Top Six – December 22

So what’s hot, and what’s not, in the past week’s blogging? Here are the six most popular posts on Zelo Street for the past seven days, counting down in reverse order, because, well, I have pressies to wrap later. So there.

6 Saatchi Gets Dacred The end of the Grillo sisters’ fraud trial signalled open season on the participants. For the Daily Mail, firmly backing Team Nigella, this meant a hatchet job on Charles Saatchi. Geoffrey “Lickspittle” Levy, the journeyman gofer who did Dacre’s bidding on Ralph Miliband, did the honours.

5 Paul Dacre – Pants On Fire From the way that papers like his reported the run-up to the Royal Charter on press regulation, it might be thought that the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre was shut out of the process, while groups like Hacked Off got all the access. But only one person got one-on-one meetings with Oliver Letwin, Maria Miller and the Prime Minister – and it was him.

4 Spurs Senseless Sacking Culture Another sacking at Tottenham Hotspur FC, but this time the fans have quickly homed in on the behaviour of chairman Daniel Levy. Ten managers in 18 years won’t bring the continuity for success.

3 EXCLUSIVE We Should Be So Lucky The underhand attempt to move Crewe station out of town – without the inconvenience of asking anyone – pushed forward by Cheshire East council leader Michael Jones also had popster Pete Waterman on board. He hasn’t exactly been distinguishing himself of late.

2 So Farewell Then Ronnie Biggs An inept petty crook who had a walk-on part in the 1963 Great Train Robbery passed. Biggs was only famous because he got out of jail and went on the run, not through any other achievement.

1 Lockerbie – At Last The Facts On the 25th anniversary of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, a new investigation concurred with what Paul Foot had said so many years ago in Private Eye – that the Libyans were not involved. The new study even named the same bomber.

And that’s the end of another blogtastic week, blog pickers. Not ‘arf!

[No Top Six next Sunday – the feature will return in the New Year]

Spying Tonight

As I noted recently, the news that GCHQ in the UK and the NSA in the United States have been snooping on anyone they can target – including those one might regard as allies – has broken out beyond the deeply subversive Guardian and the other news sources that have been running material from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s trove of material.

Earlier in the month, it was Kevin Maguire at the Mirror who expressed his irritation at the spooks’ easy ride, and the deference shown their bosses by compliant and frightened politicians. Now, with the news that the Israelis – that would be another Government that we are routinely told is our friend – and EU trade officials, as well as charities, are being targeted, other papers are joining in.

And the very worst news for the spooks is that one of these is the Maily Telegraph, normally a compliant conduit for MI5 and MI6, as it was when trying to advance the idea that the Guardian’s revelations had endangered “National Security” by giving a platform to Alex Carlile, a well known GCHQ apologist. Not any more: “NSA and GCHQ targeted Israelis, charities, EU chief” readers were told today.

As Jon Swaine points out, “Latest disclosures show work of electronic spy agencies went further than monitoring terror suspects and foreign governments”, going on to tell “GCHQ and the National Security Agency (NSA) targeted groups such as Unicef, the United Nations children's charity, and Médecins du Monde, the French organisation that sends doctors into war zones”.

Another paper that has previously given the Guardian both barrels for supposedly aiding and abetting the enemy, the Daily Mail, has also run the latest news on spook related excess: “British spies targeted the Prime Minister of Israel, and other senior figures in the Israeli government, according to leaked documents ... GCHQ ... had targeted an email account belonging to Ehud Olmert while he was in office”.

There were others: “The agency, working with the American NSA, also targeted defence minister Ehud Barak and Yoni Koren, his chief of staff, according to GCHQ documents”. Barak was not surprised: he “declined to comment on the latest information, but has previously said he took it for granted that he was under surveillance”. The vice-president of the European Commission was also a target.

The EC was not impressed: “This is not the type of behaviour that we expect from strategic partners, let alone from our own member states”. Well, quite. So now the BBC, which has reported the latest developments, and the Guardian are no longer alone: the story is steadily taking hold across the fourth estate. Bad news for the “non-story” squad, and those who want the Guardian prosecuted.

Just like phone hacking, it turned out to be a real story. No surprise there, then.

Cameron’s Spectator Double Nelson

Reporting restrictions are usually imposed on court proceedings for a good reason, and the post-trial revelations from the Saatchi, Nigella and Grillo sisters bunfight at Isleworth Crown Court provided one prime example, as it was disclosed that Young Dave’s attachment to Team Nigella came perilously close to collapsing the whole thing. But the real culprit gets off scot free – again.

Wouldn't want the Speccy to end up here

“It can now be reported that David Cameron's ‘unprecedented’ public backing for Nigella Lawson during the fraud trial of her former personal assistants came close to collapsing the case because it was considered ‘an abuse of process’. The prime minister had stunned lawyers when he gave a magazine interview in the middle of the jury trial, where he described the TV chef – the key prosecution witness – as a ‘very funny and warm person’ and said he was ‘a massive fan’” tells the deeply subversive Guardian.

The article then notes that Cameron was less effusive yesterday. “In the immediate aftermath of the verdict, the prime minister was asked if he was pleased and told journalists: ‘I've probably said enough about this, so I'll take the 5th’”. One wonders why the Prime Minister was so sanguine.

After all, it was not he who had reported his partiality in the dispute, but the Spectator magazine. And the interviewer was not some wet-behind-the-ears trainee, but editor Fraser Nelson, who, one might think, knew his contempt law and would therefore leave publication until after the trial ended.

At least the Speccy’s editor thought better this time of attempting humour as a way of deflecting criticism: he has been silent on the matter. It is the great paradox with Fraser Nelson that someone who is generally sound, even if one does not agree with his politics, can on occasion be either wilfully contrarian, or get what should be basic journalistic principles so horribly wrong.

The thought occurs that the next time Cameron is inclined to do the Spectator the favour of sitting in during the Prime Ministerial car journey from Downing Street to Beaconsfield Services, he may think better of it. And that would be bad news for a right-of-centre magazine.

