Sunny Hundal

Are we to assume you believe it requires seven policemen to arrest one journalist in a dawn raid, keep him locked up and to go rummaging through his children’s underwear draw and in total have more police involved in phone “hacking” than investigated the Lockerbie bombing, Britain’s worst terrorist act of mass murder?

As a man running a site with the word “Liberal” in the title I just find the heavy handed jackbooted approach of the the old bill a bit worrying and I’m surprised you don’t too…

There’s plenty more examples like that for those bothered to look, some even are the writings of Trevor Kavanagh himself and not just his paper.

1. Anon E Mouse

Usual lack of self awareness there.

Anon E Mouse,

A hypothetical organisation has been accused of wrongdoing. It has also been accused of destroying evidence that could prove the wrongdoing. Should the police be required to notify the organisation’s employees suspected of wrongdoing that the police intend to search their properties for such evidence?

Are Police not allowed to search underwear drawers? How do they know which drawer contains underwear before opening it? If the underwear is mixed in with other things, is that OK? What if it is in the dirty clothes basket – is that worse of better?

Anon E Mouse – you pressed the “paedo-smear” button, we need answers to these pressing questions.

Further crimes are alleged by the same organisation already known to have illegally invaded the privacy of countless people, interferred with police operations, and corrupted police officers.

Is “jackbooted” or “Soviet” for the police to investigate these new allegations thoroughly? Nope. It’s their job. It would be a dereliction of duty for them to do any less.

So far as I can see, underneath all the bombast, Kavanagh’s only real complaint is that the hacks were arrested in dawn raids, to the embarrassment of themselves and their families, rather than being invited down the nick at a time of their own convenience.

Is this an overreaction? After thinking long and hard about it, I believe the correct response is to rub my eyes in mock misery, going “boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo”.

@3 – BenM

Did you actually read my post or just do your usual New Labour knee jerk?

@4 – ukliberty

You too seem to have completely missed the point I make. Do you believe it is proportionate to have more police investigate people accused of listening to private messages than Britain’s worst mass murder in history.

Considering the mass of evidence given to the police by NI I hardly think they need to raid people’s homes.

You may cast your mind back to the last useless government and it’s claims of theft regarding MP’s expenses and the Daily Telegraph.

I know who’s side I’m on and that is freedom of the press and without the police acting like a bunch of jackbooted thugs. If the press were raided in any other country like this people would be up in arms.

@5 – Mike

No I didn’t press any “paedo-smear” button – you did it appears. The remark was a response from Trevor Kavanagh on R4 yesterday.

And I don’t think these answers are that pressing really. After all it’s been months since the parent of one of Tony Blair’s godchildren was in court.

The point is the whole thing is over the top and if it was “journalists” from the tax avoiding Guardian Newspaper who were being raided I’m sure you or the BBC wouldn’t feel the same.

On the day journalism is controlled by government’s and enforced by tools of the state like the police we should all be very very wary…

@1 Anon E Mouse

Sunny can probably reply himself if he chooses to, but the whole point of this is not to justify the mob handed arrests of Sun “Journalists”, but rather the doubel standards.

The Sun seem quite happy for over the top, mob handed arrests to be made when its people they dont like. They seem quite content to jump to conclusions and consider someone guilty if it helps sell a few papers.

We might feel a bit more sympathy for Kavanagh and his colleagues if they hadnt egged on the police in many other similar cases before. Now the boot is on the other foot.

@ Anon E Mouse

“On the day journalism is controlled by government’s and enforced by tools of the state like the police we should all be very very wary…”

The alternative to that is journos being able to do whatever they want. Lies, libel, IP theft, hacking, breaking and entering… perhaps even murder if on company time?

So the sensible option is somewhere in the middle, where journos have to obey normal laws like the rest of us, and face prosecution if they don’t. I agree this looks heavy-handed, but the problem is not that journalists are answerable to laws and the police.

Seeing as the police have said that NI have destroyed evidence, deleted emails and shredded documents, I don’t think is overkill at all.

Funny listening to all the so called law and order torie whinging like stuffed pigs. Those of us who always thought NI was rancid sewer of sanctimonious hypocites have been proved right.

Alway remember the middle class tories think law and order ,and taxes, and morality are for the little people.

@10 Sally the only reason you don’t think this is overkill is because its Murdoch, and by extension tory brown shirt yadda yadda yadda.

I agree with you and you’ve made a good point, although the fact you made it was purely coincidental.

@8 – John Ruddy

Those double standards aren’t just at the NI titles – look at Polly Toynbee preaching about climate change whilst flying to her villa in Italy every week.

Or The Daily Mirror publishing fake photo’s of our soldiers urinating on Iraqi’s when there was a war on or Piers Morgan. Not to mention the Guardian criticising bankers for tax avoidance when it does so itself. Or the Independent and Johan Harri.

