“Finally, this brings it all back to Andy Coulson. If the assistant editor knew, and was commissioning Mulcaire to conduct such trawling expeditions, then are we really meant to believe that Coulson himself didn’t know?”

Exactly. BS.

D Cameron doesn’t even care…

He know’s he’s got it….unless Brown shows up his bag of tricks with a huge dash of humility…self reflection…though the Libs need a shove..

NOBODY cares about this news. If they did it would be in The Sun.

Something really stinks about this story – there are too many who are simply ignoring whatever it is hoping that it will go away.

There is a scandal deeper – but I, for one, wouldn’t know where to start looking.

Rhodes…exactly.

Which is why Cameron is doing nought.

The Guardian know this but are pulling at straws, not cause it’s not the truth (inc R Wade) but because people scram when it comes to this…

Think, oh, the Dr Kelly investigation…(yes, not as big, but an example for the non politico of a situation that has too many hands at stake)

@ 5

Cameron complicit? Possibly but I doubt it – the person who knows the whole truth is Coulson – and he isn’t going to spout anything that could implicate him – a NotW whistleblower? I doubt that, too – far too many could be involved.

As for the Guardian clutching at straws – I am no convinced. I do think they are adding to the pressure just to be around when the can blows open. Yates is the one that I really can’t get my head around, in any sense of the cliché – he didn’t say that he, or anyone else, would review the evidence – just to come out and dismiss this is at its very worst incompetent. a review should have been done – YET we have to look at those closed files in the Taylor court case. We can only hope that Max Clifford gets his day in court before being offered a million quid to keep quiet.

Something really stinks about this story – there are too many who are simply ignoring whatever it is hoping that it will go away.

Yup – that most of the media is also up to the same dirty tricks, and yet are hoping the house of cards they built to carry on their ‘investigative journalism’ doesn’t fall down.

Of course the investigative journalism of which you don’t approve gets placed in inverted commas.

But what of the investigative journalism of which you do approve?

Let’s not turn into France where the powerful are more or less untouchable and describing the press as poodles would be an insult that noble breed…

The problem isn’t that there is a lack of evidence, but that there aren’t enough people willing to either talk about it on the record or to take legal action against the NOTW.

It says a lot that the only person willing to take them on so far is Max Clifford. He’s probably one of the only people who can afford to (in every sense).

This is all worth remembering the next time somebody like David Davis starts talking about a ‘surveillance society’. Surveillance and invasion of individual privacy being totally wrong (unless done by a private company friendly to your political party).

Its a bit rich of the pundits getting their knickers in a twist over the phone tapping of the great and the good,where were all these people when the press were pouring vitriol and disinformation on the Miners or any dispute that working people got involved in?
The press have always used dubious methods to push their agendas.

There is, indeed, a house of cards and plenty of people are ignoring this story and hoping that it will go away because they are afraid of the house of cards collapsing. However the house of cards is wider than the newspaper industry: it involves the police and the CPS and significant parts of our political system.

As Paul Dacre more or less admitted in a speech a few months ago, the business model of large parts of the press involves intrusion into people’s privacy. Without this intrusion certain press groups would be in trouble. At the same time important institutions (like the CPS and the police and parts of our political establishment) treat these press groups as powerful players who should be handled with care. Individual politicians work on the assumption that the press has potentially some dirt on them. So not much has been done about the fact that much of this intrusion involves illegal methods. Patterns of behaviour, in our institutions and politics as well as in the press, have been built up around a tacit acceptance of these illegal methods. Forcing the press to regulate itself better, or forcing the police and CPS to take more seriously illegal activities, would reduce the political power of News International and Associated Newspapers: Murdoch wouldn’t be the unseen presence at the Cabinet table. This would be very healthy, but plenty of players have developed patterns of behaviour based on the assumption that these groups are powerful and as yet they cannot conceive of a different context.