Saatchi Gets Dacred

After the Grillo sisters were cleared of defrauding then-married Nigella Lawson and Charles Saatchi, some papers were content just to do the straight reporting. But over at Northcliffe House, the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre had other ideas. From the start, the Daily Mail has been in Team Nigella. So today has come a slew of knocking copy which takes aim squarely at Saatchi.

What's f***ing wrong with kicking the baddies, c***?!?

When there are so many articles on one subject, it is inconceivable that Dacre would not have personally ordered his attack doggies over the top, especially when the piece de resistance has come from Geoffrey “Lickspittle” Levy, the journeyman gofer who penned the original hatchet job on Ralph Miliband. Levy brings the authentic sound of His Master’s Voice to the table.

So even the straight reporting focuses on Nigella’s plight: “Wrath of the domestic goddess: As aides are cleared of fraud, Nigella's fury at being made a ‘ridiculous sideshow’ in court” howls the headline. Then comes “Inside Nigella's toxic marriage: She was haunted by depression. He was a terrible bully driven mad by jealousy of her children. The bitter truth behind Nigella and Saatchi's marital breakdown”.

As Sir Sean nearly said, I think we got the point. Saatchi is described in turn as a bully, a control freak, bad-tempered. He disliked her children, who were banished to separate parts of the house to keep them out of his way, and would be sent on holiday with the Grillos so he could be with Nigella. All is pored over in detail. And then come the “opinion” pieces.

Bel Mooney wants us to Think About The Children: “Let’s not forget that there are three innocent victims of this excruciating marital break-up” (though not excruciating for Bel’s bank account). “The three children (still so young, so impressionable and so needy at 20, 19 and 17) of Saatchi and Nigella were dragged into the very public airing of very dirty laundry and I suspect it will haunt their lives forever”.

If only anyone at the Mail really gave a crap. And finally comes Levy’s boot in the Saatchi undercarriage: “A brutal genius who craves power even more than money: A shocking portrait of the real Charles Saatchi”, laced with quotes from “friends” and other “sources”, who are of course always “well-placed” or “long-time acquaintances”. There is nudge-nudgery in abundance.

“Now the gilded doors of his private life have burst open to reveal an unattractive seediness at the heart of truly endless opulence ... This need for recognition is the paradox of Charles Saatchi”. He was manipulative, of his wife as he was in the world of art. You get the picture: this is the baddie. At this point, readers should start to boo and hiss. This is now the established wisdom. Because Dacre says so.

Why all the coverage? Celebrity divorce sells papers. That’s all Dacre cares about.

Rob Wilson, You’re A Clown

Fred Scuttle lookalike and nominally Tory MP for Reading East Rob Wilson and his pals at the Daily Mail are not happy today: after all the thunderous condemnation, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) has declined to pursue any complaint of wrongdoing against David Sherborne and Carine Patry Hoskins, who were both involved in or around the Leveson Inquiry, and who subsequently started a relationship.

Has anyone in Reading East seen this man?

Wilson, who had invested much of his remaining credibility in this latest exercise in self-promotion, was not happy with the outcome: “This whole process has been nothing other than a complete whitewash ... I have had little confidence in the Bar Standards Board’s handling of this matter from the start, but there were no other avenues to pursue the truth”. And, as the man said, there’s more.

“I asked the Bar Standards Board to investigate in April on becoming aware of concerns about the implications of this relationship for the inquiry report and Lord Justice Leveson’s strange unwillingness to look into the matter himself ... Having taken seven months to investigate, the board has published a single page letter dismissing the complaint, which still leaves obvious questions begging”.

And I have to agree with Wilson on that last point: there are indeed questions to be answered, such as why he devotes so much time to leaking stories to the press and doing their bidding while he is supposed to be a full-time Member of Parliament, for which he is paid out of public funds. Moreover, Leveson did look into the matter, and replied to Wilson, detailing his findings.

That those findings were not what Wilson would have liked to hear is immaterial as to their veracity. Worse for the MP, there is only one paper that is prepared to weigh in on his behalf, and to no surprise at all it is the Daily Mail, with an editorial that is as righteous as it is unintentionally hilarious. Under the heading “Legal Hypocrites”, the BSB is excoriated as “supine” (so not like the PCC, then).

“Yesterday, under cover of the Woolwich verdict, the Bar Standards Board slipped out an announcement that David Sherborne and Carine Patry Hoskins – two lawyers on opposing sides during the Leveson Inquiry who had a secret affair – had been cleared of wrongdoing. The BSB did not bother to establish a disciplinary tribunal ... It simply released a contemptuous two-paragraph statement”.

The editorial continues “Lawyers queued up to declare self-regulation of the newspaper industry a failure, and back Leveson’s call for statutory ‘independent’ regulation of the Press ... Yet, when it comes to their own failures and scandals, they know they can rely on a supine BSB – staffed by, you guessed it, lawyers”. What was that about only those with press experience being able to regulate the press?

What colour is the pot, Dacre kettles? Hypocrites is right – that would be you.

Paul Dacre – Pants On Fire

In the narrative which his paper has helped to fashion, the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre and his fellow editors were stitched up by a late night meeting in the office of Mil The Younger, where Hugh Grant personally supervised the writing of a dastardly Royal Charter designed to forever shackle the press, and to which Evan Harris delivered pizza and other game-changing inducements.

Who're you f***ing calling a liar, c***?!?

Now, this may suit the Vagina Monologue and those who worship his particular brand of bullying and righteous moralising, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that it is total crap. One or more representatives from Hacked Off met all manner of people connected with implementation of the Leveson recommendations – but so did Dacre. The difference is that he got the one-on-one meetings.

You think I jest? Thanks to the investigative nous of Martin Moore from the Media Standards Trust (MST), and parliamentary transparency, we can see just who met whom in that crucial period between New Year 2013 and the finalising of the Royal Charter in March. The MST asked Lord Black of Brentwood to make details of his meetings public. This request was refused.

