Over Tuesday 19th and Wednesday 20th July 2011 the Prime Minister of the Great Britain agreed to put himself on public trial before his peers, along with the two of the most powerful men in the media industry together with two of the most senior policemen in the UK. The first of four open letters is to David Cameron. Dear Dave. The others will be to Rupert Murdoch, Teresa May and Boris Johnson and then to Edward Miliband.
Dear Dave
Well done, you have survived one of the most extraordinary periods in British Politics, at least until October when we should know if your friend Andy is to be charged with any offences concerned with the illegal acquisition of information or the corruption of Metropolitan Police officers.
I believe you adopted the right approach when called to answer for your actions before the British House of Commons on Wednesday, surrounded by your Cabinet Colleagues and other Ministers and carefully prepared backbenchers, combining avuncular defiance with three significant admissions.
First you said sorry although you were careful to emphasis that your regret was to having made the appointment of Andy “of Course I regret and I am sorry about, the furore it has caused. With 20:20 and all that has followed I would not have offered him the job, and I expect that he would not have taken it. But you do not make decisions in hindsight: you make them in the present. You live and you learn and, believe you me, I have learned.”
(As you will appreciate I am required by the Parliamentary office to point out that all the quotations from recent debates and committee sessions are from uncorrected verbatim transcripts that have been published before participants have had the opportunity to check their accuracy).
I noted that you said with considerable emotion that you had learned the lesson although you did not say what it was that has been learned and how the lesson will be put into future practice.
I appreciate you were trapped between the need to stand up to the Leader of the Opposition and his party in order to continue to command the confidence of your Cabinet and other Government colleagues and those on the back benchers hoping to be called one day, appointed to head committees or some fact finding mission, conference or representative visit across the Globe, and appearing humble and contrite before the British public. I give you ten out of ten for standing up the Miliband but only 3 for the apology. I say the latter because according to Sky News while you reduced the percentage of those who thought you were politically damaged by the scandal by some eight points there were still 46% of those voting who remained critical when collation of the responses ceased to be shown.
As I have previously written I do not know how you came to make the Coulson appointment and I have admired you acceptance of accountability and your willingness to stand or fall alone as a consequence. I had read the tittle-tattle that it was George who suggested the move to you so I was not surprised when Rebeckah took the opportunity of her political and media trial on Tuesday to say it was George and that she had been told of the approach by Andy. “I think it is a matter of public knowledge that it was the Chancellor George Osborn’s idea that when Andy Coulson left the News of the World they should start discussions with him on whether he would be an appropriate person to go into Tory HQ. The first time I heard of him being approached was from Andy Coulson and not from the Prime Minister.”
It is not yet certain if someone from the Opposition will soon press George to reveal who put the idea to him or leave the issue to the Judicial Inquiry when a connection with the Murdoch empire will be pushed, even if someone suggested to someone who had influence with George because they knew he had influence with you.
The other associated issue which remains unanswered is why you did not insist to have Andy positively vetted as has been custom and practice before admission to the corridors of power at Number 10? The failure to disclose the name of the independent company who undertook background checks also gives the impression that you have something to hide. I understand the Opposition Leader is continuing to press this aspect. Having embraced transparency I suggest you will need to provide information soon rather than await the judicial inquiry.
I appreciate the point you made about looking for conspiracies when in reality it was just a series of coincidences and misunderstanding but you have got to admit it looked bad with former Assistant Police Commissioner Hayman getting a job as a journalist with one Murdoch paper and former Director of Public Prosecutions being asked to provide Council Opinion and to write articles, admittedly for other newspapers as well as those of News International. Everyone agrees that Hayman was awful and embarrassing in his appearance before the committee and while Lord Macdonald did reveal the kind of money he was getting for the writing, he should have told the Members of the Commons the amount he was paid from News Corp to dispel the widely held belief that James Murdoch, on advice, was sloshing money around to keep the scale of the illegality from being properly known investigated for as long as he could. I know James has strongly denied this allegation.
And then of course there were the bombshells that former deputy News of the World editor, Neil Wallis, was paid £1000 a day to give advice to Commissioner Stephenson and co, contracted by the Met Communications Director on advice from Neil’s friend Assistant Commissioner Yates and that Wallis had also been at Number 10 and elsewhere giving advice to Andy. I appreciate that the former Commissioner has explained the nature of his friendship and involvement with the employment of Neil and that he only acted as a post box in passing on the successful application of the Neil’s daughter for a job with the Met.
I know that everyone seems to have their own angle and agenda with claims and counter claims about integrity and openness flying around into the public domain. I have been impressed by the approach of Mark Lewis, now Solicitor Advocate at Taylor Hampston who explained that he was the first person to lose his job two years ago when his then firm gave him an hour to decide if he was willing to give up involvement or be sacked. He was under threat of an injunction from News International to stop him talking out but they withdrew the threat after he had given evidence to the Commons Committee in 2009.
