What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking?


3:45 pm - September 3rd 2010

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Five Chinese Crackers

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the New York Times Story, as Tom watson says in this post at Jack of Kent, is this:

The New York Times also suggests, for the first time, direct police collusion with a commercial media organisation, an unnamed senior investigator alleging that a Scotland Yard press officer stressed the department’s “long-term relationship with News International”.

A Scotland Yard press officer allegedly urging the police to go easy on the News of the World because of an alleged “long-term relationship with News International”? Whatever could he have meant?

In June 2006, the Metropolitan Police carried out a disatrously bungled raid on the home of two brothers, Abdul Koyair and Abdul Kahar, alleged to be in posession of chemical weapons. They actually weren’t. The 250 police involved in the raid found no explosives or chemical weapons, but did manage to shoot one of the brothers, Abdul Kahar, in the process of turning up nothing.

The BBC reported at the time: “One report suggests his brother Abul Koyair shot him. Both are under arrest and deny involvement in terrorism.”

Guess which paper reported that the police didn’t shoot Kahar in the raid, but his own brother did – an allegation that turned out to be totally false, by the way.

Later, after the police bungling was revealed for what it was, allegations that Abdul Kahar had been found with child porn on his mobile phone was leaked to the press. Guess which paper broke the story.

Another allegation that appeared in the press that had the handy effect of making the brothers look a bit dodgy was the revelation that they were found with large amounts of cash – not so odd when you realise that devout Muslims often avoid banks as interest is seen as forbidden. Which paper broke this news I wonder?

A week after the raid, one paper alleged, falsely, that one brother had a criminal record, while another alleged, falesly, that one committed an offence as a juvenile.  Guess which company owns these papers.

The Forest Gate raid was not the only bungled operation by police in 2005 and 2006. Jean Charles de Menesez was infamously shot dead by armed police who mistook him for an attempted suicide bomber in 2005. In 2006, while the News of the World was being investigated for the phone hacking scandal, completely false allegations that de Menezes had raped a woman appeared in the press. Which part of the press broke that story?

The first two stories appeared first in the News of the World. The third appeared first in News of the World sister paper, the Sun.  The fourth appeared first in News International’s the Times, and the fifth in the Sun.  The sixth seems to have been broken by the Sun.

The Scotland Yard press officer involved denies attempting to repress information and says he cannot recall the events in the New York Times article, of course.

But if there was a “long-term relationship” between the Metropolitan Police and News International that led to the police perhaps not investigating phone hacking at the News of the World quite as hard as they could, what sort of thing could the Met expect in return, do you think?

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Bill Kristol-Balls

It’s pretty obvious (if not exactly provable) that if you’re going to illegally hack a load of phones, probably better hack a few senior coppers mobiles as well to get a bit of leverage if needs be.

No surprise here.

A media organisation who always supports the police no matter what they do. Look at the way Murdoch went into bat for the police at the time of Hillsborough. The media are very useful to the police in the way they can spin a story.

And the police make a lot of money in back handers from the media for tipping them the wink every time someone famous gets arrested. How do you think the tabloids know just which police station to stand outside?

Makes you wonder why cash-for-peerages so easily went away and why they were so obliging to Labour about hauling Damian Green’s arse off to pokey with no good cause.

What ever happened to that Ian Blair bloke? The House of….WHAT?

Latest breaking news on Friday night:

Andy Coulson, the No 10 communications chief, found himself in the direct line of fire in the News of the World phone hacking scandal tonight when a former colleague alleged that he issued direct orders to journalists to carry out the illegal practice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/03/andy-coulson-phone-hacking

4

Call me Dave has no judgement employing this Murdoch apparatchik.

And did he employ him because he may have dirt on other politicians?

Are the Lie Dems happy to work with such low life’s?

“And did he employ him because he may have dirt on other politicians?”

It’s probably more a case of knowing what can be done with what have been dubbed “the dark arts”.

Recall that New Labour has also been associated with the dark arts. In April last year, The Times – a Murdoch paper – carried this story:

“ED BALLS, the schools secretary, used Damian McBride, the disgraced spin doctor, to smear ministerial rivals and advance his own ambitions, a Downing Street whistleblower has claimed.

“In an explosive new twist to the e-mail affair, a No 10 insider has revealed that Balls was the mastermind behind a ‘dark arts’ operation by McBride to undermine colleagues. . .”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6122756.ece

What’s so weird about the Coulson – Goodman – Mulcaire news story of 2006 is the application of the dark arts to the hacking of the voicemail boxes of the Royal princes.

Had the hacking targets been criminals, corrupt bureaucrats and politicians or suspect terrorists there would at least have been an understandable rationale. But picking up gossip about the young princes looks unbelievably petty, hardly a cause for investigative journalism to celebrate. And certainly not what we might expect of someone who now works in Downing St as the Director of Government Communications.

