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

[agricola]

Would be quite telling if they were arresting whistleblowers after years of corrupt collusion with the Murdoch press being, shall we say, less than vigorously pursued.

Perhaps, though one has to wonder what on earth the Guardian thought it was up to using a "whistleblower" (if that is indeed what this officer was) in the way that it appears to have (ie: simply to generate relatively mundane stories), despite (presumably) knowing who they were, what position they occupied and the likely consequences of that persons exposure in the circumstances.

Their statement - especially the "in common with all news organisations we have no comment to make on the sources of our journalism" part - is a bit odd as well, given the context of the story, the criticism they have aimed at other news organizations doing similar things (or at least things that superficially appear similar and to which the same excuse could easily be applied), and the obvious compromising effect that this would have on Weeting as a whole.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Plus of course, following that line of thought, if these are whistleblower arrests, they've conveniently provided material for an effective PR counter-attack by the Murdoch press.

 

[Plumdaff]

Perhaps, though one has to wonder what on earth the Guardian thought it was up to using a "whistleblower" (if that is indeed what this officer was) in the way that it appears to have (ie: simply to generate relatively mundane stories), despite (presumably) knowing who they were, what position they occupied and the likely consequences of that persons exposure in the circumstances.

Isn't this what newspapers have been doing forever? Having sources within organisations who feed them stories and opinions? Obviously we need to know the whole story, but I see a vast moral difference between a newspaper using a contact on the force and paying police officers for info and stories.

Of course, ideally, newspapers should name sources. But we do not live in a country with strong FOI laws and protection of whistle-blowers and that's unlikely to change.

 

[agricola]

Isn't this what newspapers have been doing forever? Having sources within organisations who feed them stories and opinions? Obviously we need to know the whole story, but I see a vast moral difference between a newspaper using a contact on the force and paying police officers for info and stories.

Of course, ideally, newspapers should name sources. But we do not live in a country with strong FOI laws and protection of whistle-blowers and that's unlikely to change.

The point is though that this story (or at least the story as it is now) does give News International (and the rest) some cover when it comes to improper contact between police and journalists. I am sure the lawyers would have been using the line anyway, but if it is true that the Guardian felt justified in doing the same thing (and with an officer involved in Weeting no less), then their argument will have considerably more justification about it.

As for the whistleblower angle, have their been any stories critical of Weeting and how it was going about things in the paper?

 

[Plumdaff]

As for the whistleblower angle, have their been any stories critical of Weeting and how it was going about things in the paper?

The nature of the contact and the information given is at the crux of this and we don't yet know. I'm bloody loathe to defend the Guardian but I think it's fair to say they are the most critical of the police of the major national newspapers, for what that it sometimes worth.

 

[laptop]

Their statement - especially the "in common with all news organisations we have no comment to make on the sources of our journalism" part - is a bit odd

No it isn't. There's no suggestion that this was anything other than voluntary, unpaid whistleblowing.

No corruption, no hacking.

I hope you'd do the same if you came across something in your work that was being covered up...

(Of course the Guardian's got form for carelessly shopping a whistleblower - Sarah Tisdall)

 

[agricola]

No it isn't. There's no suggestion that this was anything other than voluntary, unpaid whistleblowing.

No corruption, no hacking.

I hope you'd do the same if you came across something in your work that was being covered up...

(Of course the Guardian's got form for carelessly shopping a whistleblower - Sarah Tisdall)

There is no suggestion that it was "voluntary, unpaid whistleblowing" though, is there? In fact, as I said above has there been any articles in the Guardian that suggest Weeting (which is after all what this bloke was apparently engaged in) is involved in a cover-up, is being badly run or is not doing what it should be doing?

 

[laptop]

There is no suggestion that it was "voluntary, unpaid whistleblowing" though, is there?

Only the Guardian's presumption against paying sources. Which is quite strong - not least because of their wish to compete with the Washington Post.

 

[killer b]

peston is promising something 'fairly interesting' at 10.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

he might string a concise and grammatically correct sentence together i suppose....

 

[butchersapron]

Andy Coulson, the former editor of the News of the World who has been arrested on suspicion of involvement in phone hacking and bribing the police, received several hundred thousand pounds from News International after starting work as the Conservative Party's Director of Communications in July 2007.

This is his thing;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14624167

 

[butchersapron]

Sort of understood, and why is peston softing us?

