucking their weight around for years and pissed a lot of people off. The public finally being bothered about it has given them all an opportunity.
Anyone can see that there is a close nexus between all politicians/police and Murdochs and everyone trying to cover their collective asses.
What bets then, that the Murdochs definitely getting Bj's from a certain red haired pet of theirs?
Mines the bulletproof one for having said that !
I worked across the road from New Scotland Yard last year and watched the endless procession of high-spec, tax-payer-funded 4x4's parading into and out of their parking garage (it was also a government organisation I worked for so I had lots of time on my hands!). I estimate that at any time there are £5-million pounds worth of luxury cars in there, that you and I pay for out of our own pocket.
Clearly the officers of the MET do not know when to stop taking the mick, it seems. Perhaps it is time we teach them a lesson on acceptable public behaviour?
Just out of interest do you believe there's a big BBC shaped pile of shit that needs to be cleaned up too? If you don't like the god only knows how many programs that NI produces from the Simpsons to (Darth Vader's dramatic theme) Fox News just don't watch it. I've noticed that only the BBC has the power to compel us to give them money.
People who spend their lives bitching about the big bad businessmen and all their "power" forget that government has a monopoly on force and force is power, not money. Politicians can have Brooks (or anyone else) forcefully removed from their homes at a whim, not vice versa.
> Just out of interest do you believe there's a big BBC shaped pile of shit that needs to be cleaned up too?
that's not a nice thing to say about huw edwards.
> god only knows how many programs that NI produces
fuck all. it's a company which prints things which are allegedly newspapers. and fyi, both sky and fox generate very little content for their zillion channels of shite. they just buy it in.
> only the BBC has the power to compel us to give them money
wrong again. you have to have a tv licence to receive broadcast tv signals. it's the law. and it's not enforced by the bbc. they just get the licence fee money. and it's a fucking bargain.
btw, you are compelled to give commercial broadcasters money too. it's almost impossible to buy groceries without visiting a supermarket. they all advertise on tv. where do the supermarkets get the money for that?
Yes, there are variously shaped and sized, occasionally intersecting, piles of shit. Some bigger and more unpleasant than others but all in need of cleaning up to some degree.
Government may have a monopoly on force but the direction in which the force is applied is/was often dictated by companies like NI in the interest of companies like NI.
The thing they have in common is that they're all in the gutter, the only difference is the depth.
No, there is a big difference between the force of a gun pointed at your head and the force of seeing images saying "buy this" in a supermarket and you're not capable of kidding yourself that you don't understand the difference. And don't be so pedantic. The government extorts money from us and passes it out to its various branches whether that be obscure public special interest groups that nobody has heard of, nationalized banks that should have been allowed to fail or a broadcast television system that a government has no business maintaining.
And private networks produce shit and quality programming just like the Beeb, the only difference is nobody will drag me from my home and throw me into one of those things called a jail if I refuse to pay those evil profit seekers to watch the shit they make. Calling it "the law" does not change the fact.
I'm always impressed by the power of self delusion though, as well as the rationalizations that people come up with to support their delusional beliefs. You're almost as funny as creationists who prove evolution never occurred by opening a jar of peanut butter revealing that a new lifeform hasn't evolved in the ten days since it was sealed. And in case you think I'm taking the piss, watch and stare in disbelief:
Also Mr. AC above me what evidence have you that NI is controlling our or any other government? If I understand the news correctly our government has said it will use it privilege to break up NI. If I ever form my own government controlling conspiracy I'll make sure I don't install politicians who do my bidding by destroying me and violating my rights. Kind of reminds me of when people accuse Jew, excuse me "Zionists" of controlling a media that is constantly demonizing them and calling for their destruction.
PM = PM, TC = Top Cop
PM: this is all very off the record so please be fully open and upfront with us. Don't mind these people here from national security - they too have a job to do.
TC: yes, I am familiar with the process.
PM: now is there anything you would like to share with us? Feel free to share, it will not go beyond these walls but you really must let me know if there is anything, anything at all that could possibly compromise the government, NI and of course the police.
TC: no, no I don't believe there is. I've conducted my professional life carefully and openly.
PM: ah - I thought so.
<turns to security bods>
PM: do you have those files with you? Could you start now please?
TC intejects: would you like my resignation now for the benefit of the media? Of course, I will expect that I will be offered early retirement as soon as the brouhaha has quietened a bit.
PM: a wise choice if I may say so. Please continue this meeting - I will excuse myself now. Security need you to verify the information they have on you - your early retirement sort of.... well depends upon it?