As the Old Bailey trial of seven former faithful Murdoch
retainers, along with Rebekah Brooks’ husband Charlie, goes through the legal
arguments and jury selection is completed, reporting restrictions mean that
what can be said about the case – without prejudicing the right of the
defendants to a fair trial – is limited. So some are looking for other ways to
get attention out of the proceedings.
Another edition of Let's Blame Brian
Most inventive of today’s efforts, and singularly dishonest,
is that from the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his obedient rabble at
the Guido Fawkes blog, who have cobbled together a story titled “Cops
Trying to Remove Private Eye From Shops”, which they are not. This is
then associated with the Hacked Off campaign
group, demonstrating the creative fraudulence of the Fawkes folks.
So what is actually happening? Well, the Police, seeing that
the latest issue of the Eye features
a photo of Rebekah Brooks, who after all is one of the defendants, have
approached a vendor at the kiosk outside Farringdon Station – close to the Old
Bailey – and asked him to take down (note form of words) the
several copies of the Eye he had on
display.
So the Fawkes rabble has one
shop, and an attempt not to remove the magazine, but not to display its cover
to passers-by. That is not the same thing.
But it is interesting that Staines and his gofers are happy to garner interest
by discussing a publication whose very existence induces such anguish in them.
Then, in closing, they ask “Anyone a
little hacked off by all this?”
It clearly still rankles with them that their effort to
gatecrash the Hacked Off party at
Steve Coogan’s house near Brighton – which took place on the Monday of the
Labour Party conference – was such a
spectacular flop, and that they were therefore unable to find out just who
had turned up. So there were no names for them to report back to their new
bosses in the press.
Hacked Off had
nothing to do with what happened at the news kiosk outside Farringdon Station.
That has not stopped Staines’ tame gofer, the flannelled fool Henry Cole, from
taking to Twitter to assert “Journos in
bail limbo, state smashing up laptops, plain clothes coppers saying you can’t
sell mags. Welcome to Cathcart’s brave new world”. Hacked Off had nothing to do with any of that, either.
What Hacked Off does
have something to do with is representing the victims of press misbehaviour.
Staines and Cole know this. So it’s good of them to confirm that they are all
in favour of the cruel and vicious treatment of the McCanns, the Dowlers,
Christopher Jefferies and all the others. Seeing a campaign group battling
against such callous cruelty must cause the Fawkes folks intense discomfort.
About time The Great Guido felt a little discomfort. Another fine mess, once more.
Apparently Mensch, Piers Morgan et all have all been frothing at the mouth over this, wanting to know why Ian Hislop isn't being done for contempt of court. Apparently freedom of expression only works one way...
ReplyDeletenot much of a guido story, eh? evidence? a lone vendor fingers the bill fingering him. officers unidentified surely? otherwise staines or one of his pondlife would be hammering at the door of inspector knacker with some searching questions, all the time waving ID's about.
ReplyDeletestaines, old chap. why don't you take yourself off down the pub and get suitably refreshed while waiting for more evidence of the fuzz nobbling vendors? that way you might get a f***ing story you can actually stand up.
Not sure your article isn't as much an attempt at misinformation as the original Fawkes piece.
ReplyDeleteThe police shouldn't have done what they did. They have no role in contempt proceedings, beyond perhaps investigation. The Met tells us they acted after the intervention of "other parties"...
I've never known of coppers to do this before - are you honestly arguing that the Leveson Inquiry had nothing to do with this? Oh, yes, you are. But it does, if more tangentially than in the overwritten order-order.com blog.
"...... are you honestly arguing that the Leveson Inquiry had nothing to do with this? Oh, yes, you are. But it does, if more tangentially than in the overwritten order-order.com blog."
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could explain why this incident has something to do with the Leveson Inquiry? Leveson did not recommend that the police should have any new powers to interfere with the press nor recommend that they use any existing powers more often. He could have done; but he didn't. He could have recommended that the police warn the press when they make inappropriate comments about people being questioned or investigated by the police; but he didn't. Leveson left it up to the individuals concerned to make post-hoc complaints to a complaints' commission that would be more independent than the present one. So far it has been about the relationship between the press and individuals, and not about the relationship between the press and the state. So far. We have to wait and see what the trial reveals about that relationship and whether there is then the promised second part of the Inquiry. The press seem to have been getting their retaliation in in advance, because they know that so far only a small part of this can of worms has been examined.
Staines of course was the main proponent of the narrative that "this isn't a story" and he insisted that Coulson would not resign as Cameron's spin-doctor. Well here they are in court. His head must be spinning.
Guano