Why this might be is now clear: Black met with Oliver Letwin on eleven occasions in the run-up to the drafting of the Royal Charter. He met Maria Miller on nine further occasions. And he met Young Dave. Other regular meeting attendees were Peter Wright of Associated Newspapers (the Rothermere press), John Witherow of News International, and Black’s fellow Tory peer Lord Hunt.

But the one name that leaps from the page – simply because he was given sole access to all the Ministers involved – is Paul Dacre. In February this year, he was granted one-on-one meetings with Letwin, Ms Miller, and the Prime Minister. He was the only participant to be afforded this privilege. Dacre had a second meeting with Letwin, but was accompanied by Wright.

Yes, Hacked Off met all of those ministers, and as a group representing the victims of press intrusion, they were fully entitled to make the case on their behalf. But they attended as a group: Dacre was accorded a more special status. But, were you to read the paper he edits, the only ones meeting the Ministers were Hacked Off, and the Royal Charter supposedly had input only from them.

The reality is the Paul Dacre has been playing the victimhood card for too long. He and his press pals had more than sufficient opportunity to lobby Ministers. The sole reason for perpetuating the “Midnight Pizza” narrative is just another part of the attempt to avoid press regulation that is both independent and effective. For Dacre, not being able to bend the regulator to his will cannot be permitted.

As a result, the Vagina Monologue’s trousers are well alight. No change there, then.

Hacking Trial – A Right Royal Revelation

The so-called Phone Hacking Trial has now started its Christmas break, and will not reconvene until the first Monday in January, which will at least give crowdsourced live Tweeter Peter Jukes an opportunity to rest his fingers before the next assault on their fabric. So what more do we know? Most of that is about the sheer scale of hacking and tapping, and the people it affected.

This blog is not going to pore over the details of individual messages – the victims have had quite enough exposure from the court case, thanks very much – as the roll-call of names is quite enough to get a feel for the industrial nature: yesterday it was confirmed that Prince Harry, and especially the future Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, were repeatedly hacked.

All was apparently in relentless pursuit of serving up more exclusives to persuade the punters to maintain the circulation of the now-defunct Screws. Former Royal reporter Clive Goodman is there in the dock, maintaining his not guilty plea, yet he retained Glenn Mulcaire to provide information which appears to have come solely from phone hacking. That is an interesting position.

Yet more interesting is that Stuart Kuttner, former managing editor of the Screws, did not recognise one of his own emails when questioned by Police, although, in fairness to him, he has been in poor health in recent years. Kuttner is the one who lost his rag with Nick Davies live on air over the subject of “The Dark Arts”. This outburst convinced Davies that he should investigate further.

But most fascinating of all has been the behaviour of the other two senior News International staff – Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks. They sat in the editor’s chair, he of the Screws, she also at the Sun, and yet they knew nothing about all the illegal actions. This is the basis for their defence. Other staff would have dealt with how stories were sourced. Not them.

Indeed, Coulson did not even come out to bat when first questioned, maintaining an unequivocal “no comment” to all questions. Ms Brooks seems to have devoted much of her editorship to ensuring her staff complied with the PCC code of conduct, a fascinating defence. Whether either of them, or any of the others, is summoned to give evidence may also prove interesting.

And what is equally absorbing is the way in which this trial is being reported: while the Daily Mail is keeping quiet, everyone else outside the Murdoch playground is running the story, although the BBC has swiftly relegated it to a position where one has to search for it. That is important: we should all be informed about this case. Because this informs the wider debate about press behaviour.

We will find out much more about that behaviour in the New Year.

Glenn Greenwald Should Ignore Tories

And still no staff from the deeply subversive Guardian have been hauled off to the Tower: this is clearly frustrating those, mainly in the Tory Party and its press allies, who dearly want it to happen but are unable to demonstrate that journalism is equal to terrorism. But still they try, and MEP Tim Kirkhope took his turn yesterday in an inquisition of Glenn Greenwald.

Sadly, Kirkhope saw a straight bat deployed to his attempt to get answers that he did not need to know. Greenwald was not about to tell him who got the materials from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, when they got them, and what may, or may not, have been moved from one source to another. We know this as the questioning was taped, and this answer has been transcribed.

A sundry idiot plays Let's Pretend ...

This did not detain terminally stupid Tory MP Julian Smith, who has, as I’ve previously observed, already come up short in a memorable Channel 4 News interview. “So @ggreenwald confirms to @timkirkhopemep that @guardian gave him files he didn’t originally have” he announced.

... and, talking of sundry idiots playing Let's Pretend

And right on cue came Smith’s remote controller Louise Mensch with “Greenwald confirming today that @arusbridger shipped him the GCHQ documents, he didn’t already have them. So Rusbridger lied to Parliament?” to which the answer was, as so often with Ms Mensch, no and no.

Greenwald was not happy: “Not that it’s unusual, but this is a case of a British Tory MP outright lying” he noted on Smith’s claim, while on the Mensch claim he asked “Why do people think the internet lets them fabricate claims that are blatantly false and spew them as fact?” to which the answer is, well, it works in The Little World Of Louise Mensch.

One commenter replied to Greenwald’s question with “Hardly fair to blame the internet for Louise Mensch”, and in this she is right, as can be seen from the welter of creative Tweets Ms Mensch generated around the same time, including the preposterous idea that David Miranda was carrying documents from the Guardian when he was detained at Heathrow Airport.

Me, me, me, it's all about ... ME!

This is complete crap: Miranda was in transit from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro, neither of which are the sites of Guardian offices. He had been visiting Laura Poitras, another journalist whom Ms Mensch has previously railed against. And, just in case anyone lost sight of what this is about, all this attention seeking from Smith and his Stateside pal has got them nowhere. No arrests. No charges. Nothing.

That’s because they are not credible, and the Police deal in real evidence, not the grandstanding of idiots. Glenn Greenwald should ignore them. End of story.

Cameron Parliament Act Hype Fail

[Update at end of post]

Every so often a paper or website comes out with a piece that is not immediately followed up by other sources, for the simple reason that it has been deliberately placed, using a compliant conduit to make a point, deliver the required message. Standing out like the proverbial sore thumb today is the Maily Telegraph, with “David Cameron prepares 'nuclear option' on EU referendum”.