We have seen this before, for example with the Saudi arms’ corruption trials. Admitting that an important industry depends on corruption would just open up too many questions that are fundamental to Britain’s industry and politics: it was better (for our political elite) to stop the investigations. We’ll have to wait and see what happens to the NoTW issue: perhaps a tipping point will be reached where the collapse of the house of cards becomes inevitable. The issue of a privacy law is already on the agenda. There is a parliamentary committee on related issues. The Guardian is saying that a privacy law would be unhealthy but there are illegal activities going on so why not deal with these first? It’s going to be difficult to ignore this.

The position of Coulson is just a side-show to the main issues. However Cameron has bought into a strategy based on Coulson’s links with the tabloid press just when the value of this may be diminishing.

“Let’s not turn into France where the powerful are more or less untouchable and describing the press as poodles would be an insult that noble breed…”

As far as the Right wing is concerned we have already turned into France. Look how little coverage this story is getting in the media. Just like the dearth of coverage of the Boris’s screw ups in London. The Conservative machine is closing ranks around a corrupt newspaper, a Conservative leader who appoints a man who was overseeing all of this. And a Right wing Police force that have been taking backhanders off the Newspapers for decades. No wonder they don’t want to rock the boat. Too many of the Mets finest need to fund their retirement homes.

It is always priceless when the Right start talking about how we must not protect the powerful through media censorship. They spend their entire lives coming up with ways to protect the rich and powerful. This is about protecting wealthy Right wing newspaper proprietors, The Conservative leader who has hired either a crook or an incompetent fool, and a corrupt Judiciary.

No wonder major Right wing Newspapers will pay Senior Conservative politicians £250,000 a year to write a column for them. Who needs censorship when you have such a well oiled old boy network to keep their mates untouchable.

Either way, he was the person in charge when those below him blatantly and deliberately breached the law in attempts to get stories which were clearly not even slightly in the public interest.

Yes, but this is the problem. Coulson resigned as a direct result of the phonetapping scandal. So your “either way” doesn’t work here. Either he knew of a wider pattern of wrongdoing at the NOTW – for which there remains no evidence, so far as I can see – or he was guilty of an extraordinary lack of oversight of his staff, in which case… well, what? He resigned already, remember?

In the absence of any new evidence against him, the efforts to turn this into a story about the Tories will gain no traction, because snorting “well, that’s rather hard to believe” never got anyone chucked out of politics before. pace Sunny, sally et al, it’s not because of some vast right-wing conspiracy, but because he’s already taken the fall once and there is no smoking gun – yet – to make him do so again.

So can we make up our minds?

Do we want a privacy law or not?

I don’t.

Not unless it applies to the state as much as it does to the media anyway…!

Privacy law. No it isn’t needed and the priority should be enforcement of existing laws. The Guardian’s statement to the Culture Committee yesterday makes some good points.

Coulson is a side-show. It is irrelevant whether he stays or goes. Our two main political parties have avoided the main issue here and have started smearing each other’s spin-doctors. Coulson has, inevitably, become part of the story (which is bad news for a spin-doctor) though I don’t think that this story is about one individual.

Investigative journalism. Good investigative journalism is stuff that shows how politics and business really works. Stuff about the networks that are the real power in France, or about News International or British Aerospace in the UK, or about how the decision to invade Iraq was really taken, are good investigative journalism. It is very much in the public interest that we understand how things really work. Of course people directly involved in business and politics will have developed patterns of behaviour based on real politik, how things work now, and will argue that it is not in the public interest to disturb these patterns of behaviour and to question the assumptions behind them.

cjcjc,

So you don’t want a law preventing the media from hacking into private communications on fishing expeditions?

Let’s be honest. The majority of our print media is an embarrassment. It’s sex-obsessed, devoid of morality, and drives the public interest away from news that actually shapes the world.

More and more, we’re becoming a trivial, ill-educated and insular people. The media is more to blame than most institutions, but hardly the only one guilty.

*yawn*

Why can’t the Lefty papers and bloggers just accept that unless new evidence comes to light, Andy Coulson is in the clear and any attempts to drag him back into this are pointless? Attack the News of the World by all means if there is evidence of their wrong doing, but this constant ‘He probably knew what was going on’ tantrum about Coulson is already very dull.

Besides, the whole phone hacking saga depends on the context in any case, as I was blogging about this morning.

“Not unless it applies to the state as much as it does to the media anyway…!”

