Pages

Sunday, 17 July 2011

decisive action

An un-named 43 year old woman has been arrested over phone-hacking? Hmmm. How about an un-named 43 year old woman with lots of ginger hair?

Within two minutes she was of course named as Rebekah Brooks, the woman Rupert Murdoch named as his "top priority" not so long ago.

Chris Bryant, one of the few MPs to consistently talk sense over this, has pointed out that Brooks and indeed Coulson were arrested "by appointment" - they got to walk into the police station and hand themselves over. MP Damien Green had his house stormed by 25 fully armed members of the anti-terror squad. But was there any point in actually physically arresting Brooks anyway? It's not like she's going to get away, with a hundred journalists following her every move...and of course that hair. The Metropolitan Police will be delighted for this to be top of the headlines, as it buries the stories about their involvement in the whole affair, which seems increasingly significant. Indeed, one of the charges Brooks has been arrested on is one of corruption, authorising payments to policemen. Now the police get to look like they're taking strong action over phone-hacking, and more importantly make sure tomorrow's front pages only feature them in a positive light.

There's a wonderful irony in the police managing the news over an issue where the news was managing the police.

Well, arresting Rebekah has actually helped her out on one front - this will almost certainly get her out of facing the Commons Select Committee on Tuesday. If she does appear, she's not going to be able to say anything without prejudicing the police investigation. Again it's a sign of how the police investigation and the public investigation don't sit well together; Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks are both pretty much safe from the public inquiry and indeed the Government now, as long as they're in the hands of the police. She can't risk incriminating herself and the police don't want their line of inquiry to be given away.

Did she and indeed News International know that an arrest was looming when her resignation was accepted?

Absolutely everything contained on these pages is Subjective Opinion. Much of it is tongue-in-cheek, Devil's Advocate, or just plain controversial for the fun of it. As such, I essentially don't stand by anything that I say. That means you can't sue me, right? Please don't sue me.

If you are at all offended by the seemingly utterly biased or just plain controversial nature of any of these expletive-strewn rants, please refer to this disclaimer