They're off...

I've just watched Jack Straw batter Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems re AV - the only seats not to be reformed/standardised are - wait for it - Lib Dems seats!!! They are a disgrace and bunch of hypocrits!!!

And if the Police are too scared to investigate anything to do with Murdoch then democracy really is in trouble in this country.

While this is a good story to be covering, isn't there anything extra you could have added to this apart from I bet Cameron wishes he had a longer holiday? I mean thats not even journalism Nick. Surely being in westminster and with all your contacts there must be someone that you could get a little snippet more of information from.

They're off! But off where?

We the the ordinary people assume that all our e-mails and telephne calls can be tapped into at any time in the name of national security.

That if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to worry about.

So what are they worried about and what have they got to hide?

To see a bunch of MP's calling foul because the laws they introduced for the rest of us may have backfired on them is incredulous.

Should we all blame the News of the World or could there be other forces involved?

I think we must all be fed up with their petty Westminster squabbling and wish they'd get down to some proper work.

david cameron and shady characters.............surely not. davids such a lovely man. a man of the people..of the big society....one of us.

Advice for the political class:

Deja vu is not as good as it used to be.

The public is not interested in re-heated scandals of yesteryear.

The country is close to bankruptcy, the National Debt is going north and all these sad people can get excited about is whether someone or other knew something about whatever at some point in the past.

I am sorry. I just don't care if Lord Prescott's mobile phone was tapped: I doubt if much was learned from that exercise anyway.

Can we move on and focus on what really matters, such as banking reform for a start, then we can go onto unemployment, welfare reform and the desparate need to re-balance the economy.

Serious questions that need to be avoided. I suspect to see a plethora of excuses and comments defending the indefensible.

Easy being in opposition. Easy being in power when all you do is cut and say no.

Whatever the police do I'm sure you, like the rest of the BBC, will continue to be unable to tell the difference between allegations and evidence.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

There are a vast number of people of working age who have never edited the NOTW. Surely Mr Cameron can find somebody from this group to run his Communications.

1. At 5:18pm on 06 Sep 2010, followingborohurts wrote:
I've just watched Jack Straw batter Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems re AV - the only seats not to be reformed/standardised are - wait for it - Lib Dems seats!!! They are a disgrace and bunch of hypocrits!!!

=========================
No they are not.

The Western Isles are held by the SNP currently.

Just watched the news (six pm) and you report on the CUTS, look at the cuts from a business angle.
one civil servant £ 60,000.00 per year = one job seeker £ 1,699.10 for 26 weeks then £ 1,378.00 for 26 weeks = £ 3077.10 ( no housing, child support etc) Government saving £ 56,922.90
Even the labour party government would be tempted to CUT, not! where would they get the next election voters from?

This non-story and it's recycling again just smacks of a distraction technique - sufficiently juicy and controversial to absorb attention without actually being all that important in the scheme of things. Loss of a press adviser is unlikely to be fatal to Cameron.

What is it that we are not supposed to be noticing??? And who does not want us to notice it?? Tinfoil hat time.

"The opposition states that the police haven't looked hard enough and it's time they looked harder "

It was all so much easier for Lab when they were in govt.

Old man criticises minister - police arrest him.

Now they are complaining that police will not re-open an investigation as requested by Labour on trivial ground of no new information. What do the police believe their role is - to be independent?

We should make no judgements - let the police and courts look at the matter.

But, surely Cameron has shown poor judgement in appointing someone who had to resign from a shoddy newspaper to such a senior post?

Similar to Hague's judgement in appointing his driver to a £30k+ 'adviser' job.

These cases, and others that are sure to emerge, once again give the impression that the tories are taking up where they left off last time.

So here we go again. Noise about something that was investiogated by the police and a apliamentary committee 4 years ago.

Did Jack Straw stop the police investigating the case? Were not 2 people jailed, did the CPS look at charging Coulson? And about the MP's were they held back in asking the questions they wanted?

So if Straw did not intervenve, the CPS did not thing there was a case to answer and the MP's found nothing. Why spend more money to reach a similar conclusion.

This smells like a lot of hot air to distract attention from the floundering Labour leadership and lack of policy. Thro some manure and see if we can make it stick somewhere!!!

Not a very insightful article on a matter of this importance. Could do better.

The Big man needn’t worry; know body reads the News of the Screws anyway.

The “News of the World”, ha ha, even the title’s bogus.

The difficulty the Met experience in this situation is that Joe Public knows that News Corp has 'close relations' with most police forces up and down the country, so the cops will be reluctant to take a Pressman to task, particularly one whose former publisher has satellites in the sky which can no doubt focus on things of a rather intimate nature....

The difficulty for the PM is that an official enquiry into one of his own appointments doesn't look good. No matter what happens, no good can come of it from the PM's position. If the guy is forced out, his judgement is questioned. If not, people claim a whitewash. Maybe he'll start to understand how William Hague was feeling.........

I'm afraid that I know from personal experience the lengths that some folks are prepared to go to bug my house. The sly allusions from senior folks was it was either News Corp, the NOTW in particular or possibly that paragon of upright integrity, Piers Morgan. Or perhaps they just syndicated info from MI5? Proof is of course impossible to find: I just know that either I am the greatest predictor of what goes on front pages or News Corp got access to my PC, which was only connected to a power socket, not connected to the internet. And the flat below was bugging me, in as much as when I typed grossly disgusting language, my floor was immediately tapped from below. It was a final proof of long suspicions.

I also wondered whether the BBC was able to know when I was walking into town along Oxford Road in Manchester, Mr Robinson. There were reporters out to ask my opinion from time to time, you know. So I'm not sure the BBC was a paragon of rectitude either...........do credit/debit cards carry chips for tracking now? Either that or satellites.........course, the BMW can be tracked anywhere.........

I'm neither paid by a media house, nor did I ask to be. Ergo: bugging my flat is legitimately limited to MI5, MI6 or the police. There's no place for News Corp or the BBC to be doing that, I'm afraid.........

