That would have been an apt analogy if it was a major incident rather than an email sent from on twat to other people. Nice try though.

Each concern a boss either complicit in, or failing to prevent illegal behaviour by their staff. But I guess you aren’t going to try and square your contrasting views on them.

Perhaps you could answer how one editor of a newspaper missed more than 20 of his journalists gaining information from illegal activities. Either he is supremely incompetent, in which case the Tories made a bad decision employing him, or he has something to hide. You choose…

I already have posited one likely scenario above. And the reason is because you’ve missed out the words “other people’s” from your sentence above. And incidentally, the choice is a false one. The Tories chose him not as an editor, but as a director of communications. Which he has been very good at (which is why Labour are trying to target him). His competence or otherwise as editor of the NotW really is neither here nor there. Gordon Brown made rubbish TV programmes. Tony Blair was a very undistinguished barrister. Alastair Campbell wrote shockingly bad pornography. Their competence in their previous jobs was all but irrelevant to their performance in their subsequent ones.

And for everyone saying I’m unduly cynical etc. What I am trying to get across is that by all means prosecute the newspapers (which extends way beyond the NotW) who have been breaking the law in pursuit of stories. But be aware that by doing so you aren’t restoring journalism to the state it was in before the malefic Murdoch was involved. You are fundamentally changing the way the game has been played for centuries. Mail has been opened, telegrams diverted, conversations eavesdropped – and all in the name of getting a story.

You might disapprove – I disapprove – of this, but that is what has always happened – and what the majority of the public think the papers do. This is why the story hasn’t really resonated much outside the pages of the Guardian. Look at the ICM opinion poll that was carried out during the middle of this. The Tory share went up. People don’t care enough about this for it to matter.

That would have been an apt analogy if it was a major incident rather than an email sent from on twat to other people. Nice try though.

Perhaps you could answer how one editor of a newspaper missed more than 20 of his journalists gaining information from illegal activities. Either he is supremely incompetent, in which case the Tories made a bad decision employing him, or he has something to hide. You choose…

That’s over reach in anyone’s book.

As fro people being surprised by it, that is not the issue at hand, the issue at hand is the sweeping under the carpet.

And to Daniel, I was really trying to portray what the general public opinion of the tabloids is. So by all means get worked up by the latest expose of dodgy/illegal behaviour by the tabloid press, but I genuinely don’t think that most people will be surprised by it.

Oh that’s funny – I didn’t see such refrain and demand for evidence by right-wing bloggers before they were smearing Tom Watson over McBride’s emails, nor when they kept claiming Brown knew everything.

Selective amnesia affect you much Tim J?

So fair enough.

Hope? Yeah I believe in hope, I thought he was just stating a fact, not adding a solution to the problem.

The only hope we have in this country is if people like yourselves actually do something and think about running in politics…or this will never change, will it?

I mean, god, these people are not nice. They will NEVER be nice. Coulson is a fucking sociopath.

What more evidence to people need that these people do not CARE about you and think you’re all stupid??

It’s a game to them, ha, ha!

(p.s I am doing something and yes when you start to pick through politics, it’s depressing but it’s never gonna change unless we (bloggers et al) decide to run-not such a tall order fyi)

I was referring to the fact that he is basically saying such behaviour is to be expected and let’s not get our knickers in a twist. Such flippancy I don’t buy. A bit of hope rather than rolling over to be fucked is perhaps a good thing. As for Private Eye, seriously, I’m not fucking 12, or been locked in a cage for 30 years.

Please.

Murdoch only went Labour for the first time in his right wing little mind because it was ‘new labour’, the party as we have seen became more right then the right party but did a little left here and there to keep their followers happy and it seem to ‘care’. Labour and New Labour are two very diff parties.

Anyhow, Murdoch like any of his elk, follows the money but don’t be fooled about the fact he went Labour those few times in the past 10 years…because have a look at the way he was still anti Obama right until the end with the NY post…he wasn’t that pro Hilary but they went there because McCain was loosing momentum..

Daniel H G

Really? It’s realism. How is he being cynical? This is how it works? Shurley one can’t start being idealistic about the media industry! Do you ever read Private Eye? You should…eye opening read…it’s all a game to these fella’s and we’re the fools who believe all the rubbish that comes out of their mouths..

It’s the tabloids and the NotW which is bringing journalism in general into disrepute, and Coulson was at the centre of that.

And have been for 20 years or more. Highminded newspapers break the law to get highminded stories. Gutter newspapers break the law to get gutter stories. This story hasn’t shown us anything particularly new (except perhaps the institutionalisation of the process) and it’s not the case, for example, that the NotW were the biggest users of PIs to get this sort of story.

That’s why I say that, for this to have direct political implications, it will have to be proven that Coulson personally broken the law. Otherwise the story is no further on than when he was first hired by Cameron.

This goes beyond tabloid journalism being horrid though. There’s always been a fine line between being breaking the law to get a story and not quite breaking the law to get one, but as Andrew Neil said, this seems to be a newspaper which was out of control, or if not out of control, in control but going well beyond even the lowest of the low. Some things may have been worse back in the 80s, but as these papers get ever more desperate they also seem to sink ever lower, i.e. the McCanns, the recent Alfie Patten debacle, Sunday Express Dunblane article, News of the World entrapment over Victoria Beckham kidnap plot and the red mercury trial, etc etc. Unless there’s a radical beefing up of the Press Complaints Commission, so that it can fully investigate such breaches of its code, demand that papers submit documentary evidence to it, can impose fines, front page apologies, even potentially force editors to resign, then I for one would support a privacy law. It’s the tabloids and the NotW which is bringing journalism in general into disrepute, and Coulson was at the centre of that.