He had also received a letter from Carter- Rock Solicitors, threatening to sue him on behalf of then Assistant Commissioner Yates. Mr Lewis corrected himself to say the letter was in effect a warning off just as he was aware similar letters had been sent to the Guardian Newspaper and Chris Bryant and he queried whether the action had been constitutional because it had been paid for by the Metropolitan Police Authority. I have just heard from the media that the former Assistant Commissioner is suing the London Evening Standard over their reports of allegations made against him, so I am being careful to report only what other have said.
Mark Lewis also told the Common’s Committee that the chairwoman of the Press complaints Committee had suggested he had been lying to them in declaring there were 6000 victims of News of the World employed Mulcaire‘s activities. Mr Lewis said he had been set up by the Metropolitan Police in order for a speech to be made against him by the PCC Chairman at the Society of Editor’s dinner. He successfully sued Baroness Buscombe for damages although he drew attention that she was still in her job.
Did you also see the allegation of former dishonesty leading to a crucial post was separately made in the House of Lords by Lord Gilbert regarding the boss of Of- Com, and that when he challenged a Labour Minister who smiled and commented“ That was a long time ago?”
Dave, with all this going on I thought you were magnificently brave in tour second admission that you knew and accept what has to be done if Andy C is charged and prosecuted in the autumn or is shown to have intentionally misled you and others about his role or his knowledge of the illegal acquisition of information or the corruption of officers of the Metropolitan police. When you said “that would be the moment for a profound apology. In that event I can tell you that I would not fall short,” are you really committing yourself to resign as Prime Minister and Leader of the Tory Party, enabling someone like Teresa May to take over? I have to say Dave that in my judgement you will have no alternative but to resign given the nature of the warnings you received when first making the appointment and then in bringing him into 10 Downing Street.
Did you hear what happened Sky News on Wednesday when it was reported that Chris Bryant M.P, had revealed that officials at Buckingham Palace had expressed amazement that you had taken Mr Coulson on when Opposition Leader and again when he became Prime Minister? It then appeared that the Palace had confirmed the accuracy of this revelation but then there was a denial from Number 10 confirmed by a Palace statement that there had been no such expression of views. It was not really clear what been said and agreed and disagreed at the time and no more was heard subsequently.
I would not be surprised if concern had been expressed to Gordon Brown or that the issue had not been raised with you on becoming Prime Minister. Did you give the Palace the same level of assurance you have given to Parliament, I wonder? I appreciate you will have got to know Andy well having worked closely with him at all hours of the day and night seven days a week. We have seen over the past thirty years just how important and close a Director of Communications can become with a Prime Minister, first with Bernard Inghams and Mrs Thatcher and then Alistair Campbell and Mr Blair. The Communications Director is likely to be as in touch with who is briefing against who and why within the Party as the Whips, possibly more important as having a General Party Secretary and Party Chairman who are loyal and on top of their jobs when it comes to knowing what is happening in succession plotting as well as what is going on among the other lot.
I appreciate that there are those who will argue that because you are George are said to be risk takers, the offer to fall on the sword remains a great gamble rather than based on a certainty that Andy will come out of all this with his position enhanced. The confidence of your performance at the despatch box did impress me so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. This conclusion surprised me!
I assume you have studied the text of what Rebeckah had to say on Tuesday and I thought her performance was cool. Chris Bryant tells the story of when he met her with and then husband Ross Kemp at a Party Conference and she commented that she was surprised to see him there and not away on Clapham Common. I thought it was great when Chris said on camera that Ross told his wife not be such a homophobic cow. I am still to work out if Rebeckah has just been trying to fit into the way the men at the top generally behave or is naturally calculating and deliberate.
I accepted what she said about not having had direct contact with Mulcaire or Rees and the reason for her direct contact with Whittamore.
“I can say that I never paid a policeman. I have never knowingly sanctioned a payment to a police officer,” she also replied to other questions. She also explained that when she was editor the issue of illegal acquisition of information would not have arisen because “at the time it wasn’t a practice that was condoned or sanctioned at the News of the World under my editorship. She also went on to explain the system of approval for payments.
“The payment system in a newspaper-this has been discussed at length- is simply that the editor’s job is to acquire the overall budget for the paper from senior management. Once the budget is acquired, it is given to the managing editor to allocate to different departments. Each person in that department has a different level of authorization, but the final payments are authorised by the managing editor, unless there is a particular big item such as a set of photographs or something that needs to be discussed on a wider level, and then the editor will be brought in.” “I am aware the News of the World used private detectives as every newspaper in Fleet Street did” “The payments of private detectives would have gone through the managing editor’s office.”