Go ask Mr Coulson if he read a piece I wrote about the BBC by Colonel Sir Peter Blimp.......ask him how he got hold of it if so........I know the Sunday Times wrote a trash op-ed on its front page the weekend after I wrote it and sent it to no-one...........might be coincidence, doubt it though.........go ask him who did, if it wasn't him. He'll know.....

Go ask him who was putting false issues of the Times on a kitchen table in Withington: might be MI5, might be someone else.......it was done for a purpose though...........to try and get me to commit suicide.......nearly worked too.

Nasty people some newspapers associate with, aren't there????

Am astounded by post number 4 (virtualsilverlady) and post #6 (stanilic).

Whilst I share some of the cynicism about the timing and motivation for why these allegtions are being recycled - surely you can't justify phone tapping by newspapers?

It's not a case of what have people got to hide - it's a case of their right to privacy. And in the rush to sort out the deficit - lets not trample over everything else.

If Coulson is implicated he should be prosecuted and whilst I'm no fan of Cameron - I couldn't see that damaging him too badly - I suspect he's probably been not given the full story.

#16 I think the issue is that (in the NY Times article) the original hack-gate was about royal family voicemail boxes. Therefore it was handled by the squad who look after royals , part of the overstretched terrorist units (I'm not being precise but thats the gist). So once they determined the Royal Family angle and had the immediate people in custody they stopped digging. The issue is that the police know more than they released and that there were other leads they could and should (time, resource ?) have followed up.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The PM could take some more paternity leave and let Nick hold the fort.

In any event we don't have much of an opposition at the moment. Labour is divided and its hard to see how any of the leadership candidates are going to pull it together in the near term. It's hard to take any of them seriously.

Spot the Tory trolls.

Only the BBC would give this story the undue prominence it does not deserve.

Labour looked at this very carefully before the election when they tried to force Coulson out of his job; now they're taking another crack.

I just view them and their pathetic antics with wry contempt. So typical for Labour to get all hot and bothered around spin and hype rather than commenting on the critical issues of the day. They have nothing to contribute other than exaggerated vitriol.

And of course, the BBC follow their lead shamelessly. What goes around comes around.

Coulson: If he knew he should go...if he didn't he must be incompetent, and go...
I doubt the Tories want this still rumbling on by the time their conference gets underway...

21 robrob

4 Virtualsilverlady
6 Stanalic


Seems you were so busy being astounded you didn't even read the posts properly either that or perception can be the strangest thing.

I can't really believe that Poulson, the editor, could possibly have been unaware of what was going on.

It took 'Del Boy' Dave 10 years to find out about Ashcroft, how long has Coulson to go?

16. jon112uk

"We should make no judgements - let the police and courts look at the matter."
=================================================
They did look into this, about 4 years ago now. Have they just defrosted you ?

I don't think that the so called evidence is actually anything of the sort.

Can you just immagine the outrage on here from the NeoCons if this was Alistair Campbell at the centre of this storm instead of Cameron's hack, they'd be begging for blood....but no Tory double standards and hypocrisy rules again... perhaps its time for them to dust down the trusty sword of truth again??

Its all looking like the last Tory stint in power, scandal, sleaze and a soon to be burgeoning dole queue.

oh and Stanilic #6 said in deflection

"The country is close to bankruptcy, the National Debt is going north"

Seen the recent Flanders blog Stan? Rather blows yours and the CONDEM Junta's Debt Con out the Water;

The IMF table makes a good tool for comparison and the article completely rubbishes the Lies of the Cons on the comparison with Greece, but hey the Politics of Fear was always a good Tory Tactic.

What about the allegations that the Police are too cosy with the News of the World and overlook / withhold evidence from the CPS. Surely they are worth commenting on too Nick?

26 Blunt states

"Only the BBC would give this story the undue prominence it does not deserve."

Name one News organisation that isn't covering this story prominently?

ITV, C4 even Murdoch's Sky!!

You are talking nonesense, the usual purile BBC Bias garbage.

13 Robb

Got you salivating has it?

Nicely ignoring the severence payment though or would it be best to just get rid of that in the rush to get to 4million on the dole.

Strange things happen when a person allows himself to be a puppet for foreign media barons, porn kings and tax exiles. It is clearly payback time.It has not taken the Tories long to get back into the sewers.

3o IPGAB

"It took 'Del Boy' Dave 10 years to find out about Ashcroft, how long has Coulson to go?"

====

Do you think so? I'd say he knew all along that they were taking cash from the Artful Tax Dodger from Belize.

Coulson's days are numbered it just needs one more to corroborate the current staement that he knew and then he's history and Cameron looks a real fool yet again, a bit like his Gay Times interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlDfp85gP8

priceless!!!!

36 IPGAB

Not forgetting the New Tory MP who has had to admit his Brazillian Wife is .....how shall I put this.. "a lady of the night"

You couldn't make it up, even by Tory Standards they're off to a great start!!!!!!!!!

It is clear that Cameron modelled himself on Blair, but this is taking it too far.

We must be whiter than white. A new politics. Different from the old lot.

Within a matter of weeks its business as usual. 'There is nothing wrong in my relationship with Bernie Ecclestone/ Andy Coulson. Hey, I'm a pretty straight sort of guy. Trust me on this.' I can't remember was that Tony Cameron or David Blair? Deja vue all over again .......

It does seem odd.

All those years of 1984 style government and dark arts and politicisation of the civil service. And the Socialists couldn't sort this out.

Now, in opposition, and while spending many months in a ludicrously self indulgent leadership contest, we hear that the police didn't do the job right when Labour were in charge, says Labour.

I have no political affiliation but I do think we need an effective opposition. I think we might do better with an opposition coalition root vegetables.

Assistant Commissioner John Yates' interview re the News of the World phone hacking saga on BBC Radio 4 this morning was fascinating. Justin Webb struggled manfully with Yates' blocking tactics - the pervading impression was evasiveness.

The listener was given the distinct impression that here was a man angling for a well-paid job in News International after he leaves the Met. His erstwhile colleague, Andy Hayman has obviously been a good role model. Sic transit gloria!