You’ve obviously not cottoned on to the fact that the two are increasingly the same thing.

Either way, he was the person in charge when those below him blatantly and deliberately breached the law in attempts to get stories which were clearly not even slightly in the public interest

Which, as Mr E said, is why he resigned. Unfortunately for Labour, the only way that Andy Coulson is going to get dragged under by this is if specific evidence comes to light that he knew of/approved the hacking of voicemails. Nick Davies was asked this several times yesterday and he has no evidence.

So you don’t want a law preventing the media from hacking into private communications on fishing expeditions?

Well I would have to see how it was drafted, but I find it difficult to believe that in this context you can fine tune it so as to outlaw only the cases of which you (rightly) disapprove.

As with Jefferson:
“”The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Now the opinion of the people may be somewhat base for your superior tastes – though you can hardly blame the press for “ill education” – but I agree with him.

As I said above, the Coulson issue is a sideshow. If Cameron wants to have as his chief spin-doctor someone who resigned in these circumstances, that’s his business. He may find that it isn’t as useful as he thought.

The main issues are in the first 80% of Septicisle’s article. New evidence was provided yesterday that raises questions about why only one person was charged and about the Met’s “review” of the evidence. Let’s think about the implications of that.

“Let’s not turn into France where the powerful are more or less untouchable and describing the press as poodles would be an insult that noble breed…”

France has many good things about it, poodles on the other hand, do not.

“”The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Did Jefferson forsee a future in which private conversations could be tapped by people not present?

Privacy is an essential part of the rights to free assembly and free expression, and someone has already pointed out that the state and the media collude, so deciding between ‘either’ newspapers or government is meaningless.

It does, but transparency isn’t one of them.

And what’s not to like about Jake:

http://www.dailypuppy.com/dogs/jake-the-miniature-poodle_2008-01-17

Transparency is always a good thing, except in clothes.

Poodles never are a good thing.

@24 – I thought the issue was idiots who hadn’t changed their voicemail PIN?

Am I right in thinking that “tapping” as normally understood is (and should be) illegal?
And if the police are not investigating such lawbreaking properly then that is indeed a scandal.

But I don’t believe we need a new privacy law – the elites would like nothing better.

The ‘elites’ seem to be doing well already…

The Guardian made clear yesterday that it is not in favour of a privacy law. The Guardian made clear yesterday that it wants better self-regulation and wants to know why the police have been slow to take action about phone-taping and unauthorised access to databases. So probably the Guardian agrees 99% with cjcjc!

Cripes – I must be wrong…

Guano is cjcjc talking to himself perhaps?

No, but cjcjc could find the answers to his own questions if he looked more carefully.

“Which, as Mr E said, is why he resigned. Unfortunately for Labour, the only way that Andy Coulson is going to get dragged under by this is if specific evidence comes to light that he knew of/approved the hacking of voicemails. Nick Davies was asked this several times yesterday and he has no evidence.”

And the idea that he didn’t know and didn’t approve is ludicrous. Proving it is somewhat more difficult.

And the idea that he didn’t know and didn’t approve is ludicrous.

Condemned by Harriet Harman’s favourite court of public opinion! There’s nothing like the rule of law is there? And this is nothing like the rule of law…

As a matter of fact, there’s a perfectly plausible way in which he wouldn’t know.

“We’ve got a great story on X boss!”
“How did you get it?”
“It was given to us by a private investigator.”
“How did he get it?”
“Do you really want to know boss?”

Which was more or less the PCC view on how the Guardian got hold of confidential court documents to break this story.

“tantrum about Coulson is already very dull.”

.
Shorter tory troll …….I love my party being run by incompetents and crooks. I have no principles what so ever , Just as long as it pisses off Liberals.

Looking forward to the election Sally?

Troll “As a matter of fact, there’s a perfectly plausible way in which he wouldn’t know.”

Always funny to watch Right wing Conservatives kick their principles of law and order into the trash bin when one of their own is in the dock.

Coulson is either a criminal or he is a incompetent fool.

Perhaps both? A 2-4-1?

Who’s in the dock? I suspect that your opinions on the law are as valid and as valuable as your opinions on politics.

