Badass spindoctors: Coulson versus Campbell

Posted on Tuesday 7 September, 2010
Filed Under Conservative Party, New Labour

 


AS CRIMINAL offences go, hacking into voicemail messages hardly seems up there with a major league sparklers blag or reckless driving causing injury or death.

OK, yeah, it is against the law, most notably section 48 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. I’m not suggesting that such action is commendable, as it clearly breaches the privacy of the individual concerned. But let’s face it, nobody gets physically hurt or loses any money.

Banging up News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman for four months for eavesdropping on Clarence House was outrageous. If the case had not involved the Prince of Wales, no way would the poor bloke have got custodial.

Seeing things from a journalist’s viewpoint, I find myself unable to get carried away in the waves of mock horror surrounding Coulsongate. If, in a previous life, David Cameron’s communication director authorised unlawful practices, of course he should face the consequences. But please spare us the hand-wringing.

Even Coulson’s chief accuser Sean Hoare does not allege that his then-boss expressly instructed him to hack phones, even if the guv’nor did indulge in a spot of nudge-nudge, wink-wink innuendo that Hoare should do so. How else would anyone expect a red top editor to act?

Asking the Met to investigate this imbroglio is especially hilarious. Every reporter from the local rag upwards, if their beat requires it, goes out of his or her way to cultivate a few pet coppers, and the close and bibulous friendships between crime reporters on the nationals and the Yard are legendary. Everything could be sorted out in half an hour over a pint.

And say what you like about Coulson, but at least he has never sexed up a dossier on Iraq’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destructive in order to lead Britain into an illegal war. Nor has he leaked the name of a vulnerable man who later committed suicide, simply so that he could ‘fuck’ a BBC staffer, to use his own infelicitous turn of phrase.

Sorry, but compared to Alistair Campbell, Andy Coulson is a saint.


<<Go back

Comments

14 Responses to “Badass spindoctors: Coulson versus Campbell”

  1. Scratch
    on September 7th, 2010 at 13:24

    Screw that.

    If an ordinary punter (or, for that matter, a spy) got collared systematically hacking the phones of major pols/public figures he’d do a sight more than four months. I’d love to see the outrage out of News International if someone did it to Murdoch.

  2. Dean
    on September 7th, 2010 at 13:32

    So you have finally ditched libertarianism!

    Or does Libertarian just equal the official state? Private powerful wealthy blocks/individuals can screw the rest of us over.

    The powerful can shit on the law and carry on regardless.

  3. Mike
    on September 7th, 2010 at 13:42

    No worries about the alleged relationship between the Met and News International that this has hinted at?

    When the bizzies accidentally kill the odd Muslim and the News of the World is ready to jump in and baselessly smear the dead as a rapist who was accidentally shot by his own friend rather than the police?

  4. LesAbbey
    on September 7th, 2010 at 13:54

    Without in any way defending Campbell as he has done far worse, Coulson has put himself in the frame for a prison sentence. Cameron’s reaction to a couple of scandals could be interesting. Is really going to tolerate anything his people do?

  5. Dave
    on September 7th, 2010 at 14:05

    Scratch:

    Not so sure. But if it was some bloke hacking his ex-missus, nothing would be done.

    Dean:

    How is this post ditching libertarianism?

  6. Jimmy Glesga
    on September 7th, 2010 at 15:50

    Dean. I always thought the powerful were the law. Take Locherbie for instance.

  7. Andrew Wimble
    on September 7th, 2010 at 15:58

    People have a right to a certain level of privacy, public figure or not, and that certainly extends to not having your private phone conversations hacked into. Given the number of papers this kind of thing can sell and the fact that certain papers have demonstated that they are not constrained by concepts such as honesty and morality, the only way to keep them in line is to have appropriate laws, and sufficiently severe punishments for those breaking them.

    In the case of a major newspaper, fines are pretty much a waste of time unless they are hugem as this kind of story simply makes too much money. I have always believed that in general trying to punish organisations is a waste of time and the only sanctions that really work is punishments directed at the indivuduals responsible for the illegal activity.

    I do feel a little sorry for the individual reporter who may very well have been made something of a scapegoat. If his editor was encuraging an environment where breaking the law was seen as part of the job, and something you had to do if you wanted to be successful, then it is probably the editor who belongs in jail at least as much as the reporter, if not more so.

  8. Dean
    on September 7th, 2010 at 16:38

    Dave,

    It is ditching Libertarianism because phone tapping is usually associated with the police state. This is why I asked if the police state only refers to the official state. Big corporations can do what the fuck they like? The rich can shit all over ‘us’?

    Maybe you just typify the hypocrisy of libertarianism?

  9. Richard Lawson
    on September 7th, 2010 at 17:04

    If it was the State doing illegal surveillance on peoples’ phones you would rightly be hysterical. But since it is a private corporation doing it, you are helping their lame cover ups. Do you not realise that the corporations are more powerful than many states? And more amoral than many states?

  10. Will
    on September 7th, 2010 at 23:34

    “Seeing things from a journalist’s viewpoint…”

    The rest of the above post becomes utterly superfluous after those words. When I hear the word ‘journalist’ — I hear ‘degenerate scum’. To top that — the all-pervasive cynicism on show really is vomit-inducing horseshit.

    In short, probably the stupidest posting ever uploaded on this blog.

  11. Will
    on September 8th, 2010 at 00:44

    SHOOTING THE MESSENGER
    (v.) Of social commentators (or pub bores) – to point the finger at the identifiable public face of something much larger and nastier simply because it’s easier. For instance:

    “The Daily Mail is a really unpleasant newspaper IMHO.”

    …is a messenger-shooting alternative to:

    “The Daily Mail is specifically crafted to reflect the views, opinions and prejudices of its readership, that being the large percentage of this country’s population who really are unpleasant, and ensure ongoing high sales figures so surely the blame ultimately lies with a society which spawns the need for such appalling newspapers to act as a mirror in the first place, although this is not to absolve the morally bankrupt journalists who are quite happy to allow the situation to continue. IMHO.”

  13. Will
    on September 10th, 2010 at 14:27

    a horrible, odious, despicable excuse for a human being, if you don’t mind me saying so.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/chris-bryant-mp-my-onair-spat-with-sky-newss-kay-burley-2075473.html

    looking for youtube now

Leave a Reply