#9 Moderator?

The information about the allegations in #9 comes from an impeccable source: the BBC and its interviews with potential witnesses and the parliamentary debate this afternoon.

I thought that it seemed that there are two issues here:

1. Was the Met Police Investigation into phone message interceptions at the News of the World satisfactory and exhaustive? Did the Met inform the those affected appropriately?

2. Did Andy Coulson know about the both the alleged and proven wrong-doing and was it more widespread? What was the relationship between the various protagonists in the press and the police?

Following on from these points is what should be done?

Is a Police investigation into more widespread phone-tapping/hacking needed? Should there be a review or a more formal inquiry into the initial Met investigation? How should Sir Paul Stephenson assure the integrity of subsequent investigations?

Coulson's days are numbered it just needs one more to corroborate the current staement that he knew and then he's history and Cameron looks a real fool yet again, a bit like his Gay Times interview.

Just like having Maggie back,Remember the Hamiltons.No smoke without fire.

The Wall St Journal's piece does not tell us anything very new about the story, but its typically solid and thorough coverage does raise questions. Reading it, it's hard to believe only those two NOTW journalists were guilty of the practice and troubling that Scotland Yard did not investigate whether other journalists were also hacking. If the practice was more widespread, ie part of the culture, it would be hard to believe that the editor could have been ignorant. After all it's his responsibility to be sure the stories are properly sourced and stand up. How can he not have had questions? At the very least, the police seem to have taken the narrowest view of the matter from the start.

And I cannot agree with those who think this is a trivial story or who confuse phone tapping by the security services and by the press. Both are gross invasions of privacy, but whereas the former can to some extent be justified by 'national security', the latter is simply done to sell papers, which is no justification at all. It matters whether we live in a world where people can spy on our private lives for commercial gain. It matters that newspapers and their proprietors can become so powerful that politicians and police are in fear of them - if that is indeed the case. For the story is not just about Andy Coulson and whether he can keep his job. It is about the relationship between governments and News International. Rupert Murdoch is the elephant in the room.

Coulson always seemed a risky appointment - it may get to the stage that even if he is innocent of the charges he becomes the news.

I cannot remember Alistair Campbell's exact wording but I believe one of the reasons he resigned was because he had become the news.

Andy Coulson earns five times the salary of a Tory MP. Cameron retained his services after the coalition was formed post election and could have got rid then. Within a week of that happening Murdoch arrived at 10 Downing Street for a private meeting with the new prime minister. Cameron’s administration then criticised a well known broadcasting company for “extraordinary and outrageous waste” during difficult financial times and proposed cutting its budget”. Who was right?

The press are always keen to hold politicians to high standards so it seems perfectly reasonable that the press themselves should be held to the same high standards.

Eatonrifle - thank you!!!! Not seen that b4 - Sup up ya beer and collect your fags ...(Mind check ya spelling mate) - a free vote - how on earth did DC become PM - GB was really bad - but the fightback is on - save the employed :)

I dont like the tory party.
I hate the lib dems.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

More sleeze than you can shake a stick at ......and that's without Ashcroft!

Modest Mark - dont be so modest - that is a very very very impt point - if Murdo is influencing the british gov that would be an outrage - I was gunna say shocking but I wudnt be shocked - disgusted but not shocked :)

1. When a news manipulator becomes the news he must go as it is no longer possible for him/her to do the job.

2. I am curious about Nick Robinson's choice of title 'There off...' It rather reminds me of an exchange between Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond (Sid James) Her Majesty's (Q. Victoria) Representative in Kalabar and Sgt. Major Macnutt(Terry Scott) and, and concerning, Pte. Jimmy Riddle(Charles Hawtrey). When describing an incident at the pass. Riddle: .. dirty great Burper and his sword thing... when I came to, they were off. R-Diamond: Oh ... that's jolly bad luck [suggesting that he throught Riddle was describing castration] Macnutt: no Sir, Riddle lost his underpants. R-Diamond: but you don't wear knickers. You are His Majesty's third foot and mouth - the devils in skirts. Where were these knickers? Macnutt: I am very much afraid to say upon his lower person, sir!!! (the whole of the film revolves around this 'plot'!) What struck me was the similarities between the plot of Carry On Up The Khyber and the Andy Coulson affair. I wonder if Nick was thinking along similar lines? It is a bit too much like a Carry-On film!

27 craigmarlpool

"Coulson: If he knew he should go...if he didn't he must be incompetent, and go..."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How many employees who are engaged in illegal activity inform their boss?

Coulson resigned at the time because the events happened on his watch, not because he had personally done anything wrong.

I have not seen any evidence of wrong-doing by Coulson, merely allegations made by an ex-NOTW journo - hardly a smoking gun!

Of course, if new evidence emerges that (in the opinion of police / CPS) requires a fresh invesigation, then such an investigation must happen.

Nick - HOORAY!!!! I really was starting to wonder why you would not address this issue.

Unfortunately I do not think the issue is as simple as your blog suggests - I appreciate you may not have the time to fully reflect on the issues. My concerns are as follows:

1. Even if the police go no further there are now a large number of individuals that will pursue the issue through the courts. The courts have the power to compel the production of documents and oral testimony. I think we all know deep down what that process will ultimately reveal. Why else has the Murdoch been paying millions out in settlements for the few cases that have come before the courts to date.

2. The Goverment will decide to do all it can to protect Mr Coulson. Thereby demonstrating their potency to both the right wing of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.

3. Cameron go too far in protecting Coulson and will be undone by the outcome of the court cases.

A new generation will thereby learn of the evils of executive hubris and spin.

But hey Nick maybe your take on the situation is more accurate. I am sure Andy Coulson would prefer your take on things. I just hope David Cameron can undersstand the points I am trying to make.

Can't believe some of the Tory comments on here. We have Stanilac saying phone tapping is irrelevant and we need to sort out the economy. Well, up until the election, one of the biggest gripes from the right was how much of a police state we had become under labour. Now, it seems phone taping is ok if it's done by the gutter press (or any press for that matter).