There was only one issue from my viewpoint where I thought she was open to further questioning. This was the meeting mentioned in Channel Four news attended by the detective involved in the unsolved murder case where her memory was of a different date and that the subject in question was not raised. Much will depend on whether there was a contemporary official police record made and still available.
Having heard what her solicitor said after she had been interviewed for several hours two days beforehand I do not expect that she will be charged and prosecuted and the findings of the Judicial inquiry are more likely to be four to five years away than two to three. I would also be surprised if the position of Mr Coulson will prove different. There will be need for substantial documentary evidence for the police and DPP to bring prosecutions.
As anticipated the official purpose of your statement was to announce the names of the panel appointed to undertake the work supervised by Lord Leveson and the agreed terms of reference. Questions were still asked about its inclusiveness to ensure it covered all forms of media printed news, television news and the Internet and to cover all forms illegal information gathering. I was also pleased you covered the range of inquiries ongoing and now agreed and that the police inquiry in to the Mulcaire papers is to be increased from 45 to 60 officers. This is because of concern that at the present rate following up the core names in the Mulcaire papers it would take at least 5 years to meet everyone and investigate the implications. My understanding is the police unit is concentrating on those where there is immediate evidence of illegal action having been taken because of stories in the paper or when individuals and their solicitors make contact enquiring if they are listed in the index. This does not mean that all the proposed prosecutions will be put into abeyance. If individuals mentioned are included as evidence in a prosecution then there is the question of compensation and a strengthened case to make a civil claim, although it is also understood from what was said by the Murdoch’s and Ms Brooks that they intend to take the initiative as soon as they have evidence confirming illegal action was taken. The point also needs to be made that it possible that some of the names on the Mulcaire list were engaged or suspected of wrong doing. It should not be forgotten that the main reason for closeness between the Crime Reporters of Fleet Street and the large PR department of the Met and the media unit of other police forces is for help to catch criminals and prevent serious crimes. It has become an established way of obtaining corroborative evidence by outing the suspect on camera and enabling others with evidence against the individual to come forward. I forgot to mention that it was disclosed that nearly one in four of the Journalists working for the Met had experience working for News International.
Although impressed by your willingness to take all those questions, over 150 said by those who counted, I did feel you appeared to relish the opportunity too much and got carried away saying Gotcha at one moment and that you were enjoying yourself, understandable given the circumstances but unfortunate from any neutrals who were watching from outside the Westminster village.
As with PMQ’s those outside the village may not have appreciated just how organised and ritualistic was the questioning session and the debate, and the attacks and counter attacks were planned with back benchers having received detailed briefing of the issues to be raised if they were able to catch the eye of the Speaker or his deputy.
You will be pleased the with level of preparation from the Whips Office with the three pronged counter attack:- arguing that greater attention should now be given to famine in the Horn of Africa and to the financial crisis in Europe and the failure to agree a budget in the USA, a cue which the media went along with for 24 hours; secondly to plea that a united approach was necessary to make fundamental progress in addressing the system failures which the scandal had uncovered and that the Labour approach had become too partisan; and then hypocritically to remind that for every Labour accusation a similar claim could be made against them, given that they were in Government throughout the whole period of the worst criminality and excesses.
I noted the attempt to suggest the government of the day must have known because the DPP would have briefed the Attorney General of the scale of information in the Mulcaire papers which brings me to what remains the main criticism of News Corp and International, against the Metropolitan the police and the national politicians, the involvement, directly and indirectly in a cover up.
I will deal with the cover up allegations in relation to News Corp and International and the police in my separate letters. Several Conservative Members argued that the Labour Government had the opportunity to have acted because of the individual and accumulative developments especially following the report of the Information Commissioner, What Price Privacy, the unlawful trade in confidential information published by the House of Commons in May 2006 and which included the findings of Operation Motorman. It was former Home Secretaries Jack Straw and Alan Johnson who were left to counter the accusation that they had missed opportunity. Mr Brown after the mauling his intervention provoked stayed out of the chamber this time. The suggestion is that action was not taken because of the closeness with the Murdoch’s and fear of what they could do they were upset.
The closeness between the politicians and the media was the other main thrust and counter thrust of the debate and questioning. I thought Dave that you remained vulnerable although the Opposition failed to concentrate attention in the most effective way. Their main argument was that given the number of meetings, many back door or social, with the Murdoch’s and Rebeckah and your closeness with Andy it would be amazing if the subject of the Take Over did not come up. I thought you answered this effectively making the point that responsibility was passed between Ministers and that you had no direct contact with the Culture and Media Minister about his decision and that the Cabinet Secretary has confirmed that you had not broken the Ministerial Code. It was interesting that Rebeckah used the same form of words to emphasise that there had not been inappropriate discussion. It was left to the Culture secretary to stir the pot again at the end of his summing up when he declared “The discussions that the Prime Minister had about the BskyB deal were irrelevant” Coming so late in the debate of some five hours the Labour Members were livid at this apparent admission suggesting that it was for Parliament to decide if the discussions were irrelevant and appropriate.
