Andy Hayman CBE, QPM; Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations at the Metropolitan Police – the Copper who led the initial investigation into News of the World phone hacking situation.

His recent appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee (12th July 2011) was reminiscent of a small but aggressive child accused of raiding the biscuit barrel. When asked by Lorraine Fullbrook (MP for South Ribble) if he – while a police officer – had accepted money from News of the World parent company, News International, Mr Hayman (CBE, QPM; Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations at the Metropolitan Police) replied with biscuit barrel indignation:

“Good god! Absolutely not, I can’t believe you suggested that! That is a real attack on my integrity!”

Before we have a look, the image used to illustrate this piece is from the News International (well, NewsCorp) The Times newspaper and shows all the writing that Mr Hayman must have done for that paper after he retired from the police force of course.

Podcast: Play in new window

Ah, the BBC had three of the UK’s most unpleasant people on one show last Sunday. Derek – Deggsy – Hatton, Peter Hitchens from The Daily Mail and former News of the World hack, Paul McMullan.

The show was Sunday Live. A usually quite lightweight outing. The event was McMullan owning up to the fact that he hadn’t been home for five days because the police want him to come in for questioning.

Enjoy.

Podcast: Play in new window | Embed

The Guardian has broken a story regarding Gordon Brown’s statement regarding hacking and blagging by The Sun and The Sunday Times.

It details depraved reporting and methods. The image here shows what resulted. The Sun editor at the time: Rebekah Wade.

Among the accusations:

• Abbey National bank found evidence suggesting that a “blagger” acting for the Sunday Times on six occasions posed as Brown and gained details from his account;

• Brown’s London lawyers, Allen & Overy, were tricked into handing over details from his file by a conman working for the Sunday Times;

• Details from his infant son’s medical records were obtained by the Sun, who published a story about the child’s serious illness.

Source: The Guardian

UPDATE: Let’s hope that Gordon Brown hasn’t handed NewsCorp a tiny sight of defence.

The Sun issued the following statement today July 12th 2011:

• Following allegations made yesterday by Gordon Brown against The Sun, we have been conducting an inquiry. This is in line with normal practice and procedure.

  We are able to assure the Brown family that we did not access the medical records of their son, nor did we commission anyone to do so.

  The story The Sun ran about their son originated from a member of the public whose family has also experienced cystic fibrosis. He came to The Sun with this information voluntarily because he wanted to highlight the cause of those afflicted by the disease. The individual has provided a written affidavit this afternoon to a lawyer confirming this.

  On receipt of the information, The Sun approached Mr Brown and discussed with his colleagues how best to present it. Those colleagues provided quotes which were used in the published piece which indicated his consent to it.

  We believe that the article was written sensitively and appropriately. We are not aware of Mr Brown, nor any of his colleagues to whom we spoke, making any complaint about it at the time.

  The publication of the story and the further responsible, sympathetic and informative coverage The Sun continued to give to the disease resulted in renewed interest for those affected by it. Donations to the Cystic Fibrosis Trust nearly doubled over the next year.

  We continue to inquire in to other allegations made by Mr Brown, and implore him to provide details to us so we can establish the facts.

Source: Channel 4

Remember when Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks appeared before a government select committee in 2003? Remember she admitted to buning cash to the police? Remember no one really doing much about it?

You don’t? Here it is again.

I went to see a remarkable production of Macbeth last night at Ripley Castle in North Yorkshire by Sprite Productions.

It’s the story of a woman made insane by over-arching ambition for herself and the man who she would first make and then maintain as king. In so doing she destroys the people and the things around her. Oh, The News of the World was also closed yesterday.

As yet Rebekah – Lady McMurdoch – Brook maintains herself in some fortification built up by straw men and maintained by her master. She has already sacrificed the small players, the staff at the NOTW (which will surely be replaced by The SunDay or The Sunday Sun. She’s also sacrificed her previously best friend with Andy Coulson delivering himself to the police today.

She has one supporter or, if David Cameron attempts to protect her, maybe two. And the final insanity is that she may have put a stop to his ambition to own the prize of British Sky Broadcasting.

I have had a response from the Press Complaints Commission regarding the complaint I filed over The Daily Mail’s story linking the death of Sophie Howard to the teachers’ one-day action last month. As expected it’s vacuous.

My story, “Grief Intrusion by the Daily Mail” questioned how TDM could make the link.

Here is the response from Simon Yip at the PCC. I’m making limited comment on it for now until I’ve thought some more. One thing stands out, however, is this:

“As such, we contacted Cambridgeshire Police, and the college she attended, immediately after the story broke to offer our support, and make clear how we can assist in all press-related issues.”

Why? Surely it is not for the PCC to ‘offer to assist on all press-related issues or offer support to the Police or the College?’ Surely this is a waste of the PCC’s time?

