Murdoch hacking scandal latest

[eighthobstruction]

I have to wonder; having seen AH and JY yesterday, reference their ability to communicate orders and information to colleagues....possibly this was/is the problem. Certainly in these 2 officers evidence, especially AH, there was a lot of idiom....an inability to go straight to the point or to grasp the trust of questions. One can imagine Peter Clarke being 'straight to the point, and speaking with clarity and authority, and understanding the parameters in play. He might however lack imagination; which would limit him in certain aspects, ref going beyond boundaries, going the extra mile. Of course 07/07 etc were in play as he said in evidence.
I can imagine ambiguity creeping in when dealing with AH and JY....purpose and focus going astray....

But who am I blaa blaa, I don't even know how to use an apostrophe properly etc....I probably wouldn't bother posting or even being if ambiguity was not so interestingly rife....

[Mandryka]

I was pleased when I heard this news, though I suspect the Digger will be back, once he's licked his wounds. If I was in government now, I'd be doing my damnedest to ensure that BskyB is off-limits to R.M. in future.

Hst, I've been intrigued by some of Mr. P's postings upthread.....like (I suspect) a lot of people, I've long made the equation that Rupert Murdoch=lowest common denominator news+right-wing, pro-American agenda, yet I've heard a few people speak well of Sky. From what little I've seen of it (usually when channel-surfing in hotels), I'd say it was several levels below BBC and even ITV as a rolling news channel, but I've heard the arts coverage is surprinsgly good.

I've no interest in sport, though, which is normally the clincher for many people: plenty of people who profess to hate Murdoch still shell out to him because of their love of the spectacle of 22 overpaid men kicking a bladder round a field.

[eighthobstruction]

I love football....BUT....I always thought that it has a touch of the legend of Sisyphus about it....

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, it was a good speech with sensible, appropriate, proposals. Who wrote it? There are still a lot of areas that could lead to significant doubt. It is all very well to say that meetings between Ministers and the media will be noted by civil servants and published. Presumably there could still be private discussions taking place at dinner parties, when horse riding and so on. That then is a smokescreen. Still, this was a very different Cameron. Better on the public relations, perhaps assisted by the developments in the US and Australia in the past 24 hours.

There is a slightly dubious sidestepping of all the Stephenson and Yates dinners with the Murdoch people - "of course, the police will always need to meet the media to hunt down criminals" or words along those lines. Words perhaps best seen as ironic. But there is some reason to believe that Sue Akers has more integrity than many in the police. And call me naive but I have rather more faith in the well-meaning of Theresa May than most Conservatives in the Cabinet. Their involvement is to be welcomed.

I think what we have seen for the umpteenth time in the past five years is that most senior figures - in finance, politics, media, police, the civil service - do not have the emotional capacity to morally self-regulate. Clearly when they are reeling like defeated boxers on the ropes they begin to reveal that, yes, actually they absolutely know the difference between right and wrong. It is just that they need to be told what to do in no uncertain terms. In fact, forced to. Whatever the changes for the better that are now introduced, that very fact will always dilute the roundedness of their authority. Culturally, they, and hence Britain, are broke.

To date, this has been a rather English affair. Alex Salmond has been very quiet but he is coming under scrutiny. Some say his relationship with Murdoch has been "cosy". The collapse of Labour and the Lib Dems in Scotland, which has helped to put Cameron into Government, probably reveals even further the extent of Murdoch's influence on diminishing our democracy. Of course, Murdoch once backed Blair but Blair wasn't Labour. Maybe history will show that he wasn't anything much. With every passing year that man appears to many to have been among the dodgiest geezers ever to have been Prime Minister.