Fol-de-rol.

Howard Cosell

“Which was more or less the PCC view on how the Guardian got hold of confidential court documents to break this story.”

Which was rather more in the public interest than almost any story that the News of the World has ever published. Davies made quite clear yesterday that he knew he was breaching privacy by revealing the incriminating documents, and also why they censored them as much as they could. It’s amusing how the Tories are so relaxed about their chief spin doctor presiding over illegal activity when they were so outraged by Damian McBride’s suggestions for smears which never saw the light of day and were equally obtained, presumably, by illegal methods.

Coulson is either a criminal or he is a incompetent fool.

If it’s the latter, surely you should be glad he’s running the Tory communication strategy. But I suspect the reason people have been so keen to tie him in to all of this is not that he’s an incompetent fool, but rather entirely the opposite.

For amusing Septicisle I’d suggest disgusting.

Davies made quite clear yesterday that he knew he was breaching privacy by revealing the incriminating documents, and also why they censored them as much as they could.

It’s not breaching privacy I’m talking about, but revealing details of a settlement that had been made confidential by court order. That’s breaching a court order that is, or contempt of court as it’s also known. There’s a strong public interest in ensuring that the details of settlement agreements can remain confidential, which is why you have Tomlin Orders.

It’s amusing how the Tories are so relaxed about their chief spin doctor presiding over illegal activity when they were so outraged by Damian McBride’s suggestions for smears which never saw the light of day and were equally obtained, presumably, by illegal methods

I’m going to maintain the line that civil servants spreading libellous and untrue gossip about the wives of opposition MPs is more politically important than whether the Tory comms head knew or didn’t know about the modus operandi of his staff in a job from which he has subsequently resigned.

Love the presumably there too. I mean, how else could they possibly have been obtained? But hey! evidence schmevidence. Obviously guilty, bang them all up.

“I’m going to maintain the line that civil servants spreading libellous and untrue gossip about the wives of opposition MPs is more politically important than whether the Tory comms head knew or didn’t know about the modus operandi of his staff in a job from which he has subsequently resigned.”

That speaks volumes.

“is more politically important than whether the Tory comms head knew or didn’t know about the modus operandi of his staff in a job from which he has subsequently resigned.”

Except the modus operandi of the staff was a criminal conspiracy involving violating the privacy of possibly thousands. If it was the state doing this, the bloggertarians would be having heart attacks in their rush to condemn, but because it is a private company headed by someone politically sympathetic to them – well then thats fine.

As I’ve said many times, I think that Coulson is a side issue. However, the more people seek to defend Coulson, the more they draw attention to the fact that resignation (and getting a job with the Leader of the Opposition soon afterwards) is not really a punishment. The reporter was sentenced to prison, wasn’t he? Why not his boss?

The reporter was sentenced to prison, wasn’t he? Why not his boss?

Gnngh. Because there is no evidence that when Andy Coulson was deputy editor or editor that he had direct involvement in or had authorised illegal activity. Is the argument that when a subordinate performs a criminal act, then the boss should be jailed whether he was personally involved or not? That doesn’t strike me as particularly just.

From Wikipedia

“Coulson’s resignation in effect prevented a thorough investigation of the Goodman affair by the Press Complaints Commission, and ensured Murdoch would not have to answer difficult questions about the activities of his British newspapers at a time when he was under intense scrutiny in the US. He became Conservative Party Director of Communications on July 9 2007.”

Oh well then. Case closed. String him up.

“It’s not breaching privacy I’m talking about, but revealing details of a settlement that had been made confidential by court order. That’s breaching a court order that is, or contempt of court as it’s also known. There’s a strong public interest in ensuring that the details of settlement agreements can remain confidential, which is why you have Tomlin Orders.”

As the Graun pointed out, any newspaper worth its salt would have published the fact that Murdoch and co had spent over £1 million to settle claims over something they denied had involved anyone other than Goodman and Mulcaire. Unless we’re now protecting the privacy of newspapers to breach others’ privacy?

“Love the presumably there too. I mean, how else could they possibly have been obtained? But hey! evidence schmevidence. Obviously guilty, bang them all up.”

