Cameron's communications chief and illegal investigations

[Wildcat]

David Cameron's communications director, Andy Coulson, will come under fresh pressure to defend his editorship of the News of the World and his knowledge about the illegal activities of his journalists amid new allegations about the paper's involvement with private detectives who broke the law.

 

The Guardian has learned that while Coulson was still editor of the tabloid, the newspaper employed a freelance private investigator even though he had been accused of corrupting police officers and had just been released from a seven-year prison sentence for blackmail.

 

The private eye was well known to the News of the World, having worked for the paper for several years before he was jailed, when Coulson was deputy editor. He was rehired when he was freed.

 

Evidence seen by the Guardian shows that Mr A, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was blagging bank accounts, bribing police officers, procuring confidential data from the DVLA and phone companies, and trading sensitive material from live police inquiries.

 

Coulson has always insisted he knew nothing about the illegal activity which took place in the News of the World newsroom, telling MPs last year: "I have never had any involvement in it at all."

 

Mr A cannot be named now because he is facing trial for a violent crime, but his details will emerge once he has been dealt with by the courts. Coulson tonight refused to say whether he was aware of Mr A's criminal background, or of his return to the paper following his prison term. He said: "I have nothing to add to the evidence I gave to the select committee."

 

The latest disclosures bring to four the number of investigators known to have worked for the NoW while Coulson was either editor or deputy editor of the paper. All four have since received or had criminal convictions. All four are known to have used illegal methods to gather information.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/24/andy-coulson-news-of-the-world

 

The Select Committee itself found:

 

MPs said they had not seen any evidence that Andy Coulson "knew that phone hacking was taking place". The Conservative party's director of communications was News of the World editor when royal reporter Clive Goodman and investigator Glenn Mulcaire were jailed for illegally obtaining messages from mobile phones belonging to members of the royal household. The committee concluded: "That such hacking took place reveals a serious management failure for which as editor he bore ultimate responsibility, and we believe that he was correct to accept this and resign."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/24/phone-hacking-scandal-mps-verdicts

 

Also see Weds post here for background:

http://www.septicisle.info/

 

Is it really tenable that Coulson was unaware of all of this and yet responsible enough to have resigned?

 

Other important issues this raises is the collusion of the Met police, the failure of the information commissioner to act to protect people who's privacy had been invaded, and their attempts to prevent the Select Committee from knowing about it. And finally the evident inability of the Press Complaints Commission to deal with the illegal behaviour of the News papers.

 

This is an important story with many elements that shows failures that go beyond simple incompetence and that goes right to the top of the establishment.

[redrobbo]

What's the betting that if there is a Cameron-led government after the general election then the recommendations of the Select Committee will either be watered down or completely shelved?

[Wildcat]

What's the betting that if there is a Cameron-led government after the general election then the recommendations of the Select Committee will either be watered down or completely shelved?

 

It will be interesting what happens next time the Select Committee meets considering the new revelations in the Guardian.

 

The current recommendations of the Select Committee to boost the powers of the PCC, including the option to stop a guilty newspaper publishing for a day have to be welcomed, but they don't go far enough. The PCC is run by the newspapers and they are not going to be using these powers considering their history of inactivity. The whole system of self regulation needs to be ditched for a truly independent press complaints commission with teeth and the inclination to clean up the open sewer of biased and illegal reporting practices that supports and promotes the political viewpoints of the vested interests of the wealthy.

[emma royd]

What's the betting that if there is a Cameron-led government after the general election then the recommendations of the Select Committee will either be watered down or completely shelved?

 

Perhaps they will hand it over to the same folk who looked into the Damian McBride case.

[Wildcat]

Perhaps they will hand it over to the same folk who looked into the Damian McBride case.

 

They were both forced to resign. The difference would appear to be that after being caught out and resigning it was only Andy Coulson that was offered a place as communications officer for a leading political figure. McBride on the other hand is working for his old school.

[ricgem2002]

perhaps they will get a slap on the wrists,fined and then back to business? this is happening all the time and they unfortunate to have been caught out .the police force use the same tactics when employing informants to gain evidence are you going to stop this i think not

[emma royd]

They were both forced to resign. The difference would appear to be that after being caught out and resigning it was only Andy Coulson that was offered a place as communications officer for a leading political figure. McBride on the other hand is working for his old school.

 

The difference is that Coulson hasn't actually been found to have done anything wrong. I believe McBride was caught deliberately inventing lies of a sexual nature with the intent of smearing members of the shadow cabinet. That is a pretty similar thing to what is being attempted here. I note that an elected Labour councillor has already jumped on the band wagon of this attempted smear campaign.

[Wildcat]

Only because he resigned.....

 

he resigned because he took responsibility for the illegal conduct of his employees. Those are the actions of someone that is at least incompetent, but considering the Select Committee reporting the "obfuscation" of the News of the Screws staff and the rest of the context of their report, also considering Cameron in the act of appointing him after the resignation didn't appear to view his actions as incompetent it raises additional questions of liability and considering the further information that come out after the Select Committee report, this is much more than a simple smear.

 

This is a matter of public interest relating to the conduct and relationship between the tabloids, the Tories, the Police and the Information Commissioner.

[emma royd]

he resigned because he took responsibility for the illegal conduct of his employees. Those are the actions of someone that is at least incompetent, but considering the Select Committee reporting the "obfuscation" of the News of the Screws staff and the rest of the context of their report, also considering Cameron in the act of appointing him after the resignation didn't appear to view his actions as incompetent it raises additional questions of liability and considering the further information that come out after the Select Committee report, this is much more than a simple smear.

 

This is a matter of public interest relating to the conduct and relationship between the tabloids, the Tories, the Police and the Information Commissioner.

 

So Brown, who didn't resign over the illegal conduct of one of his employees (McBride) would be considered incompetent in that case, for not knowing what his staff were getting up to.

 

It is interesting that you focus on the actions of someone before they were employed by Cameron and choose to ignore the actions of another when he was actually employed by Brown.

 

Red blinkers syndrome I think.

[Wildcat]

So Brown, who didn't resign over the illegal conduct of one of his employees (McBride) would be considered incompetent in that case, for not knowing what his staff were getting up to.

 

Only if you think he has reason to believe the minutiae of what every adviser is doing in their spare time.

 

In Coulson's case there were at least 4 reporters involved in illegal data gathering to be used in stories.

 

It is interesting that you focus on the actions of someone before they were employed by Cameron and choose to ignore the actions of another when he was actually employed by Brown.

 

Red blinkers syndrome I think.

 

What is interesting is you are trying to distract from a story about the corrupt and illegal behaviour of the News of the World, the met police and at best the incompetence of the information commissioner's office, with a tenuous comparison with the McBride case.

 

In the McBride case when Gordon Brown found out what was going on McBride resigned before he was pushed.

 

In the Coulson case when he took responsibility for the illegal actions of his investigators, he was welcomed with open arms by Cameron as his Communications Secretary.