Robb seems to be under the mistaken illusion that all civil servants earn £60k a year.

As for the suggestion that there is no new evidence, I think someone claiming their boss new about the situation is new evidence and needs to be investigated or are we going to ignore all whistleblowers in future!

Finally, some are saying it was investigate years ago so leave it. Are these the same people that would like to see the case of Dr Kelly re-opened as I thought that was done and dusted years ago aswell!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Labour should let this one go unless there is some convincing evidence. The reason is, that they are in a long term game to discredit Cameron. The last thing they want is for the Met to investigate further and still find nothing. At the moment they can say there is a problem, but it wasn't investigated properly, claiming the jury wasn't even summonsed. This may leave them slightly ahead in this very minor skirmish. In the vast scheme of things it may be a minute step in their objective of muddying Cameron's reputation.

The bigger problem for Cameron is if the media don't like Coulson. Then, as Blair found out, a trusted member of the inner circle can become a liability. The government should want the Met to carry out an investigation. It would show that the police are not in the government's pocket, could show that there was no credible evidence and would expose Labour as clutching at straws. The question is, "Why, if it is in their interest to have an investigation, do they seem so set against it?"

Ho, ho, ho, give the Labour drones and demoralised party workers a straw to cling on to and they all come out of the fallen tree stump like termites! Where have you guys all been since you were defeated in May?

Licking your wounds has taken that long has it? Still a bitter taste?

Very, very amusing when the boot is on the other foot, n'est ce pas?? How much you howl and squeal, when during the times of Campbell, McBride, etc, you were all as quiet as church mice!

Come on guys, New Labour wrote the book on this stuff! The public elected Blair-lite because they couldnt stand that megalomaniac usurper who was superglued into No10 before May.... what did you expect?

For what its worth and I know I'm often one of his strongest detractors, but Nick has this one absolutely nailed. "Lots of heat, but not much light".

Too right Nicholas. Its like the inside of a cave. Dark, damp, smelly and an all round not nice place to be.

Tell you what.... Following on from your act of contrition the other day, why not throw open the blast doors, let some light and fresh air in to the cave by telling us all what we should know that we do not, that the fourth estate with-held from us for years in order to preserve its access to easy lobby passes?

#13 Robb

I can understand the point you are trying to make. But your example only applies to an over 25 year old living rent free, with no children and no savings.

Many formerly on £60 000 (not that there are that many on £60 000) would have a mortgage and would get considerable help with the interest. They would get their Council Tax paid, there would be Child Benefit and child tax credits. If they didn't have a mortgage, they would get Housing Benefit.

Such a person would have been less likely to lose their job under Labour. But remember that the debate was about the speed of the cuts as well as the expenditure/tax balance and we will have to wait 3 or 4 years to see who was right. If there are real cuts to services people might say they would have been prepared to have higher taxes. Who knows? The most obvious answer doesn't always come true.

Finally we all vote in terms of self interest. Public Sector workers may have voted Labour in order to preserve their jobs. Private sector workers might not have cared about others losing their jobs and would be happy to have more money in their own pockets. If you want to go down the route saying that it is only the private sector which creates wealth you'll have to convince me that a teacher helping create our next generation of doctors, engineers, builders and electricians is not helping create wealth, whilst someone working at Starbucks is.

56#

Not seeking to excuse anything unlawful, but this is not phone-tapping. Phone tapping involves intercepting conversations on the PSTN whilst they are happening. This "case" involves accessing mobile phone user's voicemail boxes by using a default PIN number, standard to virtually every mobile handset.

People are repeatedly advised by the airtime providers and the mobile handset manufacturers to set their own PIN numbers when setting up their user voicemail "boxes". Not many of us ever bother. So, the only information that can be got at by nefarious persons is what is left in the inbox that has not yet been either acknowledged or deleted by the user.

It is no different to using a default four-zero's PIN on your switch card, or by not using an appropriate unique password when setting up your Wifi at home or your webmail login. Its basic, book one, chapter one, page one, line one, personal security. And, for what its worth, I would have thought that any cabinet ministers would have been using secure, encrypted handsets for government business, which any nefarious party would not have been able to gain access to.

People will only be able to gain access to these systems when:

a) They know the number of the handset on the network and
b) The phone is not answered and goes to voicemail at which point you should be prompted to enter the PIN number. If you leave the PIN number at a default and if you have something to hide, you're a good as leaving your car keys in the ignition with the engine running.

As I said, I'm not looking to excuse anything illegal, but lets get this straight. Wire-tapping it is most certainly not. Scanning mobile phone conversations (a la "Squidgygate"), it is most certainly not (you have to be in close proximity to the handsets in order to do that and, I would venture, be using significantly older technology to be intercepted by these means).

What it boils down to, is a basic failure to apply personal data security which leaves the user at risk of losing their data/information to others who do not have a need to know. Which, given the reputation of the last government and the civil service where IT/Comms security is concerned, is hardly any great surprise.

Yes, the criminal, if there is one, is in the wrong. But, the "victim" didnt exactly make it difficult for the crook in the first place. You may as well walk round with your password sellotaped to your forehead.

This is just purely the next digital evolution on from Benji The Binman. The British press have always used tactics that may be frowned upon in order to gain information. This is no different.

All your outrage hasnt ever stopped you all from buying the offending newspapers though, has it?

Fubar @ 61

Yes, yes, all right. But the point is, is Coulson becoming more of an embarrassment than an asset to Cameron? The balance is certainly tilting that way and is hard to stop once it has momentum. Cameron is in a lose-lose position: he either stands by Coulson and exposes himself to collateral damage, or he ditches Coulson and is accused of lacking both judgement and loyalty.

62#

Well, thats for Call Me Dave to decide, isnt it? The loss of a spin doctor is hardly likely to bring down an administration, is it? If that was the case, we'd have been rid of the faux-red New Labour menace when Whelan got his marching orders in 2000/2001.

