Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"

[Bernie Gunther]

Chair of the Select Committee John Whittingdale, is not only Facebook friends with Elisabeth Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, but is also a Facebook Friend of Les Hinton!

Even John Whittingdale, chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, has stopped saying that Murdoch should be allowed to make the deal. I regret to say I had begun to wonder whether even the fragrant chairman had an interest. But, as Humbert Wolfe almost put it: "You will never find for sale/ Thank God, the spotless Whittingdale./ But seeing what the man will do/ Unbought, there's no occasion to."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/06/simon-hoggart-murdoch-phone-hacking

 

[Idris2002]

Chair of the Select Committee John Whittingdale, is not only Facebook friends with Elisabeth Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, but is also a Facebook Friend of Les Hinton!

And do you find this. . . puzzling, Puzzled?

 

[Puzzled]

I find it Puzzling that the chair of the committee has these people as FB friends yet is still allowed to chair the meeting, he did eventually admit that Brooks and Murdoch were FB friends but has kept quiet about Les Hinton.
Mind you look at the other committee members 3 of whom were involved in the expenses scandal

 

[belboid]

It's not that puzzling is it? It's facebook, not his secret list of closest confidantes. As Chair of ther DCMS its hardly surprising that he knows newspaper people.

What's more surprising is that someone would wait half a week before creating an identity with which to post this story..... clearly there must be somethng amiss here...

 

[killer b]

jesus christ

 

[butchersapron]

And it (the friends stuff) was posted at the start of the week as well. Don't people read 8000 post threads before replying our something?

 

[Barking_Mad]

good point made on CiF

thornintheside

22 July 2011 9:02AM

Why this morning doesn't the UK media, all of it, radio, TV and press, including the Guardian, have headlines this morning along the lines of;

Was the Prime Minister responsible for repeatedly breaching/compromising British national security?

This is 'national security' we are talking about folks, usually a sacrosanct, lightning-rod subject of the all of the mainstream UK media.

This has nothing to do with party politics.
This has nothing to do with phone hacking
In a way it doesn't even matter that it is/was Coulson.

If officials who came to no.10 to discuss (or even with just the chance they might discuss) any subject/issue with a high-security-level tariff were not warned beforehand that a no.10 official at their highest-level meeting did not have high-level security clearance, then that would have been a breach of security.

If this happened just once (e.g. when Yates met Coulson to talk about counter-terrorism, see below) it was not careless, nor bad judgement, but seriously compromising national security, a transgression of one of the most important tenets of the day-to-day business of being in government.

If this happened repeatedly, and was ignored by those who knew about it, then all of them would have been willfully responsible for one of the biggest and most serious breaches of British national security since Profumo.

It appears to me that, amongst others, both the PM and the Cabinet Secretary would fall into that category.

Extract from transcript of this week's Home Affairs Committee session with John Yates:
Q912 Steve McCabe: I want to understand what you said about Mr Coulson. Have you spoken to him since he was employed by Mr Cameron? John Yates: I have spoken to Mr Coulson at No. 10, with other officials. Q913 Chair: When was that? John Yates: I will have to look in my diary. It was probably relatively early on. I think two or three officials were present. Q914 Chair: About these matters? John Yates: No, no, about counter-terrorism, police reform, and all the matters that I ought to be interested in.

 

[killer b]

yeah, i think it's likely to gain traction over the next few days.

 

[invisibleplanet]

good point made on CiF

Feeding insider info to multinational corps who are bidding to take over state-run/state-wide functions/companies (NHS Hospitals, Forensics, Defence, Prisons, Welfare, Schools, etc)?

 

[butchersapron]

Potentially having access to highly sensitive counter-terrorism info which he didn't have clearance for, which can be spun as cameron endangering the safety of the nation

 

[Roadkill]

yeah, i think it's likely to gain traction over the next few days.

Let's hope so.

 

[killer b]

the more i read about it, the more i keep thinking he's fucked.

 

[mack]

I was thinking the same thing yesterday about Coulson being around top level briefings and what not, then I read somewhere (Guardian probably) that his role didn't include him being in those type of meetings or even cabinet meetings, which I though was a bit strange and probably bull.