What might this mean? “David Cameron is preparing to use the Parliament Act for the first time in a decade in order to force the EU Referendum Bill into law before the next election, the Telegraph has learnt”. Note that the Tel hasn’t been told, or informed, and has not heard this expertly tailored flannel, clearly calculated to win back voters from UKIP and cheer the dwindling band of Tory activists.

But perhaps Matthew Holehouse, lead author of this magnificent piece of churnalism, can name one MP or party official prepared to put their name to it? One jests: all is couched in suitably off-the-record terms as readers are told “Mr Cameron unveiled the plans at a meeting of the Tory backbench 1922 committee”. This is then relayed to the Tel by “One MP present at the meeting”.

“The Prime Minister is showing that he means business and that he will get it on the statute books ... It shows that they really, really want it to happen. It also shows the Lords that they can’t mess with it ... That wasn’t expected. It is significant and means that the bill will be on the statute [books] before the next election”. The only surprise is that this mystery MP didn’t finish with “so vote Tory”.

Where the Telegraph gives the game away is partly by confirming that it’s a UKIP bashing piece: Young Dave is quoted as saying “They want to destroy the Conservative Party. They are not a friendly bunch that we can walk into coalition with. They want to take your constituencies and your voters”. Well, this is what he was “understood” to have said.

And partly it is that Holehouse ignores the gaping hole in his own logic: there’s stuff all point invoking the Parliament Act to short-circuit the Lords out of it if you can’t get it through the Commons in the first place. Someone at the Tel has forgotten that the Tories do not command a majority there. Not all Tories subscribe to the referendum paranoia that has taken hold in the party.

As with the spooks getting their copy into the public domain on the Snowden revelations, the former paper of record has allowed itself to be manipulated, this time by frightened Tories, who have instead broadcast to anyone who needs to know that the party is once again obsessing and fracturing over Europe, the issue that did for Margaret Thatcher, and hobbled “Shagger” Major.

And it won’t do UKIP any harm at all. Hardly worth their while bothering, then.

[UPDATE 21 December 1150 hours: backing up the Tel's dubiously sourced piece has come a post to the bear pit that is Telegraph blogs from our old friend Dan, Dan The Oratory Man. Hannan is almost beside himself with enthusiasm as he tells "This changes everything: David Cameron will ram the In/Out referendum through using the Parliament Act".

His only citation, to no surprise, is Matthew Holehouse's article. But he's sure of his ground: "It would be outrageous for Eurozealous Lib-Lab peers to talk out a proposal for which there is overwhelming popular support". So it's about getting some of those disgruntled voters back, and Hannan then confirms that it's really all about seeing off UKIP.

"Oddly, though, the loudest UKIP supporters - those who comment most frequently on Twitter, and who will doubtless be in full voice in the comment thread below - are still not satisfied". Yeah, those commenters are wrong, and it's another of those rotten Twitter campaigns that are only right when Dan says so.

Hannan looks to rally the troops, but ends up effectively admitting that his party is shipping support to Nigel "Thirsty" Farage, it can't do anything to persuade those voters to come back, and the Tories' membership is at rock bottom. Hardly worth his while sounding off in the first place, was it?]

Ronnie Biggs – Mail Clueless

When the death of Ronnie Biggs, the inept small-time crook who had a walk-on part in the 1963 Great Train Robbery, was announced, it came too late for yesterday’s papers. So today the obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre has tried to make amends with a piece by Geoffrey Wansell. This is, fittingly, as incompetent as Biggs’ contribution to the robbery.

The locomotive that hauled the mail train, seen in 1967 at Willesden depot, London. Photo (c) Grahame Wareham

“Ronnie Biggs, a serial crook who may well have killed the Royal Mail train driver, gave two fingers to justice. So why did so many treat him as a lovable rogue?” thunders the headline, which sets the scene. Driver Jack Mills of Crewe was not coshed by Biggs, who was with the replacement driver. And he died not from his head wound, but from leukaemia.

But the Mail gets one point spot on: “Biggs was nothing but a small-time felon who made his 15 minutes of fame last an astonishing 36 years by escaping from prison and a 30-year sentence”. Sadly, this is a small nugget in a whole pile of steaming bullshit, as readers get “Some unconfirmed reports suggest it was Biggs himself who hit Mills with an iron bar”. He wasn’t even on the footplate.

The Daily Mail version: wrong loco, wrong train

It gets worse: an archive photo of Bridego Bridge, where the robbers unloaded their haul from the train, is captioned “Scene: The train parked on an embankment in Buckinghamshire in the aftermath of the robbery”. Sadly, it is not the mail train, but a passenger train. And the locomotive, although of the same type, is an earlier example with headcode discs (that’s basic enthusiast stuff, folks).

The amateurish tone is maintained with “amber and red signals”. Oh dear: on the Railway, there are Red and Green as with traffic lights, but a warning or caution aspect is Yellow. Another nerdy point, but a fail nevertheless. Then we get “It was subsequently estimated that, in fact, the gang’s haul was nearer £7 million”. That’s just making it up. The £2.6 million figure is what they stole.

But do go on. “The gang had based themselves at Leatherslade Farm nearby and planned to hide there for a month after the robbery”. Wrong. A week. And somehow, Biggs’ real failing – that he recruited a replacement train driver who had never sat in the left-hand seat of the locomotive type used, and couldn’t move it – manages to elude Wansell. But the Mail does have its usual coda to add.

Yes, it’s all the BBC’s fault. How so? This is because a two-part drama based on the events was due to be screened this week. So as a last feeble act of attention seeking, the hated Beeb is accused of glamorising the robbery, which it did not. It’s only a pity that, not for the first time, the Mail devotes its vast resources not to getting the facts right, but fitting them to Paul Dacre’s warped view of reality.

Still, it makes an easy fisk of a morning. No change there, then.