As I said mate, the proportion of heat to light is way out of kilter. Its a storm in a teacup and the emptiest vessels are making the most noise, for a change. Far more important things going on.

Boilerbill @ 60

Your final paragraph is spot on. There is much drivel spouted on this blog about wealth creators versus parasites. It betrays a deep ignorance of economics. Look around the world. The countries which are the most impoverished are the ones with the fewest government institutions and the least regulation. Capitalist economies simply do not function well without strong government. The USA was one of the first industrial nations to realize this and now accounts for about a quarter of global GDP. There are numerous examples of countries that are rich in natural resources and human capital but whose economies fail to thrive because there are no effective State institutions to support and regulate them.

Teresa May's repeated line yesterday: "it is not her job to interfere with operational police matters."

Same tune, new orchestra.

Fubar @ 63
I hardly suggested it was going to bring down the government!

And to complain that other people are making the most noise is a bit cheeky - just glance back over the past four or five posts!

61. At 08:36am on 07 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders

But you still don't seem to understand - that's a criminal offence.

Two people have already gone to jail for it - one a journalist and one a private investigator.

Your hysteria to defend your tory friends seems to be clouding your judgement.

Jon,

It being a criminal offence and 2 people having been jailed suggest that a thorough investigation has already taken place.

Or do you have more faith in the police being able to reach an independent conculsion now than our last government allowed then to?

As the police have said if there is new evidence they will look into it. But after the Gordon Brown instigated cash for honours investigation one would understand a certain reticence on their part.

Not sure why Cameron should be facing the awkward questions - if this is a matter for the police (which it is) then it's up to the police and the courts to decide on guilt. That said, if it were still Gordon in power I'm sure he would avoid those questions by any means necessary, but thankfully that's the old way of doing things now.

If Cameron sacked members of his staff every time someone with a grudge made a random allegation then everyone with a grudge would just start throwing allegations around for fun (as they tend to anyway)

If Coulson is guilty then that's an issue to be dealt with once that's been determined, absolutely. But it just seems to me that everyone's approaching this from party-political lines and not simply on whether or not it's true.

Let the evidence speak for itself and let's not get lost in a haze of inter-party bitching because all that will achieve is the blurring the real facts in the case.

65. At 09:44am on 07 Sep 2010, TheBlameGame wrote:
Teresa May's repeated line yesterday: "it is not her job to interfere with operational police matters."

Same tune, new orchestra.

So just to confirm this, are you saying that politicians should be interfering in operational police matters?

Do you not accept that this might be dangerous in terms of precedent? Not to mention undemocratic?

Or do you only think this is OK when someone working for the Tories is being accused?

67#

I understand perfectly, jon.

What you're not understanding is that people in glass houses, when they throw stones have zero credibility.

And you mate, have a pocket full of stones as deep as a Palestinian teenager and are having about as much effect as you would be throwing them at an Israeli tank. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

If it is such a big deal, then why does Alan Johnson, only now, when he's in opposition, get into such a lather about it when the original "offences" go back to 2002? Why didnt he as Home Secretary order a fuller investigation if he was not satisfied?

I dont have any tory mates, you ignoramus. you have the typical left wing dogwhistling, knee-jerk, led by the nose paranoia of anything that disagrees with you is obviously rampantly tory. An amoeba would have the brain power to figure it out quicker.

"Clouding my judgement"? At least I've got my own judgement mate, I dont rely on my loosely affiliated, "tribal party loyalties" to think for me.

I'm not defending the Tories. I did not vote for them. I voted UKIP. What I AM saying - and I might just repeat it slower, just in case it might just sink in eventually is that it is hardly credible for Labour to be bleating on about press manipulation, sleaze and criminality, when they spent their entire time in goverment over the last three parliaments being mired in exactly that!

Got it yet?

ALL journalists bend the rules and break laws and protocols in order to get scoops. If every journalist in the world played it by the book, you might as well be reading Pravda.

Ah, but then again.... maybe you think you are, eh?

66#

Thats because I'm swimming against the red tide, PD. :-)

pd65@64

No reasonable person would dispute the need for and value of the public sector, the debate centers about the size of the public sector and what we are prepared to pay for.

Whilst people expect good services they are not honest enough to acknowledge they will have have to pay for those services. That said there has been a degree of over regulation and the balance does need redressing.

"11. At 6:14pm on 06 Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:
There are a vast number of people of working age who have never edited the NOTW. Surely Mr Cameron can find somebody from this group to run his Communications."

Quite right. What about that nice Damian McBride? I don't think he's edited the NOTW.

Nor has Derek Draper.

In fact, when I come to think of it, there is a huge catagory of people in the group "not been accused by the police of phone hacking" although I admit the sub-group "actually been investigated by the police and not been accused by them of phone hacking" is smaller.

I guess what you're trying to say, sagamix, is that Cameron should avoid the group "people that left wing bloggers can use to smear the tories even though they haven't been accused of or convicted of anything" or even the group "people that left wing bloggers don't like" or even "tories or anyone with even the slightest sympathy with or agreement with the tories".

If Cameron avoided choosing someone from that last group, I guess you'd be happy.

74#

LMAO. Excellent!

#31 Strickly Pickled

I think that one of the MPs, who took part in the debate in Parliament yesterday quoted sources and witnesses under privilege.

These could well be found to constitute further evidence.

Coats @ 73 wrote:
No reasonable person would dispute the need for and value of the public sector

>>

But they are often disputed on this blog.

Sure, we have to decide how much of our income we want to spend via taxation on public services. It's just worth reminding the small state fetishists (and there are quite a few) that the most successful economies are certainly not the ones with the smallest state sectors. And the countries regularly deemed the best to live in, on a wide range of factors, are not the ones with the lowest tax rates. It is economic illiteracy - or blind dogma - to suggest that our current stagnation is somehow due to the 'wealth creators' being overburdened.

77#

"But they are often disputed on this blog."

Allow me to put that a slightly different way.

"What is often disputed is the size and efficiency of the public sector compared to what it costs the taxpayer, not its continued existance."