My point is that regardless of who has or has not allegedly broke the law the response is totally over the top. Surely a simple phone call to these guys would have been enough.

What has happened is Labour don’t like Murdoch (despite sucking up to him or the Daily Mail with Gordon Brown) and it’s any excuse to try to bash him.

I’d rather have the newspapers sued every week for false stories than have state control. State control leads to newspapers like France and no expenses scandal I’m afraid.

If it wasn’t Murdoch the left wouldn’t care…

Anon E Mouse,

You too seem to have completely missed the point I make. Do you believe it is proportionate to have more police investigate people accused of listening to private messages than Britain’s worst mass murder in history.

I don’t have an idea about the appropriate number of police to assign to either kind of investigation.

Incidentally, I can’t find a figure for the number of officers involved in the Lockerbie investigation.

Considering the mass of evidence given to the police by NI I hardly think they need to raid people’s homes.

No point in having more evidence?

You may cast your mind back to the last useless government and it’s claims of theft regarding MP’s expenses and the Daily Telegraph.

I do. They too took the piss.

I know who’s side I’m on and that is freedom of the press and without the police acting like a bunch of jackbooted thugs. If the press were raided in any other country like this people would be up in arms.

I think the people would be up in arms here too if they didn’t think ‘the press’ (or rather, a specific news organisation and specific journalists) had done something to merit being investigated.

You know, Anon E Mouse, we’re about to enter the era of elected police commisionsers.

If you’re such a tremendous expert on the relative number of officers who need to be deployed in response to serious crimes of different types, then I suggest you stand for election, on the platform of yes I know there’s been rampant corruption and flagrant lawlessness at a major international corporation but no need to investigate anything or arrest anyone a simple phone call will be enough.

@14 – Larry

I don’t want the job thanks so the election isn’t necessary.

I do know that the majority of people in this country just don’t care about journalists listening to Hugh Grant’s answering machine because he was too stupid to change the access code from 0000. Celebrity gets upset.. boo hoo – my heart bleeds.

As for crime types it should be a matter of importance and I feel the investigation into Britain’s biggest mass murder in history would warrant more officers than those looking to discover which journalists had or hadn’t done something.

The only problem I have is when the free press in a country gets the police acting in a completely over the top manner.

As they have done here. But either way the general public don’t care and they should…

@13 – ukliberty

Anyone with half an ounce of sense would have got rid of the “evidence” should it exist. It doesn’t require the use of so many policeman to do it.

(I can’t find the figure either but it was being bandied around yesterday).

My point isn’t the expenses – I agree they did take the piss – but the fact the government were bleating about the crime of receiving stolen goods instead of addressing the issue of ripping the taxpayer off.

No one says the police shouldn’t investigate the “crime” – they should but it is the response that is out of proportion. Anyway I thought this heavy handedness was to stop after the Damian Green arrest?

Anon E Mouse, how many police officers investigated / are investigating Lockerbie?

I do know that the majority of people in this country just don’t care about journalists listening to Hugh Grant’s answering machine because he was too stupid to change the access code from 0000. Celebrity gets upset.. boo hoo – my heart bleeds.

I imagine you are correct about the public there. But what about the voicemails belonging to a murdered schoolgirl, the victims of the 7/7 terrorist bombings, and deceased soldiers?

There are other issues the public might care less about, but are still important, including the possible eavesdropping or hacking of the-then Home Secretary David Blunkett’s conversations (and whether he has been ‘compensated’ by being employed by the company that wronged him).

AEM @ 15

As for crime types it should be a matter of importance and I feel the investigation into Britain’s biggest mass murder in history would warrant more officers than those looking to discover which journalists had or hadn’t done something.

why? How many officers should it take? To be honest the coppers haven’t looked in my shed for evidence, so are they just slacking?

So the police shouldn’t look for evidence because anyone with half an ounce of sense would have already got rid of it. In which case why bother ever looking for any evidence, except when the suspects are known to have less than half an ounce of sense?

They should be grateful plod did not turn up with a camera crew and a photographer from NI so their mugs could be splashed all across the front page of a tabloid paper!……………oh wait.

It is funny when middle class tories come into contact with the police. They suddenly become woolly lefties. Is NI now pro criminal?

What you should ask your Mr Mickey Mouse is where are the police getting the tip offs from? If the rumours are to be belived Ths Suns parent company in New York. It would appear the suits are hanging these folks out to dry.

On the day journalism is controlled by government’s and enforced by tools of the state like the police we should all be very very wary…

It’s not, silly. It’s subject to the same laws as the rest of us. It’s just certain papers have been happily flouting them for a long time (allegedly) and their journalists may have a lot of skeletons in their cupboards. Or underwear drawers.

Actually, I think people are missing a point – just because they have done things people disagree with, it doesn’t make Trevor’s points any less valid.