Forced Caesarean – Careful What You Ask For

After the serially dishonest Christopher Booker was once again caught with trousers well alight as he tried to fashion the case of the Italian woman who was sectioned under the Mental Health Act, and whose baby was delivered by Caesarean Section and then taken into care, to his liking, another paper has been caught telling blatant whoppers about the case, this time the Daily Mail.

Bad news for both of them

“Explain why you snatched baby girl at birth: Judge's order to social workers behind forced caesarean ... Sir James Munby has demanded answers in extraordinary case ... The child was taken from the 35-year-old Italian in forced caesarean ... The case shines light on murky secrecy of Court of Protection” thundered the obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre.

There is only one conclusion any reader could take from these headings, and the body of the piece, which continues with “Social workers who made a mother give up her baby after a forced caesarean must explain themselves to Britain’s top family judge. In a highly unusual intervention, Sir James Munby has demanded to know why the girl should not be reunited with her mother, a 35-year-old Italian”.

The Mail even managed to ambush Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty in their quest for quotable sources. But the deeply subversive Guardian has made the real revelation, courtesy of Joshua Rozenberg, who told that Sir James Munby “singled out for criticism a report in the Daily Mail on 3 December, which claimed he had ‘demanded to know [from social workers] why the girl should not be reunited with her mother’”.

Munby went on: “All I had done was to direct that any further application was to be heard by me. In other words, if any application was made, either in the court of protection or in the family court, I would hear it. That was all. Unhappily this canard has been much repeated in the media”. But he did say one thing which will please some hacks, although not Booker.

When Booker’s first article was published “none of the relevant information was in the public domain in this country ... How can the family justice system blame the media for inaccuracy in the reporting of family cases if for whatever reason none of the relevant information has been put before the public?” and thus the problem for the next time there is a controversial case of this kind.

Christopher Booker was able to attack the Court of Protection for its secrecy because ... it was secret! He was able to peddle his variously selective and dishonest account unchallenged because the full story had not been revealed. As soon as the judgment was made public, Booker was shot to pieces. If he gets the openness he pretends he wants, he’ll get shot to pieces that much quicker.

Be careful what you ask for, press people. You might just get it.

Spurs Senseless Sacking Culture

[Update at end of post]

After Tottenham Hotspurs chairman Daniel Levy summoned the club’s manager André Villas-Boas to a meeting on Monday morning, few were surprised when the result of that encounter was that Villas-Boas became the latest Spurs manager to get the sack. The club had just been trounced 5-0 at home by Liverpool, and the previous month had brought a 6-0 drubbing by Manchester City.

I'll get my coat (Photo (c) PA)

So there was the customary recollection of the Portuguese’ brief managerial career: his reputation was said to hinge only on one good season at FC Porto, and the Primeira Liga talked of in unfavourable terms. Well, Villas-Boas’ one-time mentor and predecessor at the Estadio do Dragão, José Mourinho, was only there two and a half seasons, and he hasn’t done too badly since.

Moreover, Porto was not Villas Boas’ first managerial post: that was at Adadémica de Coimbra, where he rescued the team from a winless position at the foot of the table and guided them to safety. And when you look at his record at Spurs, especially when compared to some of the club’s supposedly best recent managers, he comes out comfortably above them all.

Of those who have managed more than two seasons at White Hart Lane lately, George Graham managed a win percentage of 33.67, Glenn Hoddle – who is being touted as a replacement boss – achieved 35.96, Gerry Francis a slightly better 36.13, and Martin Jol 41.59. This was comfortably exceeded by Harry Redknapp with 49.31 and Villas Boas with 53.70, and for this they both got the sack.

All of which brings us to Levy, who is now coming under the spotlight for a number of his decisions, not least that of employing a Director of Football, because they do it on the continent. One can only imagine what the likes of Alex Ferguson would have made of such a move, and not having anyone in that role didn’t stop Man United racking up all that silverware during his tenure.

There will be other questions: whose choice were all the players brought in during the close season, after Gareth Bale went to Real Madrid, generating a reported £85 million? If Director of Football Franco Baldini was behind those moves, why is he still in post? And why is the managerial merry-go-round not generating any trophies for a club that has won nothing in the past five seasons?

Whoever succeeds Villas-Boas will be Spurs’ eighth manager in 12 seasons. During that time, their bitter North London rivals Arsenal have had just one. And they have done rather better: in fact, the Gunners right now sit at the top of the Premiership table. Man United have only got a second in that period because Ferguson retired. The only other Premiership winners came through having money thrown at them.

And while Spurs offer neither continuity nor megabucks, they won’t join them.

[UPDATE 19 December 1300 hours: it seems my question as to who chose all those new players that arrived at Spurs in the close season was near the mark. The Mail has claimed that Villas-Boas did not want four of them, and was overruled by Levy and Baldini, making the sacking an even more dubious business.

Added to all that is the strange decision by caretaker boss Tim Sherwood to change the style of play for last night's League Cup quarter final against West Ham, only to see it backfire as his team conceded twice in the last ten minutes and lost. Sherwood appeared all at sea afterwards, and isn't even sure if he will be in charge when the team play their next Premiership tie.

In the circumstances, Spurs have little to blame their outgoing manager for, and everything to lay at the door of their chairman]

So Farewell Then Ronnie Biggs

More than fifty years after he had a walk-on part in The Great Train Robbery, the name of Ronnie Biggs still held a certain cachet for the press. Quite why this should be is mystifying: Biggs, who has passed at the age of 84, had very little to do with the robbery except to recruit a replacement train driver. In this he was exceptionally inept. But he was banged up with the others, and thus the legend.

What Ronnie Biggs' driver couldn't move: the mail train locomotive was similar to D200, seen at the National Rail Museum. All 135 tonnes of it

So Biggs was not involved with the selection of the train, the 1850 hours Travelling Post Office (TPO) from Glasgow Central to London Euston, which had in its consist a High Value Packages (HVP) coach. The HVP vehicle would normally have been carrying around £300,000, but the robbers chose the Wednesday following a Glasgow Bank Holiday. There was over £2.5 million on board.