#2 democray fell in 1997 when NL came to power.

In 2006 there was the allegded plot by F4J to Kidnapp Leo Blair. There were no arrest no charges no plot in fact nothing. It was only report by the Sun newspaper as a front page story.

The damage had been done to F4J but those interest was it to have a plot in the first place and whom was freindly with whom. I'll leave you to ponder that one. What I can say it was not in the interest of F4J or the cause it was pursuing.

76#

A former, disgruntled employee who was dismissed for drink and drugs offences?

Yeah... it goes without saying he's a reliable witness, eh?

There is no doubt that Labour used spin and media manipulation to avoid (police and other) inquiries into areas they did not want. It is also true that Labour did very little (if anything) to pursue this issue when they were in power.

BUT none of that really matters now. To my mind there are only 2 issues - one a question of principle and one a question of tactics

1. Do we as a society care about journo's using illegal methods to obtain stories? If we do care what are we going to do about it?

2. If the police decide not to pursue the matter what does Cameron do about the string of court cases that will be lodged against the NOTW by Labour members and their flunkies. The reason Murdoch has paid to settle cases to date is precisely because he does not want documents subpoenaed and NOTW employees (and former employees) questioned under oath.

BTW - Fubar I would love to hear your views on the EU Finance Miisters meeting today

#65/70 There was a large amount of interferance by the police/MI5/SO15 under NL watch against the superhero's from F4J/RFFJ. Exactly where that pressure came from will come out one day hopefully quite soon and it was not from the tories that might give you a clue

71. At 10:09am on 07 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders

Aah, but your defence of your tory friends is so weak.

Again and again you confirm tory failings raised by other posters but then list endless examples of labour doing the same thing.

This is no defence.

For a child molester to say that he knows many other people who molest children is no defence of his actions.

Your tory friends are in power now - telling me that labour was no good does not help, I already knew that labour was no good. You must tell my why you think the tories are doing the right thing.

For example, do you think it is right for the tory government to continue paying £17.5m PER DAY of taxpayers money to the EU, whilst at the same time letting thousands of criminals out of jail because (they say) we can not afford prisons?

Cassandra, report them to the police and allow the police to investigate.....that is what the law and the police are for. It is a bit much if doesnot go the way you want it to, to then come back and say do it again.

Cameron can do nothing about the string of cases that may come about. they are between private (well sort of) individuals and the NoW. If the NoW decides to settle out of court then that is a decision for the NoW alone.

Your comment that it is because they do not want documents made public is pure sensationalist speculation. It may be that the cost of a court hearing is more than the settlement and just good business sense.

Why did these cases not come up during the last government after all these offences are thought to have occurred around 2002? Perhaps because there would not have been enough mischief caused?

All I’m doing, Andy (74), is calling for an end to shadowy, hard ball tabloid culture at number 10. We know it can be effective but it’s sleazy and, in the long run, damaging to our politics. The David Cameron project is modelled on New Labour, this is clear enough, but when you do that – ape your predecessors – it’s important to improve on them. Way you do this is to retain all that’s good about recent Labour (the passion for public services, social justice and greater equality) and dump the bad stuff (reluctance to tax, blind thrall to the City, tolerance of US imperialism and of private schools, and ... relevant to this matter ... SPIN). This Coulson affair won’t be uppermost on our minds when we troop to the polls in March 2012 (will be the economy, of course), but it’s a concern because it indicates that rather than keeping the good and ditching the bad from the New Labour years, this particular manifestation of the tories are going to do the exact opposite. So we lose out on public services and social justice and the equality agenda, but we still get the ridiculously low taxes, the unrestrained City, the deference to Washington, the love affair with private schools, and (worst of all) the News Of The World approach to running the country. This is not what people voted for. It’s high time (IMO) for the bar to be raised on standards in public life and this will never happen as long as the NOTW is ensconced at the heart of government. Oh and I’m not just talking the talk here (about standards), I’m walking the walk. If you were an observant person, instead of being a Conservative, you’d have noticed that I now take great pains to refer to senior tory politicians in an appropriate way. It’s not “Cameron”, for example, it’s Mr (or David) Cameron. Standards. Yes he’s a member of a privileged and unrepresentative elite and shouldn’t really be PM, but he’s also an eminent public person trying desperately to keep his head above water. Ditto Mr George Osborne. Have a think about that, Andy, and see if you can join me in this better place. Tackle the difficult ones first – Mr Gordon Brown, Mr Ed Balls, the Right Honourable Harriet Harman and of course Lord Prescott. First time I see a post from you saying Lord Prescott, I’ll know that you also care about standards in public life. I don’t mean say it in a sneery, sarcastic way either (you know, like when your children call you “sir”) – if you do it like that it won’t count.

Jon, you are not worth talking to. Your pathalogical hatred of anything that opposes your point of view as being rampant tory marks you out as someone who does not want to debate anything, you just want to shout people down.

Finally, if the message has not found its way via either your eyes, your ears or your scalp, I will repeat it. Very slowly. Sorry I've had to resort to two syllables on this occasion, but it cannot be helped.

I.

Am.

Not.

A.

Tory.

Therefore I am not seeking to defend their position. What I am seeking to show you is that because your party spent so long being guilty of the same offences, yet your successive Home Secretaries did nothing about it until they were kicked unceremoniously out of office, your position has absolutely no credibility and like most of your party's recent utterances is just pure, political, white noise that can and should be filtered out.

Something that a person who was blindfolded, gagged, bound hand and foot and anaesthatised and living in the upper reaches of the Amazon in a tribe yet to experience contact with other human beings could have worked out in seconds, but there you go. Someone had to tell you.

Exiled Scot - can I suggest you read the original New York Times article. It will answer some of the points you are making above.

The cases against the NOTW to date have been run by people willing to take a financial settlement. Those which will now be commenced by Labour MPs will be run for the precise purpose of flushing out documents and witness evidence.

Is Andy Coulson really worth defending? By holding onto him Mr Cameron is handing Labour a stick to beat him with. Maybe that will turn out to be a inconsequential twig but maybe not. At this stage no-one can know the answer to that question - holding onto Coulson is a hostage to fortune.

