Sun Brittan Police Attack Busted

As the right-leaning part of the Fourth Estate refuse to drop their plainly ridiculous idea that Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson has been “pressuring” Police and prosecutors into going on “witch-hunts”, the Murdoch Sun has opened up a new front in their offensive, where the Police become the targets, as well as the MP. “COWARDLY COVER-UP … Cops feared fury if they dropped Brittan case” screams today’s front page splash.

The line taken by the article can be put very simply (it is, after all, the Sun we’re talking about here): the Met is accused of knowing that the historical allegation of rape made against Leon Brittan was false, yet said nothing until after his death. This was because they were frightened of the press reaction if the case had been dropped earlier. That, though, depends on highly selective use of the available evidence.

We know this because the statement by the Met has been made available for anyone to view (read it HERE). And it shows not that the Met was scared of the press, but that the force was making sure that, on this occasion, they got the decision not to charge absolutely right - because there had been a number of allegations that they had not done so in the past where high-profile figures had been concerned.

Here’s how the Sun piece begins: “POLICE yesterday admitted letting innocent Tory peer Lord Brittan die with a false rape claim hanging over him because they feared looking bad if the case was dropped”. Wrong. Enquiries had not concluded at the time of Brittan’s death. And the claim did not meet the necessary criteria for a prosecution to be taken forward - that does not translate as “false”.

Have another go: “They failed to tell Lord Brittan two inquiries had found no evidence. Despite that, they were still trying to get the Crown Prosecution Service to take an interest”. Wrong again: the evidence did not meet the charging criteria. That’s not the same as “no evidence”. And they were not “trying to get the CPS to take an interest”. All that had been done was that the Met asked the CPS to review - to make absolutely sure.

Do we get a Tom Watson accusation? We certainly do: “The Met backtracked on a decision not to question Leon Brittan on the claim two days after it emerged that Labour’s Tom Watson had written to Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders voicing concern about the investigation”. There was no backtracking: the Met was already reviewing the case when media reports of Watson’s interest surfaced.

And on goes the Sun: “By November the Met knew there was insufficient evidence to charge. But even after Crown lawyers declined to consider a file sent that month, the Met tried to appeal”. They still did not know there was insufficient evidence, and they asked for a review. Why the paper should produce such a wilfully slanted piece of copy - one hates to call it journalism - and claimed a cover-up where none existed appears mystifying.

But then, the Sun’s former political editor George Pascoe Watson once told Tom Watson “My editor will pursue you for the rest of your life … She will never forgive you for what you did to Tony”. One has to wonder who is really in charge at the Sun these days - that former editor (Rebekah Brooks) or the current one (Tony Gallagher). I’ll just leave that one there.