Found it now..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/20/andy-coulson-security-clearance-checks

"The Cabinet Office said that, unlike Campbell and Powell, Coulson's job did not require him to have high-level security clearance. He did not attend cabinet meetings, the bi-weekly national security council meetings, or Cobra, the government's emergency committee."

 

[Roadkill]

the more i read about it, the more i keep thinking he's fucked.

Cameron?

Sadly I don't think he is ... yet. It's damaging, but so far nowhere near enough to knock him off his perch IMO.

 

[Ted Striker]

At Wednesdays questions, he dodged so many easy deliveries that even supporters of his (I'll declare I don't find him totally reprehensible generally cf the rest of the twats in parliament) must realise something fishy is going on?

You get used to him turning every tricky question back onto labour as his standard tactic, but avoiding the BskyB conversation and the vetting of Coulson questions show him with genuinely something big to hide.

 

[killer b]

Cameron?

Sadly I don't think he is ... yet. It's damaging, but so far nowhere near enough to knock him off his perch IMO.

we'll see. i'm probably being overly hopeful, but i think it has the potential...

 

[Roadkill]

we'll see. i'm probably being overly hopeful, but i think it has the potential...

Oh aye, it's got potential, especially if it emerges that Cameron hasn't been fully honest over the Coulson business, but it's not there yet...

Meanwhile, on a lighter note: Cameron's Kitchen!

 

[belboid]

great line in the Grauniad about why Cameron didn't want to put Coulson thru vetting:

"There was also said to be concern over the £500 cost of the vetting process."

So, it's all Gordon Browns fault, for fucking up the economy.

 

[frogwoman]

I know the basic history of the Watergate scandal, but can anyone give me some good books / articles to read about it? There've been a lot of suggestions that this scandal is (or could turn out to be) basically the British version of it, and I wondered whether that could be said to be the case, or if its just hyperbole ...

 

[invisibleplanet]

Are Hague, Osborne and Cameron are all responsible for somehow circumventing high-level security checks on Coulson? They'd been working with him for some time. Hague since Coulson invited him to write a column for NoTW in 2003, and ... well ...

The only possible explanation is that he was spared because he would not have passed the vetting and it was known in advance that he would not have passed the vetting.

Their association goes back some way, it seems.

22nd September 2009, 9am. Venue: Shadow cabinet room, Westminster. Present: D. Cameron, W. Hague, G. Osborne, Steve Hilton (Advertising guru), Andy Coulson (Media supremo).
Mr. Cameron opened proceedings by saying that while he very much hoped that the Lisbon treaty would not be ratified it now appeared that it would be and the party would need a new policy on Europe. A post-ratification referendum might, regrettably, prove untenable, he said. Did anybody have any ideas? Mr. Hague said that he had been worrying about this privately for some time and was very relieved that there would probably not be a referendum campaign. He had not been looking forward to clambering back on that Union flag-clad flat-bed truck he had travelled the country in promising to save the pound in the 2001 general election. It had been a nice enough truck, said Mr. Hague, but sometimes there had been rain and Mr. (Alan) Duncan, his campaign aide, had failed to order the construction of an adequate roof. Mr. Hilton noted that the 2001 campaign had not worked out very well, and that all the polling evidence suggested that actually it had been the opposition of the then Chancellor Gordon Brown to British Euro entry that had won the day. Mr. Hague looked glum and indicated that this was probably true. Mr. Cameron asked Mr. Hilton not to wander off topic and to refocus in a blue-sky-thinking way on “what the hell to do next”. Mr. Hilton replied that he had undertaken some focus group research on Europe and that he had a power-point presentation ready. He dimmed the lights and turned on a soundtrack by the Chemical Brothers by way of introduction.
This from 2009: http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2009/11/05/camerons-european-union-decision-a-dodgy-dossier-in-full/

More from that WSJ link:

