Skip to main content

The British Watergate Scandal finally breaks

It has been common knowledge for some time that News International routinely hacked mobile phones. Many of the great stories of the past 15 or 20 years have probably been the result of this illegal activity. Even the "Squidgy-gate" story of 1990 now appears to have been the direct result of illegal journalistic snooping. The Milly Dowler phone hacking was a new low, but in precisely the same tradition of illegal and immoral activity.

News International has a clear case to answer, but they are not the only ones.

Why did the initial Police investigation into phone hacking conclude that only a few "bad apples" were responsible, when that was quite clearly not the case?

The evidence is strong that politicians and the police were placed under intense pressure by the News International organisation to curtail the investigation. In other words there has been a deliberate cover up. The question is now: who is complicit in this extraordinary scandal?

How did the Murdoch Organisation use the information they gathered, if they did not publish it?

Were ministers pressured? Were decisions taken as the result of this pressure?

Is it possible that John Major, when Prime Minister, was blackmailed by Murdoch over his affair with Edwina Currie? If so, what other Ministers or Prime Ministers faced the same pressure?

Were Police Officers were similarly blackmailed? If so who, and how?

It is clear that at the highest level, News International tolerated -indeed encouraged and paid for- crime. It is now all too clear why Andy Coulson had to resign, but this is one that goes all the way to the Murdoch family itself.

Obviously the News International organisation is in this up to their necks- it is quite clear that the decision to approve the full take over of Sky must be delayed while this investigation runs its course- any decision now taken to the benefit of Murdoch is going to be checked with a fine tooth comb, and Jeremy Hunt will lose his job sooner rather than later, unless he suspends his previous decision. Murdoch must be cut loose immediately.

The scandal is bad enough: the cover-up will be even more dangerous.

The fact is that the implications of this scandal and the cover-up will still embrace the police and politicians. The impact will be huge. By the end of it any connection with Murdoch- from writing for his papers or approving of his business or even appearing on Sky- will be toxic. This is why Cameron has quickly rushed to condemn NI over Milly Dowler: he knows that there is more beyond. The hiring of Andy Coulson was ill judged by the Tories, but the silence from Labour is even more telling. The relationship between Peter Mandelson and the Murdoch organisation is well documented, but the public story is not the whole story- as many people in politics know all too well.

The News International Scandal may have the same impact on London as Watergate did on Washington- and the fall of the Murdoch Empire might be just one of the lesser results.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...