My point is to ask if at any point you discussed the July 9th 2009 Guardian article and all the consequential articles that followed, especially after the release of documentation to the police and the launching of the 2010 Police investigation? What discussion took place with Andy Coulson on the subject before he left and what discussions then took place when he stayed over at Chequers three months later?
This brings me to the latest development the challenge to what James Murdoch said to the Commons Committee on the for Neville email which disclosed the greater extent of illegality that had previously occurred and which came to light during the Gordon Taylor claim for damages and its settlement. As you know Dave, James Murdoch explained to the Committee that the reason for the payment had been the legal advice that if the claim was contested the total cost would exceed £1 million so a payment significantly less than that was made and not in order to cover up the scale and nature of the wrong doing that was exposed. Obviously once when the Mosley case judgement was for £60000 comparison payment were then adjusted.
Tom Watson one of the two Members of Parliament who have continued to press for answers to the questions that have arisen over several years asked if James Murdoch had sight of the for Neville email which referred to evidence arising in the Gordon Taylor case which indicated there was evidence of greater illegality and wrongdoing than that covered in the claim. He replied that he had not but then yesterday evening the former editor of the News of the World and the chief legal officer at the News of the World combined to say that they were aware that James had been advised. This headlined several newspapers this morning and resulted in a statement from James saying that he had nothing to add to the statement made at the meeting with the Commons Committee.
It is understood that the chairman of the Commons Committee has already written to James seeking clarification as well as raising a number of other questions. There have been calls for the Committee to reconvene and for James to be summoned and I noted that in your statement this lunchtime you also appeared to be saying that he will have to reappear at some point and explain himself to Parliament. Should proof arise that James had knowledge in 2008 when the email is dated then he could be declared guilty with any others who were aware of the extent of wrong doing, such as the emails held by the British Lawyers for four years. There is the possibility of charges of perverting the course of justice and which if successfully prosecuted could lead to the Murdoch’s losing their 39% of continuing involvement in BskyB as well as in News International UK newspapers.
Before this latest development I was moving to the situation when I would not be surprised if the police and the subsequent judicial inquiry concluded that because of the way News International and News Corporation are organised and because of their system of delegations and distribution of authorities, together with their management of corporate governance issues that Rebeckah Brooks and Andy Coulson had no knowledge or direct responsibilities for any illegal activities conducted within the organisation or undertaken on behalf of the organisation at the time they were committed. This therefore was also the position of the Murdoch’s. The question was when each of the four individuals and others within the organisation became aware of the illegal activity and what did them then do about it. Three, excluding Coulson who was not interviewed this week in public, were emphatic in the denial of their knowledge until recently. This also seemed highly likely to me. The organisations had been structured so they would not know.
I go back to what I have previously written about the session I attended with the European research manager of the 3 M Corporation in 1984. My understanding is that 3M was then and since organised on similar lines to News International and News Corps.
According to the latest figures 3 M’s had an annual revenue of $27 billion from production units in 30 countries and 70000 employees and News Corporation had a revenue of $32 billion with 51000 employees in as many if not more countries and where as with 3M’s there was management by exception with high levels of decentralization to each operational unit who were allocated budgets and staffing levels together with profit expectation annually. There will be central management information systems keeping an eye on profitability and other central services including corporate governance.
I wrote before that it was the European Research Director of 3M’s who explained the commercial value of creative operatives to the organisation but warned of the risks when individuals crossed the line including to need to be able to closely monitor their activities and to plan to take steps to remove individuals from direct or indirect employment, and indeed if possible to make it difficult to trace their direct involvement.
I also explained that in the 1980’s we had moved into the era where those with creative leadership qualities were finding themselves not just members of executive management teams but in the role of managing directors and chairmen and that while such individuals could achieve remarkable results for an organisation there was also a considerable potential downside when the commercial viability of the enterprise could be at risk. It was recommended that if the chairman was a creative leader then it was essential to have a classically balanced and steadfast managing director and vive versa and that the risks increased where a creative combined the roles of chairman and managing director/chief executive. I suggest Dave that if the government wants to understand what is likely to have happened within News Corp and at News International there is need to examine their Management Training, their hiring and firing practices and the use of creatives, especially in the acquisition of news stories in an extremely competitive situation where survival is dependent on advertising revenue which in turn in dependent on sales.
