Editorial

15-05-2012

The announcement that the former chief executive of News International Rebekah Brooks will be facing criminal charges for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is hardly surprising but perhaps neither is her defiant response.

Brooks, her husband, close friends and former colleagues are facing some pretty serious charges including concealing evidence in computers and documents from the police as they began investigating the phone hacking allegations in July last year. If Brooks is guilty, it would appear that she used scorched Earth tactics to prevent the investigation making progress thus saving her own neck for the alleged crimes committed during her stewardship of The News of The World centred around phone hacking.

Now Brooks and her party are innocent until proven guilty but her remarks were ill judged and could back fire in catastrophic fashion. Firstly she expressed anger over those close to her being “dragged into this unfairly”. Considering the charges she and her fellow defendants are facing it goes along that, if she did try hiding evidence, she would have needed trusted co-conspirators to help. Brooks must understand the enormity of the situation and that she wouldn’t be the only one facing some difficult questions. The comment was naïve in the extreme. But that strain popped up later as she described being “baffled” that she had been charged. Baffled? After a serious inquiry and criminal investigation surrounding her time in charge of a corporation who are alleged to have committed some appalling crimes? What exactly did Brooks expect? A ticker tape parade?

She continued, saying that “one day details…will emerge and people will see today as nothing more than an expensive sideshow, a waste of public money”. Within that she drew upon her experience in red top journalism, trying to garner support and sympathy from the public by harnessing the popular gripes of the British tax payers. But this tough talking might have been misjudged. It is almost dismissive of the case the Police have against her but, thus far, what has been coming out in the Leveson inquiry implies the case for the prosecution might have a fairly compelling case against Brooks and her former employers. To focus on a bigger theme is this the talk of someone who it has been revealed, had a personal relationship with David Cameron among other Prime Ministers, hitherto believed they might be above prosecution?

In conclusion, if Brooks is proven innocent, the remarks she has made will have many questioning the validity of the entire inquiry. Yet if she is proved guilty, her words will only make the public even more pleased she could go to prison. Nobody likes a criminal, but people dislike a hypocritical one intensely hence Jeffrey Archer’s descent into obscurity. Perhaps she might have been best advised not to say anything at all rather than taking an approach similar to the headline writers at the tabloids she used to oversee.

  04-05-2012

With Labour making significant gains in the local United Kingdom elections this week, it might be easy to rush into thinking they are on their way back. Yet the results acutely highlight one more worrying trend; increasing voter apathy. A low turnout is a disappointing response to what has been a corrosive couple of years in the political and social landscape of this country yet those who did turn out appear to have used their vote to protest more than anything else, in keeping with the general election of 2010.

In 2010 the British public seemed to want Labour out but were not particularly keen on the alternative. This led to the exceptional circumstances whereby a Coalition government manoeuvred it’s way into power with the Tories like the fat guy at the buffet unashamedly scoffing down the last of the vol au vents whilst everyone else was too polite to. Unfortunately, the local elections have followed that trend of the protest vote where the public use their democratic rights to punish the ruling powers.

Do the results tell us more about public perception of David Cameron and Co than that of Ed Miliband? The suspicion lurks that the public have shown their disapproval of the crippling public service cuts and the recent scandals in the Tory government. But because the Liberal Democrats are tied in with them, the only alternative has become Labour. Ironically, what threw Labour out of government could potentially get them back in again in a few years time. The public literally have no other viable alternative to the Coalition Party in a parliament dominated by three parties. Yet have they really rubber stamped “Red Ed”?

Quite frankly, Ed and his shadow cabinet should not take these successes too seriously. He should not be lulled into a false sense of security. His speeches around Labour being on their way back to power are understandable but any complacency in the coming months would be daft. Now is the time for Ed to assert himself and start tearing into the vulnerable Cameron.

But one anomaly has remained. Boris Johnson managed to stay in power as the Mayor of London despite a laudable challenge from Labour candidate Ken Livingstone. The blonde mop top, always moments away from an embarrassing quote or gaff wins on personality, one that undermines the London Mayoral race as nothing more than the political equivalent of the X-Factor or Britain’s Got Talent. Fortunately, the chance of this oddity in British politics being replicated across the country has been rejected by the electorate in other cities who realise that Mayoral elections are expensive and faintly ridiculous popularity contests.

Yet it remains puzzling why Londoners have chosen, albeit by a small margin, Boris Johnson. In these austere times, his posh persona and clowning about are the exact opposite of what London needs but he has this hold over many while Livingstone was and is political Marmite. The question is, regardless of this anomaly, has the Coalition government become that jar of Salad cream 18 months past it’s expiry date and primed for the bin?

  24-04-2012

Murdoch-gate spat up another unpleasant revelation this week as Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt was reported to have sent e-mails of support and guidance to the top brass of News Corp during the ongoing Leveson inquiry into the phone hacking scandal engulfing the media giant.

An eyebrow has to be raised as to why on earth Hunt thought this was a wise move? It is alleged, via e-mails from the Head of Public affairs at the corporation Frederic Michel to James Murdoch, that there was a significant line of dialogue between Murdoch Jnr and the Culture Secretary during the weeks preceding the inquiry in November. Meanwhile, in an e-mail in January this year, Mr Michel is quoted as writing in an e-mail to his boss that Hunt “has very specifically said he was keen to get the same outcome and wanted James Rupert Murdoch to understand he needs to build some political cover in the process”. If this is true, Hunt clearly was cosying up to News Corp thus breaching his impartiality in the matter.

The day after, Michel is alleged to have written to Murdoch telling him he had some insider information on Hunt’s forthcoming speech about the BSkyB bid to the Commons which had been obtained via “absolutely illegal” means. Murdoch has tried passing this comment off as a joke at the inquiry but was it really appropriate of Michel to be joking about such things given the pickle his employers are currently in? It also seems like a convenient get out clause.

Hunt has maintained his innocence while asking for his time in front of the inquiry to be brought forward. Yet although he should get his side of the story across, his tepid defence this week has lacked the forthright and robust clarity required to even begin to convince anyone he wasn’t in bed with News Corp. In fact, his preference to have his say at the inquiry seems like a man begging for time so he can wriggle off the hook given plenty of legal advise and preparation ahead of it. Why can’t he come out now and refute the allegations?

The Prime Minister David Cameron, seemingly a man with a lame trigger finger, has chosen to back his Minister. Cameron has been in this position before with the likes of Andy Coulson where he justifies his position because the pin is still just preventing the grenade from detonating. In other cases as with Nazi costume enthusiast Aidan Burley or unwitting star of his very own snuff movie Peter Cruddas, the pin has already come out with said explosive causing enough collateral damage to force an immediate sacking or resignation. But, as the Coalition government struggles more and more in the polls, surely Cameron’s reluctance to act might come back to haunt him. The press will now be gunning for Hunt and his Premier’s misguided support could still turn out to undermine his judgement and awareness of his responsibilities as the leader of the British people. The bottom line is that Hunt should have remained resolutely impartial. His loyalties should lie with the public he pledged to serve, not the head of a corporation facing some extremely grave charges that his company are guilty of mass criminality.