Considering that they were obtained from Derek Draper’s email account, and that Draper maintains that it was “hacked” (although whether Draper’s security was on a par with that of the Tory whose password was 1234 remains to be seen) I think that’s more than feasible, don’t you?

“Gnngh. Because there is no evidence that when Andy Coulson was deputy editor or editor that he had direct involvement in or had authorised illegal activity.”

This is the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil defence.

I don’t know where this “politically sympathetic” idea comes from.

Murdoch’s papers have been consistent Labour supporters from 1997 onwards.

Obviously the Tories hope he will support them this time, and no doubt Brown is doing his (hopeless) best to prevent that.

So of course neither side will especially want to rile him over this issue.

But ultimately Murdoch is like any other newspaper proprietor – he wants to make money.
He makes money by selling more papers.
He sells more papers by giving his customers what they want.
It was clear they wanted Labour in 97, 01 and 05 – but he didn’t determine their opinion; rather he simply followed their opinion.
If he supports the Tories this time it will be because he *expects* them to win, not because he especially *wants* them to win.

As the Graun pointed out, any newspaper worth its salt would have published the fact that Murdoch and co had spent over £1 million to settle claims over something they denied had involved anyone other than Goodman and Mulcaire.

Quite. We’re all in favour of newspapers’ right to break the law in pursuit of a good story.

Considering that they were obtained from Derek Draper’s email account, and that Draper maintains that it was “hacked” (although whether Draper’s security was on a par with that of the Tory whose password was 1234 remains to be seen) I think that’s more than feasible, don’t you?

Was this ever proved? It’s certainly feasible, but that doesn’t mean that it happened. I’m beginning to see a pattern here. It’s entirely feasible that Tom Watson saw some of these emails, after all he worked in the same office as McBride. However, there’s no proof to that effect, which is why the Mail paid out damages to him for suggesting such a thing. Proof is important you see.

This is the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil defence.

No, it’s the ‘where’s your evidence?’ defence. I heard one journo on the radio demanding that the NOTW prove that they hadn’t bugged 3,000 phones. If you’re demanding that this be treated as a criminal offence, as apparently you all are, it’s reasonable to demand that the burden of proof be worked accordingly. If Davies and the Guardian have any evidence that Andy Coulson knew about this, then they should bring it forward.

“So of course neither side will especially want to rile him over this issue.”

Quite, which is why Downing Street has been almost completely silent on it. It’s been other parts of the Labour party and government which have kicked up the fuss, including non-usual suspects such as Charles Clarke.

“Was this ever proved? It’s certainly feasible, but that doesn’t mean that it happened. I’m beginning to see a pattern here. It’s entirely feasible that Tom Watson saw some of these emails, after all he worked in the same office as McBride. However, there’s no proof to that effect, which is why the Mail paid out damages to him for suggesting such a thing. Proof is important you see.”

Indeed. Although that never stopped other Tories sympathisers, not necessarily yourself, from also suggesting that Gordon Brown also must have known what McBride was doing, or that Jacqui Smith must have known that Damian Green was going to be arrested.

There is far more evidence that Coulson did know, as alluded to by those who have since spoken out about how the NotW operated, how Coulson himself told the Press Gazette that he was right at the centre of the action at the paper, and how other ex-editors, such as Andrew Neil, hardly a Labour supporter, felt that either he must have known or should have known. Then there’s the conflicting evidence, such as that from Peter Burden, who suggested that Coulson was one of those who stayed above knowing just in case something like this happened, even though in reality he knew full well what was going on.

Would any of this stand up in court with some further documentary evidence? Probably not, unless more witnesses were prepared to come forward from the paper and testify. We all know though that the police aren’t interested in reopening the investigation, just as they seemingly weren’t interested in the evidence which suggested that journos other than Goodman were involved with the hacking of Taylor’s voicemail. That doesn’t however stop the suspicion that Coulson was up to his tits in it. As I said in the piece, David Cameron ought to considering his position. It took years for Alastair Campbell, for all his bullying, smearing and spinning to become the story. Coulson has managed it in double quick time.