So Dave I decided that you did come out on top on Wednesday but I suggest you should have a good summer holiday as you are going to need all your survival skills next Parliamentary session, if not beforehand.
Dear Dave
Well done, you have survived one of the most extraordinary periods in British Politics, at least until October when we should know if your friend Andy is to be charged with any offences concerned with the illegal acquisition of information or the corruption of Metropolitan Police officers.
I believe you adopted the right approach when called to answer for your actions before the British House of Commons on Wednesday, surrounded by your Cabinet Colleagues and other Ministers and carefully prepared backbenchers, combining avuncular defiance with three significant admissions.
First you said sorry although you were careful to emphasis that your regret was to having made the appointment of Andy “of Course I regret and I am sorry about, the furore it has caused. With 20:20 and all that has followed I would not have offered him the job, and I expect that he would not have taken it. But you do not make decisions in hindsight: you make them in the present. You live and you learn and, believe you me, I have learned.”
(As you will appreciate I am required by the Parliamentary office to point out that all the quotations from recent debates and committee sessions are from uncorrected verbatim transcripts that have been published before participants have had the opportunity to check their accuracy).
I noted that you said with considerable emotion that you had learned the lesson although you did not say what it was that has been learned and how the lesson will be put into future practice.
I appreciate you were trapped between the need to stand up to the Leader of the Opposition and his party in order to continue to command the confidence of your Cabinet and other Government colleagues and those on the back benchers hoping to be called one day, appointed to head committees or some fact finding mission, conference or representative visit across the Globe, and appearing humble and contrite before the British public. I give you ten out of ten for standing up the Miliband but only 3 for the apology. I say the latter because according to Sky News while you reduced the percentage of those who thought you were politically damaged by the scandal by some eight points there were still 46% of those voting who remained critical when collation of the responses ceased to be shown.
As I have previously written I do not know how you came to make the Coulson appointment and I have admired you acceptance of accountability and your willingness to stand or fall alone as a consequence. I had read the tittle-tattle that it was George who suggested the move to you so I was not surprised when Rebeckah took the opportunity of her political and media trial on Tuesday to say it was George and that she had been told of the approach by Andy. “I think it is a matter of public knowledge that it was the Chancellor George Osborn’s idea that when Andy Coulson left the News of the World they should start discussions with him on whether he would be an appropriate person to go into Tory HQ. The first time I heard of him being approached was from Andy Coulson and not from the Prime Minister.”
It is not yet certain if someone from the Opposition will soon press George to reveal who put the idea to him or leave the issue to the Judicial Inquiry when a connection with the Murdoch empire will be pushed, even if someone suggested to someone who had influence with George because they knew he had influence with you.
The other associated issue which remains unanswered is why you did not insist to have Andy positively vetted as has been custom and practice before admission to the corridors of power at Number 10? The failure to disclose the name of the independent company who undertook background checks also gives the impression that you have something to hide. I understand the Opposition Leader is continuing to press this aspect. Having embraced transparency I suggest you will need to provide information soon rather than await the judicial inquiry.
I appreciate the point you made about looking for conspiracies when in reality it was just a series of coincidences and misunderstanding but you have got to admit it looked bad with former Assistant Police Commissioner Hayman getting a job as a journalist with one Murdoch paper and former Director of Public Prosecutions being asked to provide Council Opinion and to write articles, admittedly for other newspapers as well as those of News International. Everyone agrees that Hayman was awful and embarrassing in his appearance before the committee and while Lord Macdonald did reveal the kind of money he was getting for the writing, he should have told the Members of the Commons the amount he was paid from News Corp to dispel the widely held belief that James Murdoch, on advice, was sloshing money around to keep the scale of the illegality from being properly known investigated for as long as he could. I know James has strongly denied this allegation.
And then of course there were the bombshells that former deputy News of the World editor, Neil Wallis, was paid £1000 a day to give advice to Commissioner Stephenson and co, contracted by the Met Communications Director on advice from Neil’s friend Assistant Commissioner Yates and that Wallis had also been at Number 10 and elsewhere giving advice to Andy. I appreciate that the former Commissioner has explained the nature of his friendship and involvement with the employment of Neil and that he only acted as a post box in passing on the successful application of the Neil’s daughter for a job with the Met.
I know that everyone seems to have their own angle and agenda with claims and counter claims about integrity and openness flying around into the public domain. I have been impressed by the approach of Mark Lewis, now Solicitor Advocate at Taylor Hampston who explained that he was the first person to lose his job two years ago when his then firm gave him an hour to decide if he was willing to give up involvement or be sacked. He was under threat of an injunction from News International to stop him talking out but they withdrew the threat after he had given evidence to the Commons Committee in 2009.