Clegg, Cable and the Lib Dems emerge from this quite well. Never courted by Murdoch because they were never expected to have influence. Meanwhile, the cross-party consensus has got Cameron slightly off the hook and the wind has been taken from Miliband's sails. An error of judgement there? Not sure but it is certainly that on the retention of Tom Baldwin. However, all of this falls down in one absolutely crucial respect. We need a written constitution. Rather like PR, even when push comes to heavy shove, the commitments to true democratic principles are absent. This, of course, signals that deep down, the biggest loyalty is to a continuation of all the old nonsense. As for football, does this mean less money? I do hope so for its sake.

[Lateralthinking1]

.....Two further brief points. One, if there is some considerable doubt that the Murdochs can be summoned to the Select Committee because they are not British nationals, then perhaps that is the very first area of the constitution that needs to be reviewed. The very idea that the biggest broadcaster in Britain could be run by anyone who is not equally accountable is ludicrous. Imagine, for example, that this were instead Berlusconi or for that matter another Goebbels. Even someone challenging like Assange. There must also be a read-across here to non-media private enterprise - presumably this doubt applies to all other areas too.

Two, this latest from Gordon Brown - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14144968 - might indicate to many that Gus O'Donnell has always been a centre-right stooge. It is time that he followed through on the rumours that he wants to clear off to New Zealand. If he is there to facilitate the smooth running of this country apolitically, the quite unprecedented constitutional disasters year on year under his watch are an indication of his abject failure and indeed oil. His departure is long overdue.

[amateur51]

.....Two further brief points. One, if there is some considerable doubt that the Murdochs can be summoned to the Select Committee because they are not British nationals, then perhaps that is the very first area of the constitution that needs to be reviewed. The very idea that the biggest broadcaster in Britain could be run by anyone who is not equally accountable is ludicrous. Imagine, for example, that this were instead Berlusconi or for that matter another Goebbels. Even someone challenging like Assange. There must also be a read-across here to non-media private enterprise - presumably this doubt applies to all other areas too.

Two, this latest from Gordon Brown - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14144968 - might indicate to many that Gus O'Donnell has always been a centre-right stooge. It is time that he followed through on the rumours that he wants to clear off to New Zealand. If he is there to facilitate the smooth running of this country apolitically, the quite unprecedented constitutional disasters year on year under his watch are an indication of his abject failure and indeed oil. His departure is long overdue.

Bravo once again, Lat. Your posts are becoming essential reading. You read the incisive analysis here first, folks!

[Serial_Apologist]

Who was the Labour MP who left for New Zealand a few years ago? Can't remember his name, but I always thought his going most unfortunate, and that he could have made a good party leader.

Ah yes! Gould.

[Stillhomewardbound]

That was Bryan Gould and a rare example of someone who quit politics and stayed out of it. He returned to his homeland of New Zealand.

[amateur51]

That was Bryan Gould and a rare example of someone who quit politics and stayed out of it. He returned to his homeland of New Zealand.

Remembered fondly for one of the most innovative 'comb forwards' hair-dos of the period

[BBMmk2]

\i see the police have arrested a 60 year old man?

[Mandryka]

Who was the Labour MP who left for New Zealand a few years ago? Can't remember his name, but I always thought his going most unfortunate, and that he could have made a good party leader.

Ah yes! Gould.

I also liked Bryan Gould. He did indeed return to N.Z., where he occupies an academic post, though he still comments on UK (and world) affairs, via his website.

[Stunsworth]

\i see the police have arrested a 60 year old man?

Former NOTW executive editor...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/14/phone-hacking-60-year-old-arrested

[Chris Newman]

Rupert and James have been summoned (ie ordered) to appear before the Commons committee after refusing to come.

[Stillhomewardbound]

Neil Wallis, arrested this morning, was retained between 2009/2010 as a communications adviser to ...

the Metropolitan Police! Specifically Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates.

[Stunsworth]

Neil Wallis, arrested this morning, was retained between 2009/2010 as a communications adviser to ...

the Metropolitan Police! Specifically Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates.

Well, that's cosy. We had coppers going to work for NI (Hayman) and NI employees going to work for the Met (Wallis).