24th September 2009, 10am. Venue, CCHQ Millbank Tower. Present: D. Cameron, W. Hague, G. Osborne, Ed Llewellyn, Steve Hilton, Andy Coulson
Time was running out said Mr. Cameron and the urgent priority was to “cobble something together that can get us through Tory conference.” Mr. Hague said that Mr. Osborne was very good at this sort of thing and perhaps he might be able to come up with something. There was a long silence. Mr. Osborne said that he had always liked it when Mr.Hague did that “silly thing with his voice” when making speeches about Europe when he was leader. Mr Hague asked Mr. Osborne what he meant. Mr. Osborne adopted a Yorkshire accent and said “you know, ‘saaaave thu pound’, we must ‘saaaave thu pound…’.” Mr Hague looked hurt and said that he had not been trying to put on a silly voice when he made those speeches, it had just been his real voice. Mr. Cameron sighed and asked Mr. Osborne to stop it. Mr. Osborne said, to be serious for a moment, that the best way to prevent a row on Lisbon was just to avoid ever mentioning Europe. Mr. Cameron looked annoyed and said he didn’t think that would endure for five minutes with the press. Mr. Coulson disagreed, saying it had every chance of working and the press not noticing. Mr. Cameron sighed again and said that if no-one had any better ideas then “not mentioning Europe” would have to do. Mr. Llewellyn promised to talk, discretely, to Tory big beasts such as Lord Heseltine and Ken Clarke, who are pro-Europe, and to ensure that they were “on the same page as us” and lined up not to say anything.

Currently looking for a suitable facepalm. Think a new one needs making

It goes on

7th October 2009, 7am. Venue, penthouse suite of the Midland Hotel Manchester at Conservative Conference. Present. D. Cameron, Mrs Samantha Cameron, G. Osborne, Andy Coulson and Steve Hilton
Mr. Cameron said that on his morning run through the streets of Manchester with Mr. Desmond Swayne MP (his parliamentary aide and exercise partner) he had been thinking about the EU issue. Mr. Osborne’s idea of just not mentioning Europe seemed to be working so far but it had a limited shelf-life as the Czechs were under intense pressure to ratify. What a mess the whole thing was, he said; it could dominate the whole first year of a Tory government. Mrs. Cameron reminded Mr. Cameron that he should eat something, suggesting a guava and kiwi fruit smoothie followed by a bowl of dorset cereals muesli. Mr. Cameron said he would prefer a bacon sandwich but was over-ruled by Mrs. Cameron. Mr. Coulson asked if there was any way out of the referendum pledge. Mr. Osborne indicated that there might be. Mr. Cameron should pen a hand-written note to President Vaclav Klaus. Should he offer Mr. Klaus his support and urge him not to sign the Lisbon Treaty, asked Mr. Hilton? Mr. Cameron thought for a very long time and said: “Hmmmmmmmm, maybe.” Wouldn’t it be easier if Klaus just signed the damn thing and we could all get on with the rest of our lives, asked Mrs. Cameron? Mr Cameron indicated that everyone apart from Mrs. Cameron should leave as he wanted to eat his muesli and have another think.[/b]

 

[Lord Camomile]

General consensus seems to be it shares certain themes, but not be quite as massive. If for nothing more than we wouldn't be as surprised with this

 

[London_Calling]

Like the potential in the state security angle, just a shame Obama didn't visit while Coulson worked at Downing Street.

When Blair ran his sofa government, Campbell always sat in the top-level meetings..... Who else important visited (State visits, etc) between May 2010 and January 21, 2011....

 

[belboid]

just a shame Obama didn't visit while Coulson worked at Downing Street.

Cameron did visit Obama tho, and discussed various security topics with him. Coulson was certainly on that trip, and would have been in any such meeting, you'd have thought.

 

[killer b]

The only possible explanation is that he was spared because he would not have passed the vetting and it was known in advance that he would not have passed the vetting.

this is it really. there can't be any other reason, and it's plainly obvious to anyone. i really think this could do for him.

 

[Barking_Mad]

More on this...Who actually was 'doing Coulson's job' if he was told he couldn't attend due to lack of security clearance? Im guessing counter-terrorism requires a fairly high level of clearance? See end of the below.

Paul Owen writes: The Guardian established last night that Craig Oliver, Andy Coulson's successor as No 10 communications chief, is currently undergoing the higher level "developed vetting" process to which Coulson was not subject.

Coulson's predecessors Alastair Campbell, Dave Hill and Michael Ellam were all checked to "developed vetting" level too. David Cameron's deputy press secretary, Gabby Bertin, who was Coulson's No 2, is currently undergoing the full checks.