He had also received a letter from Carter- Rock Solicitors, threatening to sue him on behalf of then Assistant Commissioner Yates. Mr Lewis corrected himself to say the letter was in effect a warning off just as he was aware similar letters had been sent to the Guardian Newspaper and Chris Bryant and he queried whether the action had been constitutional because it had been paid for by the Metropolitan Police Authority. I have just heard from the media that the former Assistant Commissioner is suing the London Evening Standard over their reports of allegations made against him, so I am being careful to report only what other have said.
Mark Lewis also told the Common’s Committee that the chairwoman of the Press complaints Committee had suggested he had been lying to them in declaring there were 6000 victims of News of the World employed Mulcaire‘s activities. Mr Lewis said he had been set up by the Metropolitan Police in order for a speech to be made against him by the PCC Chairman at the Society of Editor’s dinner. He successfully sued Baroness Buscombe for damages although he drew attention that she was still in her job.
Did you also see the allegation of former dishonesty leading to a crucial post was separately made in the House of Lords by Lord Gilbert regarding the boss of Of- Com, and that when he challenged a Labour Minister who smiled and commented“ That was a long time ago?”
Dave, with all this going on I thought you were magnificently brave in tour second admission that you knew and accept what has to be done if Andy C is charged and prosecuted in the autumn or is shown to have intentionally misled you and others about his role or his knowledge of the illegal acquisition of information or the corruption of officers of the Metropolitan police. When you said “that would be the moment for a profound apology. In that event I can tell you that I would not fall short,” are you really committing yourself to resign as Prime Minister and Leader of the Tory Party, enabling someone like Teresa May to take over? I have to say Dave that in my judgement you will have no alternative but to resign given the nature of the warnings you received when first making the appointment and then in bringing him into 10 Downing Street.
Did you hear what happened Sky News on Wednesday when it was reported that Chris Bryant M.P, had revealed that officials at Buckingham Palace had expressed amazement that you had taken Mr Coulson on when Opposition Leader and again when he became Prime Minister? It then appeared that the Palace had confirmed the accuracy of this revelation but then there was a denial from Number 10 confirmed by a Palace statement that there had been no such expression of views. It was not really clear what been said and agreed and disagreed at the time and no more was heard subsequently.
I would not be surprised if concern had been expressed to Gordon Brown or that the issue had not been raised with you on becoming Prime Minister. Did you give the Palace the same level of assurance you have given to Parliament, I wonder? I appreciate you will have got to know Andy well having worked closely with him at all hours of the day and night seven days a week. We have seen over the past thirty years just how important and close a Director of Communications can become with a Prime Minister, first with Bernard Inghams and Mrs Thatcher and then Alistair Campbell and Mr Blair. The Communications Director is likely to be as in touch with who is briefing against who and why within the Party as the Whips, possibly more important as having a General Party Secretary and Party Chairman who are loyal and on top of their jobs when it comes to knowing what is happening in succession plotting as well as what is going on among the other lot.
I appreciate that there are those who will argue that because you are George are said to be risk takers, the offer to fall on the sword remains a great gamble rather than based on a certainty that Andy will come out of all this with his position enhanced. The confidence of your performance at the despatch box did impress me so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. This conclusion surprised me!
I assume you have studied the text of what Rebeckah had to say on Tuesday and I thought her performance was cool. Chris Bryant tells the story of when he met her with and then husband Ross Kemp at a Party Conference and she commented that she was surprised to see him there and not away on Clapham Common. I thought it was great when Chris said on camera that Ross told his wife not be such a homophobic cow. I am still to work out if Rebeckah has just been trying to fit into the way the men at the top generally behave or is naturally calculating and deliberate.
I accepted what she said about not having had direct contact with Mulcaire or Rees and the reason for her direct contact with Whittamore.
“I can say that I never paid a policeman. I have never knowingly sanctioned a payment to a police officer,” she also replied to other questions. She also explained that when she was editor the issue of illegal acquisition of information would not have arisen because “at the time it wasn’t a practice that was condoned or sanctioned at the News of the World under my editorship. She also went on to explain the system of approval for payments.
“The payment system in a newspaper-this has been discussed at length- is simply that the editor’s job is to acquire the overall budget for the paper from senior management. Once the budget is acquired, it is given to the managing editor to allocate to different departments. Each person in that department has a different level of authorization, but the final payments are authorised by the managing editor, unless there is a particular big item such as a set of photographs or something that needs to be discussed on a wider level, and then the editor will be brought in.” “I am aware the News of the World used private detectives as every newspaper in Fleet Street did” “The payments of private detectives would have gone through the managing editor’s office.”