The gang managed to mask over a green (clear) signal at Sears Crossing near Cheddington and rig up a phony red one. This stopped the train. But Biggs’ replacement driver had never handled a main line diesel, and was unable to move the locomotive. That was the sum total of his contribution. But he did get a sixteenth of the loot, and thus he got 30 years along with the ringleaders.

Was that worth all the effort that has gone into romanticising Biggs? Not a chance. But his escape from Wandsworth jail – over the wall using a rope ladder to a furniture van parked outside – and subsequent flight via Paris to Australia and then to Brazil, before the days of inexpensive flights to such locations, fuelled a welter of column inches. And he fathered a son in Brazil, so more cheap and easy copy.

And so the occasional stories, with their paydays for Biggs, might have continued, were it not for the press slowly losing interest, and his increasingly poor health. So back he came in 2001 to give the UK the dubious benefit of looking after him in his old age. A less than impressed and grateful justice system caused him to be nicked on arrival and banged up to complete his sentence.

All of us lucky taxpayers then enjoyed the privilege of knowing our hard earned dosh was helping to keep Biggs clothed and fed. It was claimed he could have got the health care in Brazil, which sentiment gives off a seriously strong whiff of bullshit. And if he was in any way grateful for the generosity of the welfare state, he had a strange way of showing it, as was seen earlier this year.

Biggs, by now wheelchair bound, greeted his former pals in the press who had come to report on the funeral of Great Train Robbery mastermind Bruce Reynolds with a two-finger salute. Defiant to the last, maybe he was a character, another of those diamond geezers. More likely he was an incompetent criminal who met Reynolds while both were in jail and therefore got lucky.

Ronnie Biggs certainly wasn’t worth the hype. Maybe the hacks will remember that.

EXCLUSIVE HS2 – We Should Be So Lucky

As this blog revealed on Sunday, there is an attempt being made to use the HS2 project to spend a whole load of public money on an unnecessary new station near Crewe, which would be sited well out of town. The use of a regional Quango by Cheshire East Council’s Tory leader Michael Jones for this end also endangers the gains already made by the town in securing an HS2 connection.

Crewe station, with Pete Waterman's favoured traction type

Undeterred by the growing opposition to his proposed waste of public money, Jones went right ahead with the scheduled meeting of the Cheshire and Warrington Local Transport Body (LTB) yesterday, with his hobby-horse at the top of the agenda. In this he was supported by his “rail expert”, one Pete Waterman, whose involvement in restoring steam locomotives is considered to give him suitable insights.

Yes, this is the same Pete Waterman who was a third of Stock, Aitken and Waterman, the trio who churned out formula pop in industrial quantities some years ago, to the indifference of many who wished they had not even started. He has no experience of high speed rail, the workings of Network Rail, franchising, stock provision, or much else on today’s railway. But he’s a “rail expert”.

The meeting of the LTB began and Jones attempted to hurry matters along. This was interrupted by someone from the CPRE, who gave every impression that they had read my earlier blog post. Was the proposed station 300 or 3,000 metres from the existing one? Jones was unable to give a clear answer. Then it became clear that the “300 metres” figure was between station limits, and along the tracks.

By station limits, we do not mean the platform ends, but some distance beyond that. The station entrances would be at least 3,000 metres apart. The BBC and all others who reported the smaller figure have been deliberately misled. It got worse: the man from the DfT wanted it specifically minuting that he had taken no part in the HS2 discussion. This is very bad news for Jones’ ambition.

Then it was Waterman’s turn: the rep from Warrington Council discovered that everything they had asked to be included had not. They therefore voted against Jones’ motion and will write to the Minister under separate cover. At this point, Popster Pete lost his rag and claimed that the Warrington rep didn’t understand. But, as “rail expert”, it was his job to enable others to understand.

On top of that, the man from Middlewich Town Council, who want to see a reinstatement of their rail service, discovered that Jones’ promise of including it in the LTB submission was an empty one. His unhappiness was compounded by the thought that spraying money up the wall on Jones’ boondoggle would adversely affect the Middlewich campaign. Unhappy faces all round.

So now we have two competing clowns in the ring. We should be so lucky (etc).

Boris Island Becomes Norwegian Blue

The Davies Commission looking at options for airport expansion in the South East has reported (see HERE [.pdf]), and it is at once bad news for those opposed to expansion of Heathrow, where an additional runway has made the shortlist, and London’s occasional Mayor Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and his super whizzo idea of a new airport on the Isle of Grain, which has not.

Er, cripes chaps ... oo-er ... yikes!

While Bozza tours the studios and splutters into his coffee, and tells anyone in earshot that the only true way forward for London’s airport needs is the proposal favoured by Himself Personally Now, he is missing the simple facts of the matter: his pipe dream would be eye-wateringly expensive, require a public subsidy possibly north of £60 billion, and as a result potentially an economic disaster.

Moreover, Bozza’s other favoured solution, a massive expansion of Stansted, might abstract from other airports which have better transport links, while its own connection to London would need significant work doing on it (the rail link would need fully four-tracking at least as far as Broxbourne, which means years of disruption and a lot more money). Heathrow and Gatwick therefore come out ahead.

Heathrow Airport

Even then, there is a caution over the ability to get passengers to and from Gatwick, with the report noting capacity limitations on the Brighton main line, and congestion issues on the M25 and M23. Similarly, Birmingham Airport does not make the short list, as HS2 has not yet been built and so it would be too distant. Then there is the problem of competition versus coordination.

Davies notes that the New York Airports System allows categories of flights to be concentrated at particular airports: short-haul and business at La Guardia, and long-haul at JFK, for instance. With London’s airports now run by independent and to an extent competing companies, this approach is effectively unavailable. Thus the wonders of free market capitalism.

The report also points out that it is not possible to move Heathrow’s operations to the Isle of Grain without significant effect on the population of West London, tens of thousands of whom depend on the airport for their livelihood. Bozza’s new airport would be over 30 miles east of the capital. Commuting time and expense would be prohibitive for many workers – if there were capacity to carry them.