More insights into the character of Andy Coulson:

News of the World faces £800,000 payout in bullying case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/23/andy-coulson-now-bullying-payout

And more from this BBC sound interview of Sean Hoare, who worked on the News of the World when Andy Coulson was editor:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11183038

It was always a stretch to maintain that Coulson knew nothing of what was obviously a widespread practice at the Screws. One wonders then why Cameron would be dumb enough to hire him.

Cameron pretty certainly wanted Coulson on board because, he calculated, that would bring Murdoch’s papers on side. Which by and large seems to have worked. Murdoch papers have attacked the Coalition a lot less than other Tory papers like The Mail and the Telegraph.

But was the quid pro quo that in return Cameron would sell off the Beeb to Murdoch? If Coulson goes, where does this leave the deal?

Another piece of pre-election rightwing deal-making Cameron will happily walk away from?

After all, Coulson’s hardly been a success since his appointment. The Gordon Brown/eyesight/writing to squaddies’ widows was a disaster and turned the polls back toward Labour, the decision during the election to attack Nick Clegg flat out, Hague’s gynaeocological marital details over the last few days. All ham-fisted and self-defeating.

As a price for keeping Murdoch on side, perhaps its not worth it any longer. The time for Murdoch’s extreme right knuckle dragging journalism is past.

I might have more time for this if it didn’t come across as a partisan issue as elaborated here:

http://dizzythinks.net/2010/09/meanwhile-in-real-world.html

I might have more time for this if it didn’t come across as a partisan issue as elaborated here:

OF course the Tories aren’t doing everything to downplay this issue… after all, it has nothing to do with Cameron does it?

This is ‘Dizzy’s’ incisive coverage: The thing is, will they succeed? Probably not. You see what they fail to realise, whilst they’re publishing their open letters, calling for reviews, and delving into conspiratorial intrigue, is that no one out here actually gives a shit. Cheryl is more important.

That shit deserves a Pulitzer for blogging. I mean – his incisive observation that the red tops aren’t covering it so it’s a non-story alone should deserve a prize. That this is about red-tops doing dodgy things and therefore might not want to talk about it perhaps doesn’t need to be mentioned.

Were you actually being serious when posting that link?

I suppose it does come across as a partisan issue – only Tories seem to think there’s nothing wrong.

It might be worth checking out Left Outside’s Coulson Challenge.

Seroulsy, Sunny’s right. That was a very poor effort by Dizzy.

I find it surprising the police would take such drastic action for preserving a nice back-scratching PR agreement – the police would surely know this would be found out eventually. Phone hacking by the press is clearly an offence likely to be noticed by many victims sooner or later, simply because things only ever recorded on their voicemail start appearing in the papers. Also, someone at a lower level in the police would be bound to leak such a blatent suppression of an investigation.

There may be even more to this than meets the eye. It doesn’t stack up that they would take such a high-risk cover-up strategy to protect an agreement to publish a few stories the tabloids might well bite at anyway. They surely don’t need much encouragement to print false allegations about a Muslim, for instance (so long as they can’t afford to sue for libel, anyway).

Hmmmm…


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? http://bit.ly/9wj2m1

  2. salardeen

    What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/zLEcyNU via @libcon

  3. Niall Millar

    RT: @libcon: What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? http://bit.ly/9wj2m1

  4. Pucci Dellanno

    RT @libcon: What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? http://bit.ly/9wj2m1

  5. sunny hundal

    What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? http://bit.ly/9wj2m1

  6. David Hickey

    RT @sunny_hundal: What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? http://bit.ly/9wj2m1

  7. Krupesh J. Hirani

    Is our police force corrupt? Their alleged relationship with the Murdoch press would suggest so http://t.co/R5t7O8h

  8. Allister Hayman

    RT @sunny_hundal: What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? http://bit.ly/9wj2m1

  9. Dave Boyle

    Really important post on Coulson and the Met: http://s.coop/306 Thanks to scumbag Blair for sucking up to them and failing to regulate.

  10. The G

    RT @sunny_hundal: What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? http://bit.ly/9wj2m1

  11. MPACUK

    Don't forget the METs collusion with the #NOTW and #murdoch on the Forest Gate raids http://j.mp/qrUjR4, thanks @bloggerheads

  12. Daniel Ackroyd

    @PaulLewis @guardian Don't forget the MET collusion with #NOTW and #murdoch on the Forest Gate raids http://t.co/1pwwrg5 via @bloggerheads

  13. sheepdip1

    2010 article looks right on the money… @libcon: What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? http://t.co/AK3Cpzc

  14. Dan Sanderson

    What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/NY8IVAn via @libcon

  15. What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? | Liberal Conspiracy « Soreal it Must be True

    [...] What would the Met get for not pursuing NotW phone-hacking? | Liberal Conspiracy. Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.