Labour turn up the heat on Coulson

Verity

Groundbreaking story! Hold the front page!

Chuck Unsworth

Why do these nutters think that anyone gives a stuff about what the NYT has to say about anything? The NYT is fighting for its life just now and will do anything, including rehashing a story which is several weeks old and first mentioned here, to increase its circulation.

What's interesting here is the fact that these British MPs regard the NYT as being an unimpeachable source of information about matters to do with British newspapers and politics and are prepared to quote it verbatim to all and sundry.

Imagine what they would have said if Coulson was working for them.

les

The labour collaborators will end up with egg on their faces.

Don

Oh dear, the guardian, the speccie and a load of labourites who should know better "cough" mcbride "cough".
Nobody else in the whole world cares.

Dave B

This a non-story. The Guardian have tried breathing life into it before. There's nothing there.

Verityred

Watson, Prescott etc Jeez what a sordid bunch to lead the charge, the dirty tricks squad rides again. Hypocrites to a man. Says as much about Labour and it's pet rags The Guardian and Mirror,as it does about Coulson.

Don

Oh dear, how sad, too bad, never mind. The BBC, Prescott and all the other assorted band wagon jumpers look more ridiculous than ever.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8143120.stm

Malcolm Redfellow

"And there's the fact that the Tories are now operating in government, where public scrutiny is evewn more exacting..."

Surely, you mean "press scrutiny"? So where were you chaps, when the Guardian was beating the drum?

Meanwhile, yes, emphatically yes: when thousands of individuals (not excluding royalty, not excluding police top brass) have their personal privacy invaded, it is a big, big story.

Don

Malcolm, are you as concerned about these papers?
"According to the report, more than 50 Daily Mail journalists had bought material from Whittamore on 952 occasions. Other newspapers on the list included the Daily Mirror (681 transactions) the News of the World (228), The Observer (103) and The Sunday Times (4)."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6690054.ece
Or is just the one that may embarrass the tories?

JohnPage

Starmer has just made it worse by issuing a statement which avoids the issues alleged. A classic tactic of deceivers, and not clverly executed.

http://thepurplescorpion.blogspot.com/2010/09/cps-ducks-phone-hacking-issue.html

Paddy

Who would want to "tap" Prescott's phone.

Apart from what he's ordering from the take-away or ordering the groceries from Tesco.

les

Is Alan Duncan the only one who has spoken out about labour's "concerted campaign" against Coulson.

Gawain

Yet more turds floating to the surface of the cesspit. Time for a complete clear out. Spin doctors, communication twisters, journalists, anyone who has worked in media in fact, obviously don't fit in government. Let them all go, we don't need them and they're too expensive.

Malcolm Redfellow

Don @ 8:22pm:

Of course. You amply make my point for me about the scale of the thing. Now remind us which news outlet made a fuss.

The NYT piece makes it clear that the Guardian's "undisguised disdain for Murdoch’s publications" was the reason why the paper "aggressively pursued the hacking episode. Its exclusive on the Taylor settlement prompted the parliamentary committee to convene new hearings."

Coulson and Hinton before the Whittingdale committee were abject equivocators. In any other walk of life an over-paid executive, who did not know what were the essential practices of his office, and which cost his organisation millions in hush-money (and, doubtless, more to come), would be out-on-his-ear. Yet one of these became publisher and CEO of the WSJ, the other walks the corridors of Downing Street.

davidk

You can bet the Royal Family have their teeth into this.

Coulson is toast.

Yow Min Lye

I would have thought a bunch of has-beens from a government that sanctioned detention without trial and connived in the torturing of its own citizens are the last people who should be jumping up and down protesting about phone-tapping by others.

Alexander

This is a NYT v News International feud. No more no less!

TGF UKIP

Not that he's been any good anyway as the Clique's abysmal political communication bears witnes; not even the palest of pale shadows of an Alastair Campbell.

My bet, though, is still on the semi-detached becoming the fully-detached. He's probably already planning to start work this weekend on the successor to "Wilberforce."

Peter From Maidstone

You don't mean public scrutiny, you mean media sleazebags scrutiny, and you don't even mean scrutiny you just mean some low-lifes trying to stir up trouble for someone instead of actually doing journalism. Indeed when was the last time any of you people actually did any journalism?

Richard of York

Read the jackofkent blog for more detail on this...oh and read the comments they are quite interesting.

Don

Malcolm, lots of words, none of which answered my direct, easily answered question.

CityBoy

Does anyone genuinely think that the oaf Prescott should be allowed to walk the streets without being pelted with rotten fruit, let alone be quoted on the issues of the day?

Pot Head

I'm sure Coulson will have to go, but actually i think the bigger story here, is the failure of The Met Police to take the prosecution further because they didn't want to upset News International.

Malcolm Redfellow

Don @ 11:23pm:

Your simple answer? Yes. I'm sure those other news sources are nearly as culpable.

"A lot of words"? Indeed. The difference in the case of Coulson and co is a guilty verdict against Mulcaire and Goodman, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act of 1977, with five additional counts against Mulcaire. All those were at the behest of a person or persons employed at the NoW.

A further difference is the curious "long-term relationship" between News International and the Met Police. A further difference is that Coulson has come clean on paying police officers. A further difference is at least two further cases being smothered by mega-bucks pay-outs. A further difference is the NoW having Tessa Jowell's phone hacked on 28 occasions.

The biggest difference is a man who lied to the Commons being at the heart of this government. Even David Cameron has defended this on the grounds of "giving someone a second chance". Err ... yes.

bohodotcom

Anyone remember Damien McBride...?

TomTom

Neville Chamberlain had rivals' phones tapped....Coulson must have his uses !

Victor Southern

Since I don't know what use Coulson is I can be quite dispassionate about this. I would not grieve if he departed No.10. I do have a concern with this recent phenomenon of people being tried and condemned by the Press. A criminal conspiracy is alleged and the accused is splashed across the front pages without the right of trial or even rebuttal.

I am quite sure that newspaper editors pay for stories, for information. That is often how it is obtained. The ways in which that information is obtained are seldom moral, often even illegal. It is doubtful that, if Coulson did do these things, that he is alone amongst the editors. I seem to remember the Mirror under Piers Morgan, friend of Brown and Blair, using insider share trading information and paying for and publishing fake photos of troop "atrocities" in Iraq.

It is quite certain that all of the red-tops buy illicit information as do some of the broadsheets.

Dave Pengelly

I note that C.C.O. rebutters are hard at work here. Keep up the good work boys.

Pot Head

TomTom Yes, and he was fired, just like Coulson is going to be!