#80 Fubar_Saunders

The debate in Parliament, available on the BBC website, cites six different journalists from the NoW, under parliamentary privilege. According to statements made in the House of Commons, these journalists apparently have information of interest to the Met Police in relation to the phone hacking cases and investigations not previously pursued.

Somebody who has had a drink or drugs problem is not automatically an unreliable witness. Is it not a principle of UK law that all people should be equal under the law and also have a right to be heard under the law and the right to exercise freedom of speech?

Perhaps you believe that the PM's Communications Director, certain tabloid newspapers and journalists are a superior breed. Animal Farm anybody? "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

The Conservative Party advocated a relaxing of the alleged surveillance society during the election campaign. Does that relaxation exclude certain newspaper groups, enabling them to intercept telephone communications at will? Why were the electorate not informed of this before the vote in May this year?

Are the alleged breaches of security of two members of the previous government's telephone calls and messages by private detectives, on behalf of tabloid newspapers not a matter of interest to the Metropolitan Police? It seems that the same matter was in relation to members of the Royal Family.

81. At 11:46am on 07 Sep 2010, Cassandra wrote:

There is no doubt that Labour used spin and media manipulation to avoid (police and other) inquiries into areas they did not want. It is also true that Labour did very little (if anything) to pursue this issue when they were in power.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, right, we appear to have some progress.


BUT none of that really matters now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
{sigh} I thought it was too good to last. I kinda figured that you'd choose to draw the line in an arbitrary place.


To my mind there are only 2 issues - one a question of principle and one a question of tactics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principle, in a modern day politician?? Are you serious???


1. Do we as a society care about journo's using illegal methods to obtain stories? If we do care what are we going to do about it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Good question. How far do you want to go? Controlling the press, totally and absolutely? Secret policemen on every corner? Press IT systems and communications being monitored for the slightest transgression to be followed by swift and summary execution? Or, more seriously, a truly independent body that regulates and has teeth? Considering how many sources of news there are and the lengths that people will go to in order to get a story out, including whistleblowers, wikileaks, et al, where arguably the story is very much in the public interest, regardless of any privacy or secrecy laws, do you realise what a huge operation that would be to undertake and how much it would cost, in terms of personnel, money, technology, etc? Or would you prefer ignorance to be bliss?

2. If the police decide not to pursue the matter what does Cameron do about the string of court cases that will be lodged against the NOTW by Labour members and their flunkies. The reason Murdoch has paid to settle cases to date is precisely because he does not want documents subpoenaed and NOTW employees (and former employees) questioned under oath.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, thats Cameron's look out. Personally, the only thing he could do is tell Coulson that his services are no longer required, as it would appear that if any such offences HAVE been committed then they will have been committed at a time when he was NOT employed by the Conservative party and therefore, not subject to the terms and conditions of their employment. He cannot, therefore legally have brought the party into disrepute or committed a disciplinary offence that would warrant summary dismissal, UNLESS he could be proven to have committed any such offences AFTER having taken up the post as Cameron's chief of communications.

Thats not politics, thats the LAW. Do you agree?

Any such court cases would either be against Coulson directly as a citizen or as a former employee of News International, NOT against the conservative party.

So far as Cameron would be concerned, it would purely be a case of sacking one spin doctor and replacing him with another. Hardly hold-the-front-page stuff, is it?

And as I've tried to get through to Jon, if we're going to start tarnishing people by association because of what current or former employees are alleged to have done or not done whilst they worked for someone else, it cannot be denied that the accusers in this case are on ground so shaky, the US Geological Survey chaps would have a permanent installation there, measuring major earthquakes.

It could be an opportunity to do something about the waywardness of the press, it could be an opportunity to clean politics up, but you and I both know that such opportunities are not going to be taken in our lifetimes because they pose a threat to powerful vested interests and this particular devil (Murdoch) will sup with a very long spoon with any person who gets him what he wants.

Consequently, all of this is just meaningless, political noise.

BTW - Fubar I would love to hear your views on the EU Finance Miisters meeting today
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{shudder} All I've heard so far is Baroso's speech and an EU Finance minister beating his gums about the UK rebate, which I thought Blair had given away lock stock and barrel anyway. Lets see what shakes out over the coming 24 hours.

86. At 12:31pm on 07 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders

"....What I am seeking to show you is that because your party spent so long being guilty of the same offences..."
=================

Sorry, what is MY party?

I have spent ten years waiting to see the back of labour.

Once again you resort to 'labour did it too' as your only defence of your tory chums.

Pathetic. I must conclude that even you can offer no serious defence of the tories.

Some info for the techies on here, as many of you seem to be confused about what phone tapping is:

It is not possible to just tap somebodies phone, only the government and police have the powers to do this - and they have to jump through hoops to get a judge to agree to it. Then the telco's are instructed to place a trace on the number requested - and believe you me we want to see every bit of paperwork required! Then and only then is a trace activated

What went on at the NoTW was not phone tapping at all, it was voicemail hacking. The two are very very different, all phone calls and text messages are highly encrypted (A5.1 or A5.2 algorithm in Europe) and very secure. If you were to intercept the signal from the base station (very easy to do) you could not decrypt it quickly. The A5 algorithm we use in Europe has a brute force crack time of about 5 weeks! This is assuming that you know someone with a Cray supercomputer with nothing else to do (there aren't many in the world and they are always booked)

The weak spot was that (some) telco's use external providers for their voicemail storage, all voicemail is also encrypted when it is sent to the server but is then decoded and saved as a standard format that can be read from differing devices. The problem here is that someone who works at the external data warehouses gave away/sold the access to the server where voicemails were stored (or they were hacked externally)

Regarding Mr Coulson (Saga....) I believe he stated at the time that he didn't know about the voicemail hacking, but took the fall for it and resigned. He took the responsibility as the man in charge.

