Did Blairs’ pals prevent proper police investigation?

The Crown Prosecution Service, its previous head Lord Macdonald, and former Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, are now at the centre of the phone hacking scandal following our Home Affairs Select Committee critical report and sensational revelations from Geoffrey Cox MP QC about “a vast array of offending behaviour” being presented to them in May and August 2006.

The Speaker also ruled that Lord Macdonald should have answered my question about how much he is paid by News Corporation. I have now written to him at Matrix Chambers to demand that he disclose this sum in the public interest.

View Mark’s Letter to Lord Macdonald – Click Here

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under CPS, Hacking, Home Affairs Select Committee, Lord Macdonald, Mark In Westminster, mark reckless, Metropolitan Police, police, rochester and strood

2 responses to “Did Blairs’ pals prevent proper police investigation?

  1. It doesn't add up...

    Does Kier Starmer have similar questions to answer?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/sep/21/keir-starmer-director-public-prosecutions

    “Starmer also decided not to reopen the News of the World phone-tapping case following allegations made in this paper that its illegal surveillance operations went beyond its disgraced royal editor Clive Goodman, who was jailed in 2007 for plotting to intercept phone messages from members of the royal family. … But he does not rule out a case being brought at some point. “I keep an open mind. It might move on and develop if Guardian journalists or anybody else show us other stuff.” … He has generally been seen as a Labour supporter and doesn’t demur when I mention that perception, so would the coming of a Conservative government next year present problems for him?”

    He was appointed by Baroness Scotland with the approval of MacDonald.

  2. Concerned subject

    Possibly so.

    Personally, I’m more concerned to find out whether or not Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates were deliberately impeding the investigation (as opposed to being merely incompetent), and are therefore personally guilty of corruption.

    I note that Sean Hoare’s friends suggest that he tried to whistleblow to John Yates’ investigation, but was effectively silenced by being treated as a suspect rather than a witness (and by implication was refused immunity in exchange for testimony):
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/sean-hoare-news-of-the-world

    …this is then interpreted by (or reported to?) Keir Starmer as a refusal to co-operate:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11930168

    ..leaving Sir Paul and John Yates free to lean on Alan Rusbridger to stop his own investigation, which is the part I find truly disturbing:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/phone-hacking-met-police-guardian

    Personally, I’m not too exercised about the hiring of Wallis. I don’t have a problem with setting a thief to catch a thief, and I don’t see Wallis’ role as all that significant. Nor am I that bothered about the original hacking allegations. As ever, it’s the cover up that matters. What does concern me is the possibility that a decision was made at the highest levels of the Met to deliberately obstruct the investigation into NI and to collude in that cover up.
    For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying that that happened, but simply that from the publicly available evidence it seems hard to rule out the possibility, and that there appears to be a case to answer. I hope that it will be investigated properly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s