There was only one issue from my viewpoint where I thought she was open to further questioning. This was the meeting mentioned in Channel Four news attended by the detective involved in the unsolved murder case where her memory was of a different date and that the subject in question was not raised. Much will depend on whether there was a contemporary official police record made and still available.
Having heard what her solicitor said after she had been interviewed for several hours two days beforehand I do not expect that she will be charged and prosecuted and the findings of the Judicial inquiry are more likely to be four to five years away than two to three. I would also be surprised if the position of Mr Coulson will prove different. There will be need for substantial documentary evidence for the police and DPP to bring prosecutions.
As anticipated the official purpose of your statement was to announce the names of the panel appointed to undertake the work supervised by Lord Leveson and the agreed terms of reference. Questions were still asked about its inclusiveness to ensure it covered all forms of media printed news, television news and the Internet and to cover all forms illegal information gathering. I was also pleased you covered the range of inquiries ongoing and now agreed and that the police inquiry in to the Mulcaire papers is to be increased from 45 to 60 officers. This is because of concern that at the present rate following up the core names in the Mulcaire papers it would take at least 5 years to meet everyone and investigate the implications. My understanding is the police unit is concentrating on those where there is immediate evidence of illegal action having been taken because of stories in the paper or when individuals and their solicitors make contact enquiring if they are listed in the index. This does not mean that all the proposed prosecutions will be put into abeyance. If individuals mentioned are included as evidence in a prosecution then there is the question of compensation and a strengthened case to make a civil claim, although it is also understood from what was said by the Murdoch’s and Ms Brooks that they intend to take the initiative as soon as they have evidence confirming illegal action was taken. The point also needs to be made that it possible that some of the names on the Mulcaire list were engaged or suspected of wrong doing. It should not be forgotten that the main reason for closeness between the Crime Reporters of Fleet Street and the large PR department of the Met and the media unit of other police forces is for help to catch criminals and prevent serious crimes. It has become an established way of obtaining corroborative evidence by outing the suspect on camera and enabling others with evidence against the individual to come forward. I forgot to mention that it was disclosed that nearly one in four of the Journalists working for the Met had experience working for News International.
Although impressed by your willingness to take all those questions, over 150 said by those who counted, I did feel you appeared to relish the opportunity too much and got carried away saying Gotcha at one moment and that you were enjoying yourself, understandable given the circumstances but unfortunate from any neutrals who were watching from outside the Westminster village.
As with PMQ’s those outside the village may not have appreciated just how organised and ritualistic was the questioning session and the debate, and the attacks and counter attacks were planned with back benchers having received detailed briefing of the issues to be raised if they were able to catch the eye of the Speaker or his deputy.
You will be pleased the with level of preparation from the Whips Office with the three pronged counter attack:- arguing that greater attention should now be given to famine in the Horn of Africa and to the financial crisis in Europe and the failure to agree a budget in the USA, a cue which the media went along with for 24 hours; secondly to plea that a united approach was necessary to make fundamental progress in addressing the system failures which the scandal had uncovered and that the Labour approach had become too partisan; and then hypocritically to remind that for every Labour accusation a similar claim could be made against them, given that they were in Government throughout the whole period of the worst criminality and excesses.
I noted the attempt to suggest the government of the day must have known because the DPP would have briefed the Attorney General of the scale of information in the Mulcaire papers which brings me to what remains the main criticism of News Corp and International, against the Metropolitan the police and the national politicians, the involvement, directly and indirectly in a cover up.
I will deal with the cover up allegations in relation to News Corp and International and the police in my separate letters. Several Conservative Members argued that the Labour Government had the opportunity to have acted because of the individual and accumulative developments especially following the report of the Information Commissioner, What Price Privacy, the unlawful trade in confidential information published by the House of Commons in May 2006 and which included the findings of Operation Motorman. It was former Home Secretaries Jack Straw and Alan Johnson who were left to counter the accusation that they had missed opportunity. Mr Brown after the mauling his intervention provoked stayed out of the chamber this time. The suggestion is that action was not taken because of the closeness with the Murdoch’s and fear of what they could do they were upset.
The closeness between the politicians and the media was the other main thrust and counter thrust of the debate and questioning. I thought Dave that you remained vulnerable although the Opposition failed to concentrate attention in the most effective way. Their main argument was that given the number of meetings, many back door or social, with the Murdoch’s and Rebeckah and your closeness with Andy it would be amazing if the subject of the Take Over did not come up. I thought you answered this effectively making the point that responsibility was passed between Ministers and that you had no direct contact with the Culture and Media Minister about his decision and that the Cabinet Secretary has confirmed that you had not broken the Ministerial Code. It was interesting that Rebeckah used the same form of words to emphasise that there had not been inappropriate discussion. It was left to the Culture secretary to stir the pot again at the end of his summing up when he declared “The discussions that the Prime Minister had about the BskyB deal were irrelevant” Coming so late in the debate of some five hours the Labour Members were livid at this apparent admission suggesting that it was for Parliament to decide if the discussions were irrelevant and appropriate.