I have actually been wondering to what extent my reaction to this story is driven by my political sympathies. But my first reaction to it was that bugging phone messages, rooting through dustbins, dressing up as a sheikh, reading peoples’ mail and generally being obtrusive, unpleasant bastards was what everyone understood as being the job of a tabloid reporter – a reporter in general really. It’s priced into the public perception.

As such, what damage was done to Cameron over this was done when he hired Coulson as his Comms chap in the first place – there was a lot of negative press coverage, from all sides, when he did so, as it was felt that it was sort of lowering the tone. Subsequent confirmation that the NOTW is indeed seemingly packed full of dodgy bastards really does little to affect that one way or the other.

Which means that, in order for this new (or rather semi-new) story to damage Coulson further it will have to be proven that he, personally, broke the law. If that doesn’t happen, what we’re left with is ‘tabloid journalism is horrid; Coulson worked on a tabloid’ – which is precisely where we already were.

Again, true. One additional point I would make is that a tribunal also found that Coulson “presided over a culture of bullying” when it came to the sacking of Matt Driscoll, which unless I’m mistaken the Tories and Coulson also made no comment on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/18/andy-coulson-bullied-news-of-the-world-reporter

This goes beyond tabloid journalism being horrid though. There’s always been a fine line between being breaking the law to get a story and not quite breaking the law to get one, but as Andrew Neil said, this seems to be a newspaper which was out of control, or if not out of control, in control but going well beyond even the lowest of the low. Some things may have been worse back in the 80s, but as these papers get ever more desperate they also seem to sink ever lower, i.e. the McCanns, the recent Alfie Patten debacle, Sunday Express Dunblane article, News of the World entrapment over Victoria Beckham kidnap plot and the red mercury trial, etc etc. Unless there’s a radical beefing up of the Press Complaints Commission, so that it can fully investigate such breaches of its code, demand that papers submit documentary evidence to it, can impose fines, front page apologies, even potentially force editors to resign, then I for one would support a privacy law. It’s the tabloids and the NotW which is bringing journalism in general into disrepute, and Coulson was at the centre of that.

It’s the tabloids and the NotW which is bringing journalism in general into disrepute, and Coulson was at the centre of that.

And have been for 20 years or more. Highminded newspapers break the law to get highminded stories. Gutter newspapers break the law to get gutter stories. This story hasn’t shown us anything particularly new (except perhaps the institutionalisation of the process) and it’s not the case, for example, that the NotW were the biggest users of PIs to get this sort of story.

That’s why I say that, for this to have direct political implications, it will have to be proven that Coulson personally broken the law. Otherwise the story is no further on than when he was first hired by Cameron.

Part of Coulson’s defence was that only one reporter was doing it. But if more than one reporter was doing it ……..

Tim J, I’m not convinced by the postions you take, which you may call realism but I call dangerous cynicism and setting the bar so low, it’s actually resting on the ground.

cjcjc

Murdoch only went Labour for the first time in his right wing little mind because it was ‘new labour’, the party as we have seen became more right then the right party but did a little left here and there to keep their followers happy and it seem to ‘care’. Labour and New Labour are two very diff parties.

Anyhow, Murdoch like any of his elk, follows the money but don’t be fooled about the fact he went Labour those few times in the past 10 years…because have a look at the way he was still anti Obama right until the end with the NY post…he wasn’t that pro Hilary but they went there because McCain was loosing momentum..

Daniel H G

Really? It’s realism. How is he being cynical? This is how it works? Shurley one can’t start being idealistic about the media industry! Do you ever read Private Eye? You should…eye opening read…it’s all a game to these fella’s and we’re the fools who believe all the rubbish that comes out of their mouths..

Ranter:

I was referring to the fact that he is basically saying such behaviour is to be expected and let’s not get our knickers in a twist. Such flippancy I don’t buy. A bit of hope rather than rolling over to be fucked is perhaps a good thing. As for Private Eye, seriously, I’m not fucking 12, or been locked in a cage for 30 years.

Please.

Lol, well you never know, a very, very bright friend of mine has heard of it but barely ever reads it, so comes up with somewhat innocent comments about the media!

So fair enough.