Heathrow, on the other hand, is well connected by road, rail and tube, with Crossrail to come. The problem for Bozza, and so many Tory MPs, is that they have all declared their opposition. Well, fine: they want the capacity somewhere to the East of London, they can persuade their private sector pals to pony up for it. That won’t happen. Boris Island is an ex-proposal. It has ceased to be. It’s a stiff.

It has run down the curtain and joined the choir invisibule. It’s dead, that’s what it is.

Diana Express Hits The Buffers

In August, the Daily Express, reverting to its default behaviour as the Daily Diana, told readers “SAS Link To Diana’s Death”. This was followed the next day by “Diana Death: Demand For New Inquiry”, with relatives of Henri Paul, the driver with a drink problem who was way over the drink-drive limit, and “sources” close to Mohamed “you can call me Al” Fayed agreeing wholeheartedly.

It was crap then, and now it's officially crap

And the Express kept up the pretence, returning the following week with “Diana Death: The Two Mystery Cars”, by which time desperation was setting in, as readers were told that someone heard the two impacts from the fatal crash, went back to bed, and then later got up and saw two other cars driving in close formation down a street not far away from the scene of the accident.

All of this had been prompted by a letter sent by “Soldier N”, former housemate of Danny Nightingale, who was court martialled after a gun was found in his possession following a tour of duty. Soldier N’s behaviour was “allegedly erratic and threatening” towards his then wife, the daughter of the couple who wrote the letter to the Commanding Officer of the SAS. And his was the sole testimony.

Now, call me cynical, but I am cynical. It was so obviously unreliable as to put off most of the rest of the press pack, which means it had to be very shaky indeed. Fortunately, the deeply subversive Guardian is on the case today: “New Police inquiries have rejected suggestions that the SAS was involved in the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed, according to reports”.

And Sky News (“first for breaking wind”) has the Met telling “Whilst there is a possibility that the alleged comments in relation to the SAS's involvement in the death may have been made, there is no credible or relevant evidence to support a theory that such claims had any basis in fact”. This is a polite way of concluding that Soldier N was bragging. So their conclusion?

“Having reviewed the exercise and its findings, I am satisfied there is no evidential basis upon which therefore to reopen any criminal homicide investigation or refer the matter back to the coroner. In light of this information, I have today also written to the Royal House and Lord Justice Baker informing them of the above and providing a copy of the concluding summary”.

That means this is another overblown shock horror story that was not worth all the newsprint dedicated to it – on top of all the other wastes of space that the Express has perpetrated in the past 16 years. After all the wacko conspiracy theories, the fact remains that Diana, Princess of Wales died because her driver was half cut, he was going way too fast, and she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.

Still, scares move papers, and that makes them another Benchmark Of Excellence!

Dorries And Fawkes Fall Out?

There have been few friendships in Westminster politics that have lasted as long as the mutual admiration between the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, and Tory MP for Mid Bedfordshire (yes, it’s her again) Nadine Dorries. Staines’ tame gofer, the odious flannelled fool Henry Cole, is believed to be particularly close to her.

But it seems this could all be about to end over the subject of MPs’ pay, a matter where The Great Guido is in the van with the Remuneration Taliban. The Fawkes blog is having no truck with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s recommendation that Honourable and Right Honourable Members should enjoy an 11% pay rise in 2015, as part of a wider package of changes.

Indeed, only last week the Fawkes folks observed “IPSA seem to be taking the approach that they have to come to some sort of deal with MPs; that if MPs agree not to fiddle their expenses, sign up to a more reasonable expenses regime, increase their contribution towards their gold-plated pensions and give up their resettlement payments, then they can have a pay rise”. And their conclusion?

“This is a false offer. There is absolutely nothing to stop IPSA toughening up on expenses and pensions and ditching the resettlement grant with no pay rise sweetener attached”. No equivocation there, then. This is poles apart from the line taken by the fragrant Nadine, who has been given space in yesterday’s Mail On Sunday to tell that a pay rise is just what she and her colleagues deserve.

“We're public servants who work 80 hours every week... we DESERVE £74,000: Nadine Dorries wades into MPs' pay rise row” announced the headline. It was different for party leaders: “Each of the three main party leaders enjoys a household income of around half-a-million pounds, thanks to their own six-figure salaries, but thanks also  to the even higher six-figure salaries of their wives”.

And it was “not an increase, it’s a  realignment to be covered by a reduction in expenses and a less favourable pension arrangement ... Ipsa chief, Sir Ian Kennedy, who is paid £100,000 a year, stated that the new pay proposal ‘will not cost the taxpayer a single penny more’. Are the public angry about this proposal which isn’t going to cost anything?” she asked, expecting a favourable answer.

So now Ms Dorries and her former pals at the Fawkes blog are poles apart on the subject. Will we see them agree to disagree, or is a more serious split imminent? There was not so much as a peep from The Great Guido recently when the Sunday Mirror ran a serious of articles about her. It could be that this is, indeed, the end of a less than beautiful friendship.

Who will smear the critics in future? Or is Nadine eyeing the exit door come 2015?

Daily Mail – The Paper That Hated Britain

The obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre today wants us to be jealous of the Royal Family, as it effortlessly plays both sides of the field, telling that anyone not a monarchist “hated Britain” (pace Ralph Miliband) while poring over every item of clothing worn by the Duchess of Cambridge in true why-oh-why style. This has now extended to the Duke, and cars.

Bentley Motors, with the product on display

“Kate and Wills' £250,000 bulletproof Bentley (top speed 200mph!) Duke and Duchess will use saloon for official engagements” gasps the headline, as readers are told “The Flying Spur has Wi-Fi connection and nine-litre bottle cooler ... Costs £118 to fill engine that manages 19 miles to the gallon”. There I was thinking that it was the fuel tank that you filled up.

And, as the man said, there’s more: “news that Prince William has recently added a £250,000 Bentley to his garages is likely to make him the envy of many fathers-to-be up and down the country ... hand-crafted walnut interior, the champagne cooler and the wi-fi internet capabilities are more luxuries than purely practical”. Yes, yes, but there is some important information missing here.

