I fear you're not exactly keeping up with this at all - the Metropolitan Police are part of the story. That's why there's a new investigation and why some MP's are calling for an independent review by an external force.
I knew you were going to say that -
It is worth noting however that people have been jailed and any complicity by the met in the issue would have come out then.
Also most of those people calling for yet more investigations are also the ones using the same need as proof there is something in it. It is a bit of a circular argument.
It is worth noting however that people have been jailed and any complicity by the met in the issue would have come out then.
Also most of those people calling for yet more investigations are also the ones using the same need as proof there is something in it. It is a bit of a circular argument.
Your argument makes no sense at all. Why would police complicity have come up at the trial? Was there some other police force investigating the Met with a view to prosecution of officers for corruption?
Andy Hayman now works for News International, by the way.
Your argument makes no sense at all. Why would police complicity have come up at the trial? Was there some other police force investigating the Met with a view to prosecution of officers for corruption?
A criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt - I would expect any self-respecting lawyer to have used any means possible to get his client off - after all that is the job.
But more than that since people have been jailed over the issue I can see no reason why they would have stopped were they did - I would expect them to have moved on to Coulson if there was anything of substance in the allegations that have been made.
A criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt - I would expect any self-respecting lawyer to have used any means possible to get his client off - after all that is the job.
But more than that since people have been jailed over the issue I can see no reason why they would have stopped were they did - I would expect them to have moved on to Coulson if there was anything of substance in the allegations that have been made.
Er, because CPS evidence was suppressed at the original trial
By the way, if you know of another organisation that subsequently employs a policeman in charge of a 'failed' criminal investigation on that same organisation, you'll be sure to let me know.
Depends on how close his relationship with Andy Hayman was, doesn't it? There seems to be a very interesting dynamic between NI and The Met.
Still waiting for anything which points the finger at Andy Coulson. The man has effectively been hounded out of two jobs now and nobody has yet produced anything of substance to say he is guilty of any crime - let alone one that would stand up in court.
Of course if evidence does emerge then the full force of the law should be brought to bear - but again if there was anything of substance why did the lawyers for those already found guilty not use it?
Still waiting for anything which points the finger at Andy Coulson. The man has effectively been hounded out of two jobs now and nobody has yet produced anything of substance to say he is guilty of any crime - let alone one that would stand up in court.
Of course if evidence does emerge then the full force of the law should be brought to bear - but again if there was anything of substance why did the lawyers for those already found guilty not use it?
Nah, I'm sure he's perfectly above board - five (is it five, I've lost count now) executives at the NOTW reporting directly to him implicated in hacking of one form or another, and the poor little mite didn't have a clue. Don't forget to watch Panorama on iPlayer.
Nah, I'm sure he's perfectly above board - five (is it five, I've lost count now) executives at the NOTW reporting directly to him implicated in hacking of one form or another, and the poor little mite didn't have a clue. Don't forget to watch Panorama on iPlayer.
Amazing isn;t it, five executives accused of phone hacking, yet none have implicated their boss and no evidence has come from anywhere to implicate him. Could it be, shock horror, he didn't know?
Nah, I'm sure he's perfectly above board - five (is it five, I've lost count now) executives at the NOTW reporting directly to him implicated in hacking of one form or another, and the poor little mite didn't have a clue. Don't forget to watch Panorama on iPlayer.
Still no evidence, despite all that. Just 'no smoke without fire'.
By the way, if you know of another organisation that subsequently employs a policeman in charge of a 'failed' criminal investigation on that same organisation, you'll be sure to let me know.
Would you care to define what is (and is not) a "failed" criminal investigation.
If it was so sucessful, wouldn't be having a new one, with a new team, would we?
Let's clear up one misunderstanding.
It is not the job/duty of the Police to seek complaints from people. If a person suspects that his/her voicemail has been hacked it is up to them to lodge a formal complaint.
The articles you provided links to, whilst being interesting, contain nothing but allegations, rumour and speculation.
An even more dangerous and worrying aspect is contained in the following;
He cited evidence handed by the Met to Gray which showed Mulcaire kept detailed notes of his mobile phone account number, pin number and password.
Vos said: "Give me one possible reason why Mr Mulcaire would have held those pieces of information for any other reason [than to hack into Gray's phone]."
Excuse me? DId someone rewrite the bloody rules of evidence and not tell anyone?
It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mulcaire hacked Gray's phone. It's certainly not up to a judge to put his own interpretation of the facts into the record as if they were actual evidence.
Comments
I knew you were going to say that -
It is worth noting however that people have been jailed and any complicity by the met in the issue would have come out then.
Also most of those people calling for yet more investigations are also the ones using the same need as proof there is something in it. It is a bit of a circular argument.
Your argument makes no sense at all. Why would police complicity have come up at the trial? Was there some other police force investigating the Met with a view to prosecution of officers for corruption?
Andy Hayman now works for News International, by the way.
A criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt - I would expect any self-respecting lawyer to have used any means possible to get his client off - after all that is the job.
But more than that since people have been jailed over the issue I can see no reason why they would have stopped were they did - I would expect them to have moved on to Coulson if there was anything of substance in the allegations that have been made.
Er, because CPS evidence was suppressed at the original trial
http://www.nickdavies.net/2010/09/17/secret-papers-raise-questions-about-scotland-yard/
And that was about Coulson was it?
Depends on how close his relationship with Andy Hayman was, doesn't it? There seems to be a very interesting dynamic between NI and The Met.
Still waiting for anything which points the finger at Andy Coulson. The man has effectively been hounded out of two jobs now and nobody has yet produced anything of substance to say he is guilty of any crime - let alone one that would stand up in court.
Of course if evidence does emerge then the full force of the law should be brought to bear - but again if there was anything of substance why did the lawyers for those already found guilty not use it?
Nah, I'm sure he's perfectly above board - five (is it five, I've lost count now) executives at the NOTW reporting directly to him implicated in hacking of one form or another, and the poor little mite didn't have a clue. Don't forget to watch Panorama on iPlayer.
So no then. Still more 'but he must have known' stuff.
Amazing isn;t it, five executives accused of phone hacking, yet none have implicated their boss and no evidence has come from anywhere to implicate him. Could it be, shock horror, he didn't know?
Still no evidence, despite all that. Just 'no smoke without fire'.
Would you care to define what is (and is not) a "failed" criminal investigation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/03/phone-hacking-judicial-review
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/15/judge-police-phone-hacking-news-of-the-world
If it was so sucessful, wouldn't be having a new one, with a new team, would we?
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/77493/what-was-david-cameron-thinking-andy-coulson-news-of-the-world-british-tabloid-prime-minister
Just what was he thinking?
Let's clear up one misunderstanding.
It is not the job/duty of the Police to seek complaints from people. If a person suspects that his/her voicemail has been hacked it is up to them to lodge a formal complaint.
The articles you provided links to, whilst being interesting, contain nothing but allegations, rumour and speculation.
An even more dangerous and worrying aspect is contained in the following;
Excuse me? DId someone rewrite the bloody rules of evidence and not tell anyone?
It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mulcaire hacked Gray's phone. It's certainly not up to a judge to put his own interpretation of the facts into the record as if they were actual evidence.