I assume that the first investigation also looked through this? We have had an investigation into this which was prompted by the last government, and they were happy there was no wrong doing. If there is enough fresh evidence then we should have another inquiry, but I don't think there's much behind this...

Cassandra please enlighten me as to why reading an article in a US publication will answer my "points". I was not aware that they were points, but facts pertaining to the law in the UK. Because an agust US publication runs a story doesnot make it fact. The Met Police have investigated this, if anything that the NYT has "uncovered" is new they will look at it. Sounds fair to me.

A committee of the HoC also investigated this matter and did not find a case against Coulson to the best of my knowledge. If they had surely he would have been sacked then?

How many goes do the labour party want to try and force Coulson to resign or be sacked. They have had the poilce investigation and the MP's have also looked at it.

So you agree that this whole issue is mischief making by the labour party?

85 "It’s not “Cameron”, for example, it’s Mr (or David) Cameron. Standards."

Oh. Standards. Like "Conservative Party" rather than "Clowns", I suppose. Yes, I can see how consistent you've been over that sort of thing.

Or was it some Damascene conversion you had recently?

Like the one you had before the election about not referrng to the Conservatives as "Clowns" (and then doing so a few posts later) or the one where you said that you'd stop calling MR Cameron a "toff" (and then banging on endlessly about his toff background).

Honestly, you're like the person who finds it easy to give up smoking as you've done it dozens of times and lectures people on the evils of it.

Still, nice to see you back from your summer job. EuroDisney probably misses you already.

88#

Firstly, you'd have a lot more credibility if you got your facts right. Whilst it is still wrong, and I dare say, illegal (probably one of the three thousand new criminal offences Labour brought in) to guess a PIN number to an unprotected voicemail box on a mobile phone that is not registered to you, it is NOT the same as "intercepting" or wiretapping. Kindly get your facts straight before being so damned hysterical.

Next, and even more laughably, where you say "Is it not a principle of UK law that all people should be equal under the law and also have a right to be heard under the law and the right to exercise freedom of speech?"

and

"Animal Farm anybody? "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.""

I find myself barely able to contain my laughter. Firstly, please tell me... just how many of your honourable members from the last CABINET (not just the back-benchers), could and should have gone down for Capital Gains Tax EVASION (just for starters), yet not only managed to buy their way out of it, but also ended up with peerages? When, had they been ordinary citizens, they'd have been thrown to the wolves? "Equal before the law"??? You should be on stage mate, doing stand up. "Equal Before The Law???" Arf!!!!

Secondly, does the name Walter Wolfgang mean anything to you? Do you remember him? I do.

Or Maya Evans or Milan Rai? Do you remember them? I do.

Google those names and tell me what you find.

"According to statements made in the House of Commons, these journalists apparently have information of interest to the Met Police in relation to the phone hacking cases and investigations not previously pursued."

Fine. If they have, then let the police deal with it and, if necessary charge him.

You wouldnt be advocating pre-judging the results of a legitimate police inquiry into possible criminal offences would you? Surely not... or do you think that Ms Harman's Court Of Public Opinion should dust off its black cap and practise its lines... "you have been found guilty by this court and you shall be taken to the place from whence you came, and thence to a place of lawful execution, and there you shall be hanged by the neck until you be dead"? I've heard of Trial By Press, but Trial Of Press By Parliament? Surreal....

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

91. At 12:54pm on 07 Sep 2010, mightychewster

I think you over estimate the security of GSM, particularly for state agencies or persons with similar levels of resources, but certainly I agree that voicemail hacking is the issue here.

I make no comment about the ongoing case - leave this to the police/courts.

But don't forget that two people convicted of the voice mail hacking were jailed, so this is clearly an offence.

Fubar Saunders.............The Uzi 9mm Tory Rebutting weapon, ammo sprayed everywhere on every subject 24hours a day.

Like Susan Croft, he's not a Tory of course, he just defends everything they do and rubbishes everything Labour did.

Keep up the good work Fubar, the cheque's in the post with an autographed photo of Andy Coulson, the man you're ardently defending while at the same time citing "surveilance" on the other current NR blog 128# as one of the things against Labour.

Priceless double standards, you couldn't make it up.

Okay - just some random observations on how the phone hacking issue may play out. Of course nothing more than guess work or hypotheticals. I just want to explain why I think this issue (rightly or wrongly) might rumble on.

1. Members of the parliamentary committee that looked into this affair (including some Lib Dems) are now saying that they did not have the power to get to the botttom of the issue and/or that they should now be allowed to investigate again/further.

2. The NYT article included what the police today said were "very serious allegations" that needed to be investigated.

3. Before the parliamentary committee today the police acknowledged that the original investigation could have been done better.

4. After yesterday's question time the Speaker may decide to ask the police to advise whether there is any evidence of hacking of MPs and Lords phones.

5. Various court cases could be commenced against the police (judicial review of decisions not to prosecute/investigate) and the NoTW (for damages). In the cases against the NoTW you would be seekig to have the private investigator confirm that he was asked to hack into an MPs phone by the NoTW (who asked him). The NoTW then produces a witness to deny the allegation under oath or suggests that the relevant person was operating without their knowledge or admits the allegation. I can see a labour QC having great fun with that cross examination and all in open court.

6. Coulson has always said he knew nothing about phone hacking being undertaken by NoTW employees. He resigned because "it happened on his watch". But if it is ever shown that he did know or was "wilfully blind" then he would have mislead a parliamentary committee and would be a dead duck.

AND the longer this rumbles on and Coulson is allowed to stay in place the more people will ask why Cameron is afraid to get rid of a former employee of NoTW.

There will be another establishment whitewash. Why will Coulson be treated differently to the rest of us.

The police should collect evidence, then if it requires, arrest Coulson.

We all know if he meets them before the evidence has been collected he will not have many questions to answer.

He may be not guilty, but only examination of any evidence will prove that.

"Regarding Mr Coulson (Saga....)" - MC @ 91

Yes, this is what we're looking for. Costs nothing and doesn't stop us demanding his resignation. After that's happened he will no longer be eminent and we can call him whatever we like.