Newspaper Reaches New Low...

[pyan]

This whole thing's like a certain um..specialised kind of anime: tentacles everywhere. If Stephenson resigned because he hired Wallis as an advisor, where does that leave David Cameron vis-a-vis his hiring of Coulson?

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Tillane

And now Sir Paul Stephenson has gone...

Just listening the Radio 4, who have been discussing the implications of Brooks' arrest. The consensus seems to be that it's a bizarre bit of policing; her select committee appearance will now be almost entirely pointless, as they won't be able to question her about any the circumstances of the police investigation against her - in other words, ninety-odd percent of the questions they were going to ask her.

Two things: Why do the police need a PR consultant? They aren't (or shouldn't be) selling anything. It just shows how far they seem to have drifted from their basic purpose: identifying crime and bringing suspects to court - simple.

Second: Parliament should leave the investigation up to the police. MP's now seem intent on flexing their muscles and trying to do the job of the police - far too late. When Brooks admitted bribing the police in front of a parliamentary committee, and they didn't do a thing about it, they lost the one chance they had to display any semblance of responsibility in this matter. If they want to investigate anything it should be their own lack of action in this whole sad affair.

[Tillane]

Originally Posted by pyan

If Stephenson resigned because he hired Wallis as an advisor, where does that leave David Cameron vis-a-vis his hiring of Coulson?

Up a certain waterway without a certain implement, I'd imagine. Apparently he's currently on a plane to somewhere "a long way from parliament" (Nick Robinson's words, not mine), amid calls for him to apologise to MPs before parliament goes into recess on Tuesday. Oh, and amid calls for parliament to...well, not go into recess, given what's going on.

Mo: given recent PR disasters, I'd have thought that first question answers itself. Not a job I'd want, mind.

As to the second, while I don't disagree that parliament should keep out of the police investigation, I think the point that was being made is that, had the police waited until after her appearance, there would have been a public record of her responses to the select committee on the events that would have proved useful to the police in their later questioning of her. Now, I'm not sure how well that point stands up - it would depend heavily on what Brooks did and didn't say to the committee - but given that she seems to have a chronic case of foot-in-mouth syndrome, you never know...

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Tillane

Mo: given recent PR disasters, I'd have thought that first question answers itself. Not a job I'd want, mind.

I understand what you are saying, Tillane, but these so called PR disasters have arisen because the waters have become muddied. The simple mission of crime prevention should have nothing to do with Public Relations - just the opposite in fact. They should be doing their job based on the facts of each case - nothing at all to do with public opinion. The disaster that has befallen them has been brought about specifically because the were too concerned with the opinions of the executives at News International.

The police should be immune from outside influence.

[Foxbat]

Call me a cynic but, after all that's happened, I can only come to the conclusion that the arrest of Brooks is an attempt to effectively silence her before she gets in front of the commitee. After all, we still don't know who within the Met received the payments from News Int.

[thaddeus6th]

I've not been paying this story much attention for a few days, but I'm frankly baffled by the comparison between Stephenson and Cameron.

Stephenson accepted a number of, er, hospitality things from someone, worth quite a lot of money, and didn't even mention them to the Home Secretary and Prime Minister when he met them very recently over the scandal.

Cameron hired someone who had already resigned for the wrongdoing that occurred whilst he was editor (and he always has and continues to deny knowledge of that), and who left his role as Cameron's aide six months ago. What are you claiming Cameron's done wrong? Made a foolish appointment? Aye, definitely.

But then, Ed Miliband has Tom Baldwin, also an ex-NI employee accused of naughty things and about whom NI gave Miliband assurances (and he underwent the same checks as Coulson).

This is progressing into a witch hunt. Why no media avalanche against the Guardian publishing leaked military secrets, including a list of 'soft' terror targets in the UK (helpfully repeated by BBC news)?

The sooner the judge-led inquiry can start the better.

[Tillane]

In terms of Cameron, the main contention (and the main stick he's currently being beaten with by the opposition) is that he made a serious error of judgement in appointing someone who was either complicit in or ignorant of serious malpractice at the paper he was editing (neither of which looks good), that he was advised that hiring Coulson was a bad idea and yet went ahead with it. The implication that will be made is that if all his judgement calls are that bad, is he the right man to run the country? Now, it might seem like his opponents are going overboard with this, but to be perfectly frank, that's politics for you. I've no doubt that, were the tables turned, Cameron and his allies would be throwing around the same accusations (and indeed both the tories and various branches of the press have lambasted Milliband for Baldwin's appointment in the past).

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Tillane

Mo: given recent PR disasters, I'd have thought that first question answers itself. Not a job I'd want, mind.

In the last week or so, it was stated - though not by anyone from the Met - that the Met had 70 PR people**. (This information was given in the context of asking why so many senior police officers were meeting News International execs when they had so many PR people to liaise for them.)

I was wondering about Mr Willis's two days' work a month. Was this a real two days (as in he was doing specific work or turning up for meetings) or was it a retainer? And why was he working for the Commissioner rather than for the head of the Met's PR function (assuming that at least some of the 70 PR people work for HQ)? And if the latter, what was his real rôle? Was he acting as the Met's version of Max Clifford (and why)?



** - Out of about 50,000 employees - as stated on the Today programme - which is more than I thought the Met employed.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

Why no media avalanche against the Guardian publishing leaked military secrets, including a list of 'soft' terror targets in the UK (helpfully repeated by BBC news)?