“William and Kate are also understood to have opted for quilted leather seats which heat up and have a massage function ... Neither the car maker nor Kensington Palace were willing to discuss how much the Cambridges’ deal is worth or whether they have been given preferential rates. The cost is being met by the Duchy of Cornwall, which funds the official work of Prince Charles and his family”.

All of which still misses the most important point of the Royals opting for Bentleys, rather than any other marque. Try again: “The couple were given one of the first Flying Spurs off the production line, six months before it was made available to the public”. Nearly there. Who makes Bentleys? That would be “engineers at the firm’s headquarters in Crewe”. Yes, it’s a North West success story.

And the Royal family is a key source of advertising: “A Bentley spokesman added: ‘As Warrant Holders to HM The Queen and HRH The Prince of Wales, Bentley Motors are proud to have supplied the Golden Jubilee Bentley State Limousine for use by The Sovereign ... We supply current Bentleys for use by a number of members of the Royal Family when the need arises’”.

But the Daily Mail, far from cheering on a top British brand which employs thousands in and around Crewe, and lauding the Royals as ambassadors for that brand, gets all sniffy about the cost of filling the tank, the car’s specification, and whether there’s a preferential leasing deal being done. Which was that paper that kicked Ralph Miliband for dissing the Royals? Hey, it was the Daily Mail!

And they won’t cheer for British jobs either. It’s the paper that hated Britain.

Lockerbie – At Last The Facts

The established narrative on the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie on December 21, 1988, which resulted in the deaths of all 259 aboard Boeing 747 Clipper Maid Of The Seas, along with eleven people on the ground, is that the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi was responsible. To this end, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of the attack, though later released.

A PanAm 747 similar to the plane bombed over Lockerbie

There was only one problem with this line: it was crap. The attack had already been traced to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC) and one Abu Jibril, who had no qualms about killing so many innocent people. His client was the regime in Tehran, who ordered the bombing as payback for the earlier shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by a rogue US warship.

Why the blame should switch to Libya, and the placing of the bomb go from London’s Heathrow Airport to the feeder flight originating in Frankfurt, is probably down to wanting the Iranians on side when dealing with the increasingly troublesome Saddam Hussein, not wanting to endanger the Middle East peace process, and accomplish these objectives by punishing Saddam’s only declared ally.

How this was achieved is now being revealed, along with the name of the man responsible for placing the bomb, Mohammed Abu Talb. As a report by the excellent Exaro News has shown, the CIA appears to have interfered directly in the investigation in order to take the focus away from Talb – who, it is alleged, was paid a whopping $500,000 for his handiwork – and on to the Libyans.

Talb has been placed in Britain on the day of the bombing. He gave evidence at the trial of al-Megrahi in exchange for immunity from further prosecution. But he has also served around 20 years in prison for bombings across Europe. Jim Swire, who has always doubted the Libyan narrative, has been to the Swedish town of Uppsala, where Talb now lives, to confront him over his involvement.

It seems that Talb circumvented security at Heathrow not through any weakness in its procedures, but by bribing an official to let the suitcase with the explosive device inside through and into the baggage container that would be loaded into the front section of the 747’s hold. It was that straightforward. The idea that al-Megrahi travelled via Malta to Frankfurt was just a smokescreen.

Much of this was established long ago by the late Paul Foot in a Private Eye special entitled “Lockerbie – The Flight From Justice”. Foot named Talb, the PFLP-GC, the Iranian connection and the link to the downed Airbus over the Strait of Hormuz. Now, other investigators are coming to more or less the same conclusion. Perhaps the UK and US Governments could open their files and own up.

The Libyans sponsored terrorism. But they were not responsible for Lockerbie.

EXCLUSIVE HS2, Crewe, And A Phony Monorail

When this blog commented on the news that “Michael Jones, Cheshire East Council leader, said he had held ‘positive talks’ with Network Rail about building the new [Crewe] station 300 metres from the existing one”, which was accompanied by talk of a monorail (no sniggering please, Simpsons fans), it looked like a silly way of generating copy. It wasn’t. It was something far more serious.

Crewe station, looking south

That distance was missing a zero from the figure: it is actually 3,000 metres. The intention is to resurrect the attempt to rip the railway station out of Crewe and dump it two miles to the south in an area largely uninhabited at present. It is a scheme that saw so much opposition first time round that it was seen off relatively easily, and this time it is being slipped through on the quiet. Until now.

“Leader of Cheshire East, Michael Jones, wants Crewe’s HS2 station to be built by 2020, even though the line itself won’t have been built” observed Radio Stoke’s Phil McCann yesterday. But the HS2 proposals as they currently stand do not feature a station on HS2 at Crewe: there would be a connection to the new line, with trains off HS2 to Liverpool and Chester stopping at the existing station.

Moreover, if there were to be a station actually on HS2, it would have to be well to the south of that currently in use, as at that point the new line would be in tunnel some way beneath the surface. And any change to the proposals already well progressed would mean everything for the route immediately south of Crewe would have to be ripped up and restarted from scratch. At significant extra cost.

So what is Jones’ game? Ah well. He is using the Cheshire and Warrington Local Transport Body (LTB) as a vehicle, with its response to the HS2 consultation, including the proposal for not just a connection to the new line at Crewe, but a new station, to be presented tomorrow. The author of the report, Andrew Ross, was involved in the abortive 2008 plan.

The very first item in the proposition being put by the LTB is “A new station and railway track layout at Crewe delivered by 2020 which would accommodate HS2, and deliver a fully integrated Hub Station, including dedicated HS2 trains”. The cost of this – in the hundreds of millions of pounds – is being justified on the basis that “the signalling needs doing anyway”.

Even deducting the cost of resignalling, the bill would still be in the hundreds of millions, the station would no longer be in Crewe, we would be left with the false promise of a pie-in-the-sky monorail, and the business case for HS2 would take a significant dent, potentially losing Crewe the connection it has already won. It should surprise no-one that Jones has not seen fit to ask the electorate what they think.

This smacks of abuse of power and potential corruption. And that’s not good enough.