Screws of the World in phone tapping scandal - bad news for Cameron

[edam]

this has been mentioned on the Hague thread but thought it deserved a slot of it's own.

Looks like the police have behaved in a bizarre fashion, hushing the whole thing up as far as they were able. Colluding in the idea that it was one rogue reporter and only a handful of victims, while the evidence they had collected said different.

Did they lay off because the Met feared a backlash if they messed with Murdoch? Or because former Screws editor Coulson had become Cameron's press secretary?

Met still flanneling today, trying to pretend intercepting voice mail isn't a crime unless the person concerned hasn't yet listened to the message. That's simply not true.

It's all very odd.

Not least the media blackout.

Unless you're a Guardian reader I guess.

dear lord

I did wonder if the Met were dissembling and it seems they are

Astonishing that it was the New York Times who published this when British journalists have been working on it (via the Bureau of Investigative journalism). Why not the Guardian, who have done some work on the story, or any other non-News International UK paper? Were they ALL doing it? (I am a journo but freelance, and don't do celebs except incidentally.)

Extremely weird story. I have been watching it develop on Twitter but it seems to be gathering momentum in the mainstream press now.

I am interested to see what Cameron is going to do about this.

I find it an appalling lack of judgement that he has employed him anyway.

If you think about what Coulson is saying it is really impossible to believe he did not know what journalists were doing.

I would imagine that hacks come to the editor with stories and discuss whether to publish ( please correct me if I am wrong) and at that point a key question for Coulson would be "where did you get this information?"

So, either he is saying that every journalist lied to him about the sources (which itself has implications about the way in which he ran his business - i.e. undue/unethical pressures for a scoop) or he is talking out of his arse

I would put money on the second option.

Good point, LadyB. I cannot see Coulson surviving this. Cameron will hang him out to dry as soon as public opinion builds against him. I agree that it shows bad judgment on the side of Cameron and his advisors to employ Coulson anyway.

Yeah, the idea that the editor had no idea what was going in his paper is just ridiculous. On any title, let alone a national daily.

Has the Guardian got any association with the NY Times (other than similarish political views? I'm assuming, don't know). I wondered if the Guardian put it the NYT to investigate to give teh story more weight? Or is that too naive a view of journalism?

No idea Said. I assumed it was merely the fact that both are newspapers that Murdoch has not got his scaly hands on yet.

So they are going to do a new enquiry - good.

There has been skullduggery of epic proportions here

Just reading about the lovely Andy on wiki and it says this:

"In 2008 an employment tribunal upheld a claim of bullying by Coulson whilst he was at the News of The World. A Stratford employment tribunal upheld a claim of unfair dismissal claimed by senior sports writer Matt Driscoll and stated "We find the behaviour to have been a consistent pattern of bullying behaviour".[4] The judgment singled out Coulson for making "bullying" remarks in an email to Driscoll. The paper was told to pay Driscoll £800,000."

Why would Cameron employ this guy?

Is this something to do with the 'deal' he did with Murdoch before the election?

Cameron did a buried interview with the Telegraph saying he supported Andy Coulson. Now we know he puts integrity low down on his list of priorities for sure.

So Coulson should not just resign from the position he held at the time of the wrongdoing (as he did in 2007), but from all subsequent jobs?

Does that also apply to Keith Vaz and Tom Watson, who seem to be working hard at keeping this corrosive non-story in the public eye?

Yes, he should never have been employed.

He is a dirty mover prepared to be underhand and criminal and now is advising the PM? That is truly not a non-story

Well we will see what happens now that the met have reopened the investigation, but generally I do rather like the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

I don't know how Vaz can keep a straight face every time the story is recycled (for nothing other than political gain of course), being no stranger to scandal himself.

Odd that he didn't feel that his own transgressions should prevent him from taking on the chairmanship of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee (and indeed any position of responsibility, ever).

Anyone watching C4?

Oh. Dear.

earthworm Thu 30-Sep-10 13:53:21
"So Coulson should not just resign from the position he held at the time of the wrongdoing (as he did in 2007), but from all subsequent jobs?"

Not from all subsequent jobs. I don't think anyone would insist on him resigning from a job as a dustbin man. But any government that chooses to employ him in a responsible position should be aware that this decision will reflect on him.

But if every person in the government and opposing parties resigned for wrong doing there would be nobody left.

I watched the Dispatched programme and it was very unprofessional and naively done. Journalists and news organisations have paid police contacts for information for years. I'd be extremely surprised if the Dispatched programme had never done this. To be all outraged and act like this is some startling new revelation is a bit OTT.

I think the idea that 6,000 phones were hacked into is ludicrous. I can't even think of 600 let alone 6,000 people that the news of the world would be truly interested in.

I think it will take more than gossip and anonymous accusations to deal a death blow to Coulson.

Should some actual evidence emerge then I will change my opinion of course.

I don't know why the police don't pull the emailed transcripts from the servers.