(santino normally does this but he's got stuff on his plate)

 

[killer b]

that is fairly interesting, tbf.

 

[killer b]

actually, on reading - not that interesting.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

peston is protecting shiny dave prolly. he's certainly got more reason to butter him up than coulson, whose now untouchable essentially.

 

[butchersapron]

Coulsen was paid by NI whilst working for DC. The people who did his clearance - did they flag that up to cameron - did cameron know? If not, why not.

Yes, has legs.

 

[sleaterkinney]

peston is protecting shiny dave prolly. he's certainly got more reason to butter him up than coulson, whose now untouchable essentially.

How is this good news for Dave?.

 

[killer b]

if it's an agreed payoff, I can see it not coming to much - although it does seem incongruous that news international paid him off in installments: is this them getting their story out through peston before the payments came to light via other means?

 

[butchersapron]

How it's bad for cameron: his best mate was paid to keep his mouth shut, you employed someone being paid to keep schtum, paid not to grass. You dodgy dodgy cunt.
For NI? fuck all.

Why peston?

 

[DexterTCN]

@pollycurtispolly curtis

July 12, asked by the Guardian, senior Tory party official said:"We can give categorical assurances that he (Coulson) wasn't paid by any other source"
brackets by me

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

why peston?

cos he moves in their i.e. Cam, Murdoch, Freud, etc circles and cos he's popularly reckoned to be a bit too close to some of those people.

(and cos his unedited replies to questions on t'radio go on for about 5 years and don't make any sense at all by thee end )

 

[killer b]

If the payments are part of a compromise agreement, it means Coulson was essentially sacked - which is more evidence that NI had full knowledge of the extent of the hacking, no?
-

 

[Ted Striker]

Coulsen was paid by NI whilst working for DC. The people who did his clearance - did they flag that up to cameron - did cameron know? If not, why not.

Yes, has legs.

It's simply untenable to think that the question of 'other sources of income' didn't come up when going through the hiring procedure.

Dave MUST have known. This was a time before the relationship between the press and MP's was under far less scrutiny, though christ how it's come back to bite him.

If not during the vetting interviews, then shirley Dave asks him informally if there's 'anything he should know about'.

This may be the time for him to throw Coulson to the wolves and admit it was a mistake (whilst parliament is out) and work on damage limitation.

 

[The Octagon]

Isn't the fact that the payments didn't decrease in mitigation when Coulsen was hired by Downing Street a little contrary to usual practice?

 

[Santino]

Why should he get any payments at all if he resigned because of a failure on his part? That's the angle they should take.

 

[belboid]

If the payments are part of a compromise agreement, it means Coulson was essentially sacked

No it doesn’t. Compromise agreements are drawn up for all kinds of reasons, someone at my place is (probably) getting one shortly to cover a redundancy. Coulson would claim that he was doing the honourable thing, to ensure the company mire, despite the fact that he, personally, did nothing wrong. There is no reason at all why a CA should include a condition that remuneration decreases upon appointment to a new post, why would it?
Clearly, the amazingly good terms of the deal imply that NI knew they had to make sure Coulson kept his gob shut, but there is nothing fundamentally weird, about what they did.

 

[killer b]

by 'all kinds of reasons', you mean two, yeah? 1) being made redundant, 2) when they want to sack you, but don't have sufficient reason/want to keep you quiet.

 

[Streathamite]

Taking out Laura Elston that's 16 people in the poop. Are the three Elveden arrestees coppers?

we don't know yet, so far we've only had confirmed one copper nicked

 

[Streathamite]

Perhaps, though one has to wonder what on earth the Guardian thought it was up to using a "whistleblower" (if that is indeed what this officer was) in the way that it appears to have (ie: simply to generate relatively mundane stories), despite (presumably) knowing who they were, what position they occupied and the likely consequences of that persons exposure in the circumstances.

Their statement - especially the "in common with all news organisations we have no comment to make on the sources of our journalism" part - is a bit odd as well, given the context of the story, the criticism they have aimed at other news organizations doing similar things (or at least things that superficially appear similar and to which the same excuse could easily be applied), and the obvious compromising effect that this would have on Weeting as a whole.

all this would hold more water if there was a likelihood, or suggestion, that the Guardian had been paying plod for info - something which I reckon is unlikely

 

[Streathamite]

How it's bad for cameron:

because if AC had been paid by NI whilst working for the Tories, that is tantamount to an undeclared donation, and as such v much against the rules