Coulson was only checked to the level below "developed vetting", called "security check".

In former assistant commissioner John Yates's testimony to the Commons home affairs committee on Tuesday, Yates described having spoken to Coulson "at No 10, with other officials … about counter-terrorism, police reform, and all the matters that I ought to be interested in".

John Yates: I have spoken to Mr Coulson at No. 10, with other officials.

Chair: When was that?

Yates: I will have to look in my diary. It was probably relatively early on. I think two or three officials were present.

Chair: About these matters?

Yates: No, no, about counter-terrorism, police reform, and all the matters that I ought to be interested in.

 

[Barking_Mad]

The last point is pertinant - what if someone with a high level security check happenedd to say something in a meeting that Coulson was in attendance?

Who approved Coulson's mid-level vetting?

• Was Coulson asked to take "developed vetting" and refused?

• Was David Cameron aware of this?

• Did civil servants or special advisers who came into contact with Coulson know he was only vetted to "security check" level?

 

[Barking_Mad]

Lance Price on vetting:

Some things in life you never forget. And being interviewed on behalf of the security services for a senior job in the same Downing Street department where Andy Coulson would later work, is one of them. The officer came to my home at a prearranged time and asked me a range of questions: about my political affiliations, the state of my finances, whether I drank to excess and what I did for sex. At times he seemed more embarrassed asking the questions than I was answering them.

I had been warned what to expect by colleagues at No 10 who had been through the process. One, a woman, was asked if her glance ever went up to the top-shelf porn mags when she bought a newspaper. I didn't get that one. At the end the officer asked me: "Is there anything else you think we should know?" I racked my brains. "I'm probably a member of Greenpeace," I said, "but I really can't remember." "Don't worry about that," he said. "You'd be surprised how many people are." All he really wanted to know, I suspect, is whether I might be susceptible to blackmail. Once he knew I was solvent and didn't appear to have any guilty secrets, he was satisfied.

Having passed what's called "developed vetting", I was then able to see just about any document inside government, up to and including those marked "top secret". I saw material relating to defence and security issues, sensitive communications concerning the ongoing situation in Northern Ireland and our relations with our allies. I attended cabinet meetings and secure Cobra (Cabinet Office briefing room) discussions about the Kosovo conflict. All of these matters have a communications element to them and without that level of access I would have found it difficult to do my job. My boss, Alastair Campbell, would have laughed at the suggestion that anything was beyond his security clearance as communications director.

Which is why I find it extraordinary, if it's true, that Coulson did not have the same level of vetting as I did in a more junior position. How could he advise the prime minister on handling the media with regard to Afghanistan, Nato, Northern Ireland or mainland terrorism without having access to the full facts?

If he were in the job today, he would need an intimate knowledge of British involvement in Libya, security service assessments of the situation in Syria, the likely developments in Palestine, North Korea and Pakistan. Government communications is a fast-moving business. You can't wait for a crisis to erupt – you need the fullest background detail on all the likely hot spots so you can react quickly and offer the prime minister the best advice when news breaks.

No 10 must have found a way around all this because, by all accounts, Coulson was very effective at what he did. It is simply not credible that a Downing Street communications director didn't have access to everything he needed to see. The more pertinent question, therefore, is why he wasn't vetted at the highest level. If Coulson gave David Cameron all the assurances he needed before the appointment, presumably he could have told the security services what they wanted to hear as well. Except that it's the job of skilled investigators to probe into areas where even prime ministers may not wish to go.

The only possible explanation I can find is that sometimes, if you don't want to know the answer, the best policy is not to ask the question. But what does that tell us about the relationship between Downing Street and the security services? It's one thing for politicians to look the other way sometimes, but the men and women who vet those in sensitive positions should never be asked to do the same.

Im off down the bookies before the odds shorten again!

 

[invisibleplanet]

this is it really. there can't be any other reason, and it's plainly obvious to anyone. i really think this could do for him.

Andy Coulson

Grima Wormtongue

 

[editor]

jesus christ

That is fucking sick.

 

[invisibleplanet]

The only possible explanation is that he was spared because he would not have passed the vetting and it was known in advance that he would not have passed the vetting.

this is it really. there can't be any other reason, and it's plainly obvious to anyone.

Indeed.