“Thank you for making a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about coverage of the tragic death of Sophie Howard.

We have received numerous complaints about the article in the Daily Mail, most of which relate to the headline of the article as it originally appeared online. The complaints have been lodged primarily under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code.

As you would expect, we will, in the first instance, have to consider the wishes of the family of Miss Howard before we take forward any complaint relating to her death, with particular regard to intrusion. As such, we contacted Cambridgeshire Police, and the college she attended, immediately after the story broke to offer our support, and make clear how we can assist in all press-related issues.

In addition, the PCC contacted the Daily Mail in regard to the online headline, and it responded on Friday afternoon to make clear that – even before we had made contact – the headline to the online article had been amended in view of direct concerns raised. The article in the newspaper, which appeared on 2 July, did not have the same headline.

In the circumstances, we will determine whether the Howard family wishes to complain about the article, and revert to you shortly once the position has become clear.

A copy of the Code of Practice can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html .

Further information about the PCC can be found on our website www.pcc.org.uk .

Simon Yip
Administrator

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk”

Journalists at the car-crash chasing tabloid, The News of the World are being accused by the left-leaning Guardian of hacking murdered teen Milly Dowler’s voicemail and deleting messages.

The Guardian states that the NoW, which is already embroiled in phone hacking scandals involving glittering celebrities and Andy Gray, deleted voicemails, “…in the first few days after Milly’s disappearance so as to free up space for more messages.”

The report also states that, “As a result friends and relatives of Milly concluded wrongly that she might still be alive. Police feared evidence may have been destroyed.”

No comment from NoW yet.

Read the story at The Guardian.

A couple of people whose opinions I respect greatly due to their direct style (yes, they share it) and their logic, have raised some points regarding today’s post regarding The Daily Mail (and Mirror and Telegraph).

Their points are valid:

• Don’t be surprised if you read something horrible in The Daily Mail.
• Don’t give The Daily Mail publicity and drive people to it by expressing surprise, shock and disgust and indicating a story.

To actually quote one of my friends:

“You’re right to be indignant BUT I bet this story has caused a blip on their web-analytics which they’ll regard as a good thing for ad-sales..”

And, of course, he’s quite correct. However…

The days when you could just look at the front cover of a newspaper that you know you are going to be offended by without buying it – or to leaf through it as you wait in the newsagent for your friend to buy something – are going. Now, you do have to give hits to the online versions. This does require you to be culpable. It also means that you are contributing to that newspaper’s potential advertising revenues.

So, the argument that “I don’t make a difference on my own” is weakened due to the nature of online commerce.

This makes the arguments of my two logical, down to earth and highly intelligent friends even more sound.

However
Not looking, and when seeing not complaining and reaching out to others to express disgust and shock is equally as culpable. My initial Twitpic and virtual yell of “What the Absolute FUCK Daily Mail you sick, sick bastards” might not have been subtle. Let’s exclude the fact that TDM changed its headline; that could have been for many reasons including the editor’s realisation that he had gone a step too far.

Let’s concentrate on the fact that one picture has been viewed at the time of writing more than 113,000 times and retweeted more than 4,700 times. That is bad publicity for TDM. It may not be huge but it is still there.

So maybe, the argument that “I don’t make a difference on my own” is weakened but in another way due to the nature of online interaction.

Simply letting that paper – and The Mirror and The Telegraph (the others that I am aware of at this moment) – get away with these things by not complaining and not expressing disgust is just that: letting them get away with it.

My not looking would not mean that TDM and the others would stop. Mine – and others far more influential than me – pointing it out might have some effect.

Simply not looking in this new age of online does not mean the same thing as it might once have done. Doing something still means something though. At least I hope it does – and I like a bit of hope to exist.

As for my complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, given that Paul Dacre is the chairman of that toothless mouthpiece, I doubt anything will come of it. Paul Dacre, you see, is the current editor of The Daily Mail.

Bad Publicity and Online Commerce
I believe that not all the people who read TDM are actually as vile as the publishers of the paper would like to imagine. I hope that many of them can be as influenced by the idea that the paper (and others) can be wrong as they can by the idea that it is always write.

And when it and its ilk are wrong, I believe they should be called on it. I also know that in the world of online, a few bad stories; a couple of misleading or mendacious headlines; some poor and lazy reporting will begin to kill the readership. Or at least it will if enough people spread the word.

So, while I agree with my two friends that the statistical point of ‘Not Looking’ is valid, I also believe that my more emotive point that ‘Not looking does not mean it’s not there’ stands up too.

Finally, don’t forget you can always use istyosty to read the press and not provide hits to these people.

(And sure, you can call me on Godwin’s law for the second, zoomed out, photo of a Nazi propaganda poster which I shot in the Topography of Terror museum in Berlin this year. Of course you can).