And why - to leap off at a tangent - have senior military officers not been more widely criticised for giving comfort to the enemy (e.g. questioning the sustainability of the Libyan action). If they have real concerns, they should be strongly put, but in private. It seemed to me that the real point of this information being said in public (or "leaked") is to demand a softening of the effect of the cuts to the defence budget. (And what makes my blood really boil is that these were amongst those who were in command as the MoD p*ssed tens of billions of pounds away like there was no tomorrow. If they had had had one gram of financial competence between them, they wouldn't be facing such deep cuts in the defence budget.)

But there is a link to the thread: there's a constant stream of people leaving the MoD and heading for the companies who bid (or, rather, win ) contracts from that failed organisation. This (and much of hospitality industry) is the British way of doing corruption.

[mosaix]

Tillane's right.

Politicians must make errors of judgement all the time and, mostly, they never come to light. But, when they do, and they're made by the PM then they have to accept the flack that goes with them - it goes with the job.

This, in itself, will have little effect on Cameron. But what usually brings politicians down are lots of minor problems accumulating over a period of time that build a perception in the public's mind of 'accident prone' or 'incompetent' or 'lacking judgement'.

He's fine for now. But if anything else comes along any time soon it will be interesting to see if his public image starts to suffer.

[Ursa major]

It strikes me that this is something** that would play better much closer to an election, particularly if the economy is still in a mess. Something like the last straw that breaks the camel's back. Speaking as someone who isn't a particular fan of Cameron (or any of the current crop of senior politicians, really), I don't see it as that damaging in itself.


By the way, I found the Commissioner's comparison of his and Cameron's positions as somewhat disingenuous. While the press have been seeing it as an attack on Cameron -

Met Chief turns on David Cameron

in the Guardian - it's at least as much a diversion of attention from the £11960 of freebies Stephenson received from that health spar. I may be being naive and out of touch, but I don't think police officers, however senior and however clearly the "gift" is declared on the register of interests***, should be in receipt of payments other than their salary and investments (savings accounts, dividends).


** - Assuming there's isn't something far worse behind it.

*** - I heard this being mentioned, but I don't know how formal it is. Really, there shouldn't be a register because, frankly, there shouldn't be any interests to declare.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

I don't think police officers, however senior and however clearly the "gift" is declared on the register of interests, should be in receipt of payments other than their salary and investments (savings accounts, dividends).

Really, there shouldn't be a register because, frankly, there shouldn't be any interests to declare.

Totally agree, UM.

If they are doing the job properly, they shouldn't be exposing themselves to any possibility of outside influence.

Nor should they be attempting to exert influence (in the form of PR gurus etc.). If there is one job in the country that should be based solely on facts and have nothing to do with opinion it is the job of policing.

[thaddeus6th]

Cameron did make a bad call. But Coulson maintained/s his innocence and resigned from the paper because it happened whilst he was editor. I'm not sure people should be fired from a job because of what they did at a previous job, which they lost for that same reason.

The Baldwin appointment has the added dash of hypocrisy, but is otherwise highly similar to the Coulson appointment.

I'm staggered that, whilst the eurozone may be about to implode horrendously, this has been the top story for daaaays. The coverage has saturated the media.

Ursa, I agree regarding Defence chiefs speaking in private, though I sympathise with their views. Personally, I'd've increased the Defence budget, but there we are.

I am amused that Stephenson is attacking the judgement of a man who accepted his resignation for, er, a lapse in judgement

[Tillane]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

It strikes me that this is something** that would play better much closer to an election, particularly if the economy is still in a mess. Something like the last straw that breaks the camel's back. Speaking as someone who isn't a particular fan of Cameron (or any of the current crop of senior politicians, really), I don't see it as that damaging in itself.

Agreed. He'll be fine, provided nothing much worse comes to light (not overly likely, methinks). In the meantime, however, his opponents will make hay while the sun shines. Or try to, at least.

Originally Posted by Ursa major

By the way, I found the Commissioner's comparison of his and Cameron's positions as somewhat disingenuous.

Kind of depends. I'm sure it is a diversionary attempt on Stephenson's part, but it's worth remembering that Cameron does have ties to Wade/Brooks, and had hosted both her and Murdoch on occasions (and been hosted by them, too). Then again, precisely the same could be said of Blair, Brown and any number of others...

Originally Posted by Ursa major

I may be being naive and out of touch, but I don't think police officers, however senior and however clearly the "gift" is declared on the register of interests, should be in receipt of payments other than their salary and investments (savings accounts, dividends).

I hold precisely the same opinion. Don't expect it to see fruition, but we live in hope.

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

I'm staggered that, whilst the eurozone may be about to implode horrendously, this has been the top story for daaaays. The coverage has saturated the media.

Maybe I'm more cynical that you, thaddeus, but I'm really not all that surprised. The hacking story is more local, it's easy copy, and it gives papers of every hue an easy target - whether it be Brooks, Cameron, Murdoch or the Grauniad. Or the BBC. It's a ready-made whipping tree. By contrast, what's going on in the Eurozone is slow-moving, more complicated for your average reader/viewer/listener to get their head around, and not nearly as juicy for the media.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Tillane

By contrast, what's going on in the Eurozone is slow-moving, more complicated for your average reader/viewer/listener to get their head around, and not nearly as juicy for the media.

And there's no-one local on which to pin any blame. The UK media, not least the BBC, seem to prefer stories where someone can be attacked. It gives them heated interviews to broadcast/print, chances for vilification of people they don't like and, better still for the pundits, detailed fact checking (never a strong feature of the UK media) can be set aside for the "joys" of incoherent calls for semi-random resignations.



And speaking of Yates (no longer of) the Yard....