Hypocritical, perhaps, but not wrong.

Having read FleetStreetFox’s blog here: http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2012/02/scum-also-rises.html it seems that some cases aren’t what people are being led to believe.

And when normal journos are having their families scared by 10 men entering their homes in the early hours whilst those up on high are allowed to arrange their own arrests, it is of course going to anger those in the business who have been making an honest living to see the double standards.

You don’t have to like the paper, or the company, to see why they are staging their own sort of fightback.

There’s another glaring lie in Kavanagh’s article, which no one seems to have picked up on. He talks of the police going through journalists’ “love letters”! I find it hard to believe that a Sun ‘journalist’ has ever received a love letter.

On the topic of underwear draws and, ahem, ‘love letters’, let’s also remember that “privacy is for paedos“.

Damn, this is fun, isn’t it?

more police involved in phone “hacking” than investigated the Lockerbie bombing, Britain’s worst terrorist act of mass murder?

You’re ignoring the fact that

A) The FBI, CIA, NSA and the State Department were all also active participants in the investigation, since most of the passengers were US citizens, plus at least one high ranking Army intelligence officer returning from Tel Aviv, where he had been possibly tracing (or covering up) Col. Oliver North’s paper trail post-Iran Contra, so the Pentagon were taking a pretty active interest too – Borders Police were very much the junior partners in the investigation.

2) The State Dept and the FBI were both absolutely convinced of the culpability of Iranian-backed Palesitian terrorists based out of Syria/Lebanon (the PFLP) for nearly two years, up to the very day Iraq invaded Kuwait in Summer 1990.

3) Out of the blue, following the successful conclusion of Operation Desert Storm, during which Iran had politely failed to capitalize on the chaos of exploit the situation by remaining compliantly on their side of the border, the FBI and the State Dept. suddenly announced in mid-1991 that they had definitively tied Lockerbie to Libya and completely dismissed the Iranian Connection out of hand.

4) The Blair and Brown governments were fully aware of this (Alex Sammond either wasn’t, isn’t or refuses to believe it), which is why they let Al-Megrahi return so swiftly and without putting up more than a token fight to keep him in a Scottish jail.

5) Borders Police know that the investigation is a whitewash, know their findings will be blocked or suppressed and so haven’t devoted anything more than the minimum of resources to the case, since they are totally out of their depth taking on the combined will of th FBI, State Dept. and the Pentagon, who have seized and retain possession of all the key forensics in the case. All Borders police can do is take witness testimony, which, given the nature of the crime is of limited value, compared to the forensics.

Are we to assume you believe it requires seven policemen to arrest one journalist in a dawn raid,

It’s not unreasonable to assume that if these suspects do have incriminating material and they are hanging onto as leverage/a basis for blackmailing their higher-ups that in the event of an arrest, they might try to burn, destroy or delete that material, given that it no doubt also more directly incriminates the arrestee.

A paper dossier can be shredded or burnt in the time it takes to “just pop to the loo” or “get my coat” before being escorted down to the station – a hard drive can be reformatted even quicker than that within a matter of seconds.

They’re not just raiding the place to secure the secure the suspect into custody; they’re also raiding the place (presumably) to secure evidence.

Furthermore, Lockerbie was an investigation, this was an arrest – Lockerbie would have involved a permanent or semi-permanent task force of CID detectives, sifting evidence; arrests were expected to be imminent and any that did occur would be expected to occur months or years in the future and almost certainly not in Scotland.

This was an arrest; 2 or 3 members of CID were probably involved, plus uniform to secure any evidence.

Also, the night Lockerbie occurred, I guarantee you there were more than 7 police officers on duty and working the case that particular night, both in and out of uniform.

To snidely imply that they weren’t and that in their attendance on the scene was anything less than their full duty is crass and disrespectful not only to their own service, but to the victims and victims families as well.

You’re out of order.

Anon E Mouse:
Trevor – just get off the fucking line, I think you’ve made your point.

@29 – Ivan Pope

Nice!! : – )

Anon E Mouse once again shown to be talking out of the back of his Mickey Mouse head by Full Fact

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/police_numbers_operation_weeting_trevor_kavanagh-3311

Only a completely gullible plonker would have taken Kavenagh’s words as gospel.

It’s fair to say that if you don’t want to be arrested by the police then don’t break the law (eg, paying police for information, which is illegal). And if you want any public sympathy then don’t work for the Murdoch press (aka “the evil empire”).

I’m still waiting to hear from Anon E Mouse how he – a member of the public – decides the appropriate number of police officers (and other resources) to assign to particular cases.

I thought the “60 officers per day” assigned to Abu Qatada seemed a lot but I have no idea what is involved and therefore how many are needed.

@33. ukliberty

I’m still waiting to hear from Anon E Mouse how he – a member of the public – decides the appropriate number of police officers (and other resources) to assign to particular cases.