My point is to ask if at any point you discussed the July 9th 2009 Guardian article and all the consequential articles that followed, especially after the release of documentation to the police and the launching of the 2010 Police investigation? What discussion took place with Andy Coulson on the subject before he left and what discussions then took place when he stayed over at Chequers three months later?
This brings me to the latest development the challenge to what James Murdoch said to the Commons Committee on the for Neville email which disclosed the greater extent of illegality that had previously occurred and which came to light during the Gordon Taylor claim for damages and its settlement. As you know Dave, James Murdoch explained to the Committee that the reason for the payment had been the legal advice that if the claim was contested the total cost would exceed £1 million so a payment significantly less than that was made and not in order to cover up the scale and nature of the wrong doing that was exposed. Obviously once when the Mosley case judgement was for £60000 comparison payment were then adjusted.
Tom Watson one of the two Members of Parliament who have continued to press for answers to the questions that have arisen over several years asked if James Murdoch had sight of the for Neville email which referred to evidence arising in the Gordon Taylor case which indicated there was evidence of greater illegality and wrongdoing than that covered in the claim. He replied that he had not but then yesterday evening the former editor of the News of the World and the chief legal officer at the News of the World combined to say that they were aware that James had been advised. This headlined several newspapers this morning and resulted in a statement from James saying that he had nothing to add to the statement made at the meeting with the Commons Committee.
It is understood that the chairman of the Commons Committee has already written to James seeking clarification as well as raising a number of other questions. There have been calls for the Committee to reconvene and for James to be summoned and I noted that in your statement this lunchtime you also appeared to be saying that he will have to reappear at some point and explain himself to Parliament. Should proof arise that James had knowledge in 2008 when the email is dated then he could be declared guilty with any others who were aware of the extent of wrong doing, such as the emails held by the British Lawyers for four years. There is the possibility of charges of perverting the course of justice and which if successfully prosecuted could lead to the Murdoch’s losing their 39% of continuing involvement in BskyB as well as in News International UK newspapers.
Before this latest development I was moving to the situation when I would not be surprised if the police and the subsequent judicial inquiry concluded that because of the way News International and News Corporation are organised and because of their system of delegations and distribution of authorities, together with their management of corporate governance issues that Rebeckah Brooks and Andy Coulson had no knowledge or direct responsibilities for any illegal activities conducted within the organisation or undertaken on behalf of the organisation at the time they were committed. This therefore was also the position of the Murdoch’s. The question was when each of the four individuals and others within the organisation became aware of the illegal activity and what did them then do about it. Three, excluding Coulson who was not interviewed this week in public, were emphatic in the denial of their knowledge until recently. This also seemed highly likely to me. The organisations had been structured so they would not know.
I go back to what I have previously written about the session I attended with the European research manager of the 3 M Corporation in 1984. My understanding is that 3M was then and since organised on similar lines to News International and News Corps.
According to the latest figures 3 M’s had an annual revenue of $27 billion from production units in 30 countries and 70000 employees and News Corporation had a revenue of $32 billion with 51000 employees in as many if not more countries and where as with 3M’s there was management by exception with high levels of decentralization to each operational unit who were allocated budgets and staffing levels together with profit expectation annually. There will be central management information systems keeping an eye on profitability and other central services including corporate governance.
I wrote before that it was the European Research Director of 3M’s who explained the commercial value of creative operatives to the organisation but warned of the risks when individuals crossed the line including to need to be able to closely monitor their activities and to plan to take steps to remove individuals from direct or indirect employment, and indeed if possible to make it difficult to trace their direct involvement.
I also explained that in the 1980’s we had moved into the era where those with creative leadership qualities were finding themselves not just members of executive management teams but in the role of managing directors and chairmen and that while such individuals could achieve remarkable results for an organisation there was also a considerable potential downside when the commercial viability of the enterprise could be at risk. It was recommended that if the chairman was a creative leader then it was essential to have a classically balanced and steadfast managing director and vive versa and that the risks increased where a creative combined the roles of chairman and managing director/chief executive. I suggest Dave that if the government wants to understand what is likely to have happened within News Corp and at News International there is need to examine their Management Training, their hiring and firing practices and the use of creatives, especially in the acquisition of news stories in an extremely competitive situation where survival is dependent on advertising revenue which in turn in dependent on sales.
So Dave I decided that you did come out on top on Wednesday but I suggest you should have a good summer holiday as you are going to need all your survival skills next Parliamentary session, if not beforehand.
No comments:
Post a Comment