Hope? Yeah I believe in hope, I thought he was just stating a fact, not adding a solution to the problem.

The only hope we have in this country is if people like yourselves actually do something and think about running in politics…or this will never change, will it?

I mean, god, these people are not nice. They will NEVER be nice. Coulson is a fucking sociopath.

What more evidence to people need that these people do not CARE about you and think you’re all stupid??

It’s a game to them, ha, ha!

(p.s I am doing something and yes when you start to pick through politics, it’s depressing but it’s never gonna change unless we (bloggers et al) decide to run-not such a tall order fyi)

Condemned by Harriet Harman’s favourite court of public opinion! There’s nothing like the rule of law is there? And this is nothing like the rule of law…

Oh that’s funny – I didn’t see such refrain and demand for evidence by right-wing bloggers before they were smearing Tom Watson over McBride’s emails, nor when they kept claiming Brown knew everything.

Selective amnesia affect you much Tim J?

But Sunny, by your logic Brown must have known, or ought to have known, about the illegal activities of his subordinates, and should therefore not just resign (from this job and all future ones to be safe) but be, what, prosecuted for conspiracy to something. Hypocrisy is a bit of a double-edged sword isn’t it?

And to Daniel, I was really trying to portray what the general public opinion of the tabloids is. So by all means get worked up by the latest expose of dodgy/illegal behaviour by the tabloid press, but I genuinely don’t think that most people will be surprised by it.

I have an issue with what you think the general public thinks about the tabloids.

That’s over reach in anyone’s book.

As fro people being surprised by it, that is not the issue at hand, the issue at hand is the sweeping under the carpet.

But Sunny, by your logic Brown must have known, or ought to have known, about the illegal activities of his subordinates

That would have been an apt analogy if it was a major incident rather than an email sent from on twat to other people. Nice try though.

Perhaps you could answer how one editor of a newspaper missed more than 20 of his journalists gaining information from illegal activities. Either he is supremely incompetent, in which case the Tories made a bad decision employing him, or he has something to hide. You choose…

Either the general behaviour of the NOtW and other tabloids is defensible or it isn’t, I don’t buy the argument that when people behave badly we should not complain because we all know they behave badly. Certainly we should not act surprised but that doesn’t mean that such behaviour should be excused or escape punishment if it oversteps the line.

That would have been an apt analogy if it was a major incident rather than an email sent from on twat to other people. Nice try though.

Each concern a boss either complicit in, or failing to prevent illegal behaviour by their staff. But I guess you aren’t going to try and square your contrasting views on them.

Perhaps you could answer how one editor of a newspaper missed more than 20 of his journalists gaining information from illegal activities. Either he is supremely incompetent, in which case the Tories made a bad decision employing him, or he has something to hide. You choose…

I already have posited one likely scenario above. And the reason is because you’ve missed out the words “other people’s” from your sentence above. And incidentally, the choice is a false one. The Tories chose him not as an editor, but as a director of communications. Which he has been very good at (which is why Labour are trying to target him). His competence or otherwise as editor of the NotW really is neither here nor there. Gordon Brown made rubbish TV programmes. Tony Blair was a very undistinguished barrister. Alastair Campbell wrote shockingly bad pornography. Their competence in their previous jobs was all but irrelevant to their performance in their subsequent ones.

And for everyone saying I’m unduly cynical etc. What I am trying to get across is that by all means prosecute the newspapers (which extends way beyond the NotW) who have been breaking the law in pursuit of stories. But be aware that by doing so you aren’t restoring journalism to the state it was in before the malefic Murdoch was involved. You are fundamentally changing the way the game has been played for centuries. Mail has been opened, telegrams diverted, conversations eavesdropped – and all in the name of getting a story.

You might disapprove – I disapprove – of this, but that is what has always happened – and what the majority of the public think the papers do. This is why the story hasn’t really resonated much outside the pages of the Guardian. Look at the ICM opinion poll that was carried out during the middle of this. The Tory share went up. People don’t care enough about this for it to matter.

TimJ – This issue matters, and how many people are interested in it is irrelevant.

Tm J…you’re right…logically but not ‘emotionally’, which is how people feel on this blog…