As such, what damage was done to Cameron over this was done when he hired Coulson as his Comms chap in the first place – there was a lot of negative press coverage, from all sides, when he did so, as it was felt that it was sort of lowering the tone. Subsequent confirmation that the NOTW is indeed seemingly packed full of dodgy bastards really does little to affect that one way or the other.

Which means that, in order for this new (or rather semi-new) story to damage Coulson further it will have to be proven that he, personally, broke the law. If that doesn’t happen, what we’re left with is ‘tabloid journalism is horrid; Coulson worked on a tabloid’ – which is precisely where we already were.

Quite, which is why Downing Street has been almost completely silent on it. It’s been other parts of the Labour party and government which have kicked up the fuss, including non-usual suspects such as Charles Clarke.

“Was this ever proved? It’s certainly feasible, but that doesn’t mean that it happened. I’m beginning to see a pattern here. It’s entirely feasible that Tom Watson saw some of these emails, after all he worked in the same office as McBride. However, there’s no proof to that effect, which is why the Mail paid out damages to him for suggesting such a thing. Proof is important you see.”

Indeed. Although that never stopped other Tories sympathisers, not necessarily yourself, from also suggesting that Gordon Brown also must have known what McBride was doing, or that Jacqui Smith must have known that Damian Green was going to be arrested.

There is far more evidence that Coulson did know, as alluded to by those who have since spoken out about how the NotW operated, how Coulson himself told the Press Gazette that he was right at the centre of the action at the paper, and how other ex-editors, such as Andrew Neil, hardly a Labour supporter, felt that either he must have known or should have known. Then there’s the conflicting evidence, such as that from Peter Burden, who suggested that Coulson was one of those who stayed above knowing just in case something like this happened, even though in reality he knew full well what was going on.

Would any of this stand up in court with some further documentary evidence? Probably not, unless more witnesses were prepared to come forward from the paper and testify. We all know though that the police aren’t interested in reopening the investigation, just as they seemingly weren’t interested in the evidence which suggested that journos other than Goodman were involved with the hacking of Taylor’s voicemail. That doesn’t however stop the suspicion that Coulson was up to his tits in it. As I said in the piece, David Cameron ought to considering his position. It took years for Alastair Campbell, for all his bullying, smearing and spinning to become the story. Coulson has managed it in double quick time.

As the Graun pointed out, any newspaper worth its salt would have published the fact that Murdoch and co had spent over £1 million to settle claims over something they denied had involved anyone other than Goodman and Mulcaire.

Quite. We’re all in favour of newspapers’ right to break the law in pursuit of a good story.

Considering that they were obtained from Derek Draper’s email account, and that Draper maintains that it was “hacked” (although whether Draper’s security was on a par with that of the Tory whose password was 1234 remains to be seen) I think that’s more than feasible, don’t you?

Was this ever proved? It’s certainly feasible, but that doesn’t mean that it happened. I’m beginning to see a pattern here. It’s entirely feasible that Tom Watson saw some of these emails, after all he worked in the same office as McBride. However, there’s no proof to that effect, which is why the Mail paid out damages to him for suggesting such a thing. Proof is important you see.

This is the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil defence.

No, it’s the ‘where’s your evidence?’ defence. I heard one journo on the radio demanding that the NOTW prove that they hadn’t bugged 3,000 phones. If you’re demanding that this be treated as a criminal offence, as apparently you all are, it’s reasonable to demand that the burden of proof be worked accordingly. If Davies and the Guardian have any evidence that Andy Coulson knew about this, then they should bring it forward.

Murdoch’s papers have been consistent Labour supporters from 1997 onwards.

Obviously the Tories hope he will support them this time, and no doubt Brown is doing his (hopeless) best to prevent that.

So of course neither side will especially want to rile him over this issue.

But ultimately Murdoch is like any other newspaper proprietor – he wants to make money.
He makes money by selling more papers.
He sells more papers by giving his customers what they want.
It was clear they wanted Labour in 97, 01 and 05 – but he didn’t determine their opinion; rather he simply followed their opinion.
If he supports the Tories this time it will be because he *expects* them to win, not because he especially *wants* them to win.

As the Graun pointed out, any newspaper worth its salt would have published the fact that Murdoch and co had spent over £1 million to settle claims over something they denied had involved anyone other than Goodman and Mulcaire. Unless we’re now protecting the privacy of newspapers to breach others’ privacy?

“Love the presumably there too. I mean, how else could they possibly have been obtained? But hey! evidence schmevidence. Obviously guilty, bang them all up.”

Considering that they were obtained from Derek Draper’s email account, and that Draper maintains that it was “hacked” (although whether Draper’s security was on a par with that of the Tory whose password was 1234 remains to be seen) I think that’s more than feasible, don’t you?

“Gnngh. Because there is no evidence that when Andy Coulson was deputy editor or editor that he had direct involvement in or had authorised illegal activity.”

This is the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil defence.

“Coulson’s resignation in effect prevented a thorough investigation of the Goodman affair by the Press Complaints Commission, and ensured Murdoch would not have to answer difficult questions about the activities of his British newspapers at a time when he was under intense scrutiny in the US. He became Conservative Party Director of Communications on July 9 2007.”

The reporter was sentenced to prison, wasn’t he? Why not his boss?

Gnngh. Because there is no evidence that when Andy Coulson was deputy editor or editor that he had direct involvement in or had authorised illegal activity. Is the argument that when a subordinate performs a criminal act, then the boss should be jailed whether he was personally involved or not? That doesn’t strike me as particularly just.

Except the modus operandi of the staff was a criminal conspiracy involving violating the privacy of possibly thousands. If it was the state doing this, the bloggertarians would be having heart attacks in their rush to condemn, but because it is a private company headed by someone politically sympathetic to them – well then thats fine.