I had completely forgotten about this until last night, then I remembered, by I myself have actually been personally subjected to (but not subject of) a police dawn raid.

About 5 years ago, I was living with a mate of mine who owns an ex-council house he bought at auction on the edge of one of Peckham’s nicer estates.

He was able to pick the place up cheap and it gradually became clear that the previous owner had been illegally subletting the place out and it had at some point been used as worker’s lodging house / dorm for illegal immigrants and undocumented workers from Africa and the Far East, as well as other unsavory and unscrupulous characters of ill-repute and shady backgrounds. My friend had several years of credit refusal for unpaid debts and baliffs records relating to previous or imaginary former occupants who had given their name and that address on fruadulant applications for credit and all sorts of things.

One Sunday morning, around 7.30 am, while myself and my then-girlfriend were still in bed (obviously), very naked and very hungover (still drunk, in all likelihood), the front door was forced in and suddenly the house was swarming with around 8-10 uniformed officers executing an entry warrant.

It seems that one of the former residents had been named and was wanted in connection with a serious sexual assault and had various other outstanding serious and violent charges (plus the fraud) levelled against him with compelling evidence to back them up and he had not shown up anywhere on the electoral roll or applications on his credit history at any other addresses since.

The officers were assertive, but polite and apologetic and went from room to room checking the identities of those people who were there; their behaviour, though surprising, was not alarming and talk of Gestapo and Jackboots is totally out of step with my experience. Once I and my girlfriend had provided our IDs (I happened to have my drivers license handy), they discreetly moved downstairs and after asking and receiving permission from my mate undertook a quick, cursory search of the rest of the house and examined the names on the recent bills and mail sufficient to satisfy themselves that the subject of their search and the gentleman named on the warrant was not resident and clearly hadn’t been for quite some time, they ran through the warrant, explained the reason it had been issued and what (and who) it pertained to, explained the need for proceeding on that basis, politely excused themselves, left promptly and apologetically, replaced the broken lock on the front door and were in and out within about 10mins at most.

It’s worth noting that if they had been interested in finding and seizing drugs on that search, they could have fairly easily done so. But that was not why they were there and that was not the basis on which the warrant had been issued.

Gene Hunt style 1970s policing “Oh look what I found!” searches are illegal and don’t stand up very well in court; not least because “finding” drugs (or other contraband) in someone’s home is not sufficient usually to make a charge of possession, since it does not directly imply ownership – they have to be found on your person), but also because judges and juries take a very dim view of charges raised that do not directly relate to the person and offence to which a warrant relates.

Warrants are vital to conducting search and entry raids and they are not easy to get; this is often forgotten or overlooked. The judge who issues one will want to see plenty of hard work and due diligence done on the part of Police before one is granted to be sure that it’s both in the public interest and it’s the only way to secure evidence or suspects into custody as part of a particular investigation and that the public interest is sufficient to outweigh the civil liberties concerns. They are also very specific as to who is to be subject to arrest and what materials are sought and can be seized.

I’m comfortable with that.

There was good reason to believe Kavanagh had a case to answer, good reason to believe he held or was hording evidence pertaining to the ongoing investigation at his home and good reason to believe that he would not hand it over, might try to hide it, destroy it or conceal it if given the opportunity. That’s fairly clear at this point.

They sent precisely the right number of officers they felt necessary to secure the evidence and preserve it’s integrity and no more.

This comparison with something like the police response to Lockerbie and allusions to the Third Reich I find really quite offensive.

How I remember that appalling headline, that poor man was hung drawn and quartered by the scum Sun journalists and their editor, simply because he did not fit in with their warped sense of “normal”!

Trevor (bleeding heart) Kavanagh – Only sings when he’s winning!

@35

Not to mention the man known as “The Bishop” in the Ipswich Ripper case.

And as for Rebecca Leighton… That was a disgusting bit of yellow journalism.

Her name is already turning up in news updates on Serial Killer orientated podcasts.

She’s a harmless twat who probably stole some drugs from the pharmacy in the hospital where she works. She’s not a killer. In spite of what the idiots in the GMP might be leaking to the tabs.

That article is one long sanctimonious pompous whinge from Kavanagh. Notably absent are his comments when police have treated others to the same kind of treatment, in fact, various Sun journalists and editors have gleefully joined in hardly able to curtail their excitement when this has happened to others eg footballers, football managers, politicians etc.

I would also like to ask Mr Kavanagh if he reads his own paper? Because right from the offset of this police investigation into NI hacking of phones and emails etc, it was stressed by the senior officer in charge that no charges will be brought until the end of the investigation.

Sunny, slightly confused, but what is the substantive argument that you’re making here? Are you saying that Kavanagh is wrong to say we shouldn’t jump to conclusions or are you saying he’s right but because he may have himself jumped to conclusions himself previously he is not permitted to make such arguments now?