Andy Coulson, the Met Police and Murdoch
- Thread starter Santino
- Start date
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Andy Coulson is to David Cameron what Alastair Campbell was to Tony Blair- just for the search engines if nothing else.
Coulson thinks it's OK to hack into private voicemails to sniff for sex scandals to sell his shitty papers.
Welcome to the Conservative Party 2010.
Coulson thinks it's OK to hack into private voicemails to sniff for sex scandals to sell his shitty papers.
Welcome to the Conservative Party 2010.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Yeh - and Andy Coulson is part of that world. Look it up mate...
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Galloway, Sheridan ...
Those old firebrands have been smouldering like stale Red Band fag butts on the fire for too long... remains to be seen if the new media darlings will give a fuck. It's the Tories. Anything goes.
The cops have plenty to answer for though, this was accepted widespread practice stretching back further than "Squidgygate" and a lot of people should have been nicked, including the colluding cops.
The only way to find out is force public records through the courts and hope they haven't burned all the files yet. Getting public dirt on both the tabloid hacks and the bent cops is never going to happen to any meaningful degree, the only way to know for sure is to tap their phonecalls...
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Good bit all over the Guardian front page yesterday and made page 26 of the times. This story must be making some Lib dems a bit nervous it shows what kind of people the Tories are that they would employ this man as director of communications. It also shows the massive power of the murdoch empire and how they want to overtake the BBC as the UKs main TV.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
If that ex reporter who says in the NYT he got direct instructions from Coulson comes up to mustard, it's a criminal case. Ex may have a motive which dilutes his evidence but, at that point, you have to think others will come out the woodwork.
At this point, just denying won't satisfy plod. Coulson's most def on borrowed time.
/pages CPS
At this point, just denying won't satisfy plod. Coulson's most def on borrowed time.
/pages CPS
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
I see Keith Vaz is looking into this.... oh dear, they are taking the piss, right?
Nick Davies has been investigating very thoroughly, for a good old while. Good on him, I'm glad this one's getting revived.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Apparently the transcriber of some of the phone messages is to talk to the police.
If that is the case then this that could be a rather important development.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
This is a total and utter no-win situation for the police. They are caught between the obvious privacy issues (as soon as they mention a name the worlds media will be camped out on the person's lawn ...) and the need to explain the parameters they set for the original investigation and how they dealt with the information that came out of it.
In any investigation which could be extended almost ad infinitum it is absolutely standard investigative practice to set some parameters, to draw some lines in the sand. Those decisions will have been made by a senior investigating officer (or a more senior officer in setting the terms of reference for the senior investigator in the first instance). Hopefully they will have been documented and will include an explanation of their rationale (it has been standard practice to do so in major enquiries since the late 1990s when the whole major investigation process was revamped and professionalised as a result of the valid criticisms of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry).
I have never heard the parameters explained / justified in detail. I can see how it may have been justifiable, at least initially, to restrict the investigation to the particular journalist against whom allegations had been made ... but it is far less clear how / why the parameters seem to have been set in relation to their victims - it may have been logical to say "We'll do the first three months and see how we go. If there's enough then we'll stop there unless doing any more would make any significant difference to sentence" but I haven't seen anything which convinces me that the basis was as clear as that ... maybe because the police have been hamstrung in explaining their decision because of the privacy issues.
As for the law, I am not sure that the view of an "expert" author is worth much. Is he legally qualified? Is he a trained investigator aware of what evidence is required?" It is interesting to note that he refers to "government guidelines" - exactly which guidelines and the context of the piece he relies on is essential to understanding what he means and it's validity ... and "government guidelines" are not the law anyway! Personally, on my understanding of the interception of communication offence, I would tend to agree with John Yates - the offence is interception "in the course of it's transmission" (s.1 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/1). s.2 expands on the "Meaning and location of transmission, etc." and again (s.2(2)) refers to "while being transmitted".
The case law and legal guidance I am aware of certainly includes messages that are stored on voicemail, etc. which have not yet been accessed by the intended recipient. I think that is pretty clear that they can be described as still being in the course of transmission - even though they have "arrived" as far as the electronics are concerned they haven't "arrived" as in being heard by the recipient (though, interestingly, I do not think the same would apply to a letter fished out from somene's letter box and read before they have had a chance to open it - delivery to the address would typically be the end of "transmission" there). Once the recipient has listened to it I really would not hold out much hope of convincing anyone that it was still "in the course of transmission" any more than it would have been if the recipient had taped it as it played back and then filed the taped copy on their shelf and cleared the initial voicemail.
If I was John Yates (who I have long referred to as the police's "Patron Saint of Lost Causes" as he gets lumbered with all the griefy jobs ...) I would be tempted to re-open the enquiry and now, in view of the specific new allegations about other reporters, senior management, etc. change it's parameters to include the whole of the NotW (and possilly the whole of News International). I would also be tempted to include the Information Commissioner (responsible for investigation and prosecution of criminal breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998) in the investigation from the outset (in the same way that police and HSE jointly investigate deaths in the workplace, so that the relevant lead agency can prosecute no matter which offences are substantiated by the investigation). The big downside of this (apart from the cost!) would be that it would take for ever to complete and, politically, that would be portrayed as "kicking it into the long grass" ... so we're back to a Catch22 for them ...
It's at times like this that I know I made the right decision when I decided I didn't want to be a chief officer!
How would you prove that the message had been fully transmitted to the recipient though. They may well have chosen not to listen to the whole message at the time, or the call may have been terminated. It is clearly not equavalent to choosing to tapea call and then filing it afterwards
I'm guessing your legal qualifications are inferior to the number of 'experts' quoted in a number of newspapers fwiw.
I'm guessing your legal qualifications are inferior to the number of 'experts' quoted in a number of newspapers fwiw.
Please stop "guessing" about me and my qualifications in a clear effort to precipitate the derailing of this thread, no doubt then intending to blame me for doing so.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
This has the potential to be a huge scandal. The met look like they've let the NOTW get away with murder, the NOTW look out of control, and The tories look like their sp-indoctor's a crook.
Oh goody!
Oh goody!
And if you have nothing substantive to say, then it's best not to post at all. As I said, please stop trolling in an attempt to derail this thread.
You do realise that you don't determine who can and how they post on here. Do not act the laughable hypocrite on here, nor attempt to curtail debate when your approach and posts are queried
I don't see how anything I've posted here would derail debate. I'm merely requested that you do not use double standards in your posts and to exercise some kind of self control and consistency. I'd also add to that and request that you do not play the hypocritical martyr card and continually allege that people are trying to goad you unnecessarily. I'm asking you to stick by the same standards that I would expect of any half decent poster and not to use hypocritical arguments - those are sound foundations for a constructive debate imo. I object to this victim complex of yours if anything, and your desire to receive different treatment from any other poster here
FWIW you never did comment on my more substantive suggestion that your legal interpretation of 'transmitted' may not be sound. You chose to sound offended instead. What a change eh
I don't see how anything I've posted here would derail debate. I'm merely requested that you do not use double standards in your posts and to exercise some kind of self control and consistency. I'd also add to that and request that you do not play the hypocritical martyr card and continually allege that people are trying to goad you unnecessarily. I'm asking you to stick by the same standards that I would expect of any half decent poster and not to use hypocritical arguments - those are sound foundations for a constructive debate imo. I object to this victim complex of yours if anything, and your desire to receive different treatment from any other poster here
FWIW you never did comment on my more substantive suggestion that your legal interpretation of 'transmitted' may not be sound. You chose to sound offended instead. What a change eh
Similar threads
