Andy Coulson, the Met Police and Murdoch
- Thread starter Santino
- Start date
Mildly amusing ... but hardly one of the classic sarcastic letters of our time ... and somewhat undermined by Rusbridger, whilst seeking to parade his superiority, demonstrating his ignorance of the law by suggesting that the police could simply choose to ignore the requirements of PACE by interviewing people who they (clearly) suspect of criminal offences without doing so under caution and by offering them immunity from prosecution.
He also starts of well, or badly (depending on whether it was deliberate or not) by referring to Det Supt Haydon as "DS Haydon". Any competent journalist would know that "DS" is the abbreviation for Detective Sergeant (i.e. three ranks below Detective Superintendent) ... I fear Rusbridger did not use it deliberately to wind up the recipient but did so out of ignorance ...
He also starts of well, or badly (depending on whether it was deliberate or not) by referring to Det Supt Haydon as "DS Haydon". Any competent journalist would know that "DS" is the abbreviation for Detective Sergeant (i.e. three ranks below Detective Superintendent) ... I fear Rusbridger did not use it deliberately to wind up the recipient but did so out of ignorance ...
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Funnily enough, I'm a tad less worried by a journalist being a bit hazy on the technicalities than I am by the police apparently not knowing what is in their own files, or having to seek advice from journalists because they apparently have no idea how to conduct an investigation. Or at least, that is the impression they are giving in their desperate attempts to avoid investigating the police cash-cow and propaganda machine that is the Murdoch empire.
I do hope they're allowed to keep digging for a nice long time. I want that pit deep enough to bury them.
I do hope they're allowed to keep digging for a nice long time. I want that pit deep enough to bury them.
Coulson interviewed by police 'as a witness', coinciding with the BBC news strike.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/06/andy-coulson-police-interview-hacking
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/06/andy-coulson-police-interview-hacking
Two implicit criticisms of the police in thirteen words. Oh, and no comment whatsoever on the substantive issue! Well done!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Wow, that's actually passing into astonishing.
Seek help.
Seek help.
You're the obsessed stalker. You're the one who needs fucking help.
Was the first criticism the use of the phrase 'as a witness'? Because that's a direct quotation from the article I linked, emphasising the purely factual matter that he wasn't arrested or under caution.
Feel free to apologise now.
Yes. It was no doubt used by the Guardian as an implicit criticism because they would love to see him arrested (despite the fact that there has been criticism of the police for interviewing people under caution as it "scares" them into silence ...)
If you were unaware of that implied meaning then of course I apologise. But even a single implied criticism in thirteen words which entirely avaoid any comment on the substantive subject matter is still quite impressive ...
Have you read the article?
Yes.
Instead of preaching, how about making the point you are clearly hinting at with your tedious questions.
Or making any comment on the Guardian story you linked to if, as you now claim, your thirteen word post was not meant to be anything other than descriptive of the facts ...
You're the one who started it. I simply asked what point you were trying to make with your stupid questions. It's not really that difficult is it?
That's paranoia. The Guardian were simply reporting facts.
If you had followed the tone of their coverage of this issue from the start, I would suggest you would conclude otherwise. They would love to see Coulson nicked and have been seeking to orchestrate it for ages!
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
I'm sure the grauniad would love to see coulson arrested (I certainly would!), but why was it 'no doubt' meant as criticism? Why not - as seems more plausible to me - them being mealy-mouthed, with one eye to the libel laws, and the fact that NewsCorp retains the services of some of ther world's foremost libel lawyers? to me, that read like simply workaday, cautious reporting of a news story they could hardly ignore
In the vast majority of cases they would simply say "has been interviewed by". In this particular case there has been a long running debate about whether the interviews are under caution or not, with arguments that they should be (to demonstrate how serious the police are taking it and that they are recognising the suspected criminality of those involved) or they shouldn't be (because by doing so it "scares" them into saying nothing).
In the context of that, and with the Guardian being a leading paper in the debate, I read their phraseology as being somewhat loaded. I may be wrong ... but I'd put money on not being! (You may well be right about the cold, dead hand of the lawyer though!)
In a case where there has been a long running debate about whether interviews are under caution or not, is it not incumbent upon a journalist covering the story to mention exactly under what condition a person has been interviewed, with a concise phrase such as 'as a witness'?
Maybe. We'll not agree on what we read into it.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
That latest judicial ruling could well be dynamite, but it all depends on the timeframe they eventually agree - and what the next obstructive tactic is by mulcaire and/or NewsCorp
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That PI is as dodgy as they come - likely to sell his his silence and do the time.
Belatedly seen this.
Suggest you read Nick Davies' scrupulously thorough investigative work -- as I have throughout -- a lot more carefully, and try applying some objectivity.
The NoTW's already known behaviour overall is hardly worth anyone's strenuous defence. Even a few Tories are very concerned about it.
Similar threads
