The extent to which the BBC are prepared to bend over backwards to perpetuate their onslaught on Murdoch has become quite ridiculous.
Right now they are giving top news billing to a piece of mud slinging from Tom Watson. According to the BBC, Mr Watson knows more about the phone hacking affair than anyone else, although why he should be more knowledgable than the rest of the population is unclear. What is clear is that Mr watson has been flingting more mud in the hope that he can make some stick on the Conservatives, aided by Peston and Robinson. So far he has failed.
The latest allegation is that James Murdoch told the parliamentary enquiry that he was not aware of an email detailing additional phone hacking at New International. Fair enough, it may or may not have been sent or copied to him (nobody suggests it was0, but he doesn't have to be aware of it, and it is not his fault if he isn't. Watson says that other ex-NI employees told Murdoch that there was more phone hacking. That employee probably did and Murdoch probably knew from this and other sources that there had been further phone hacking (but let us remember, not by NI employees). So Watson wants a police enquiry. Into what? Not knowing about an e-mail? That was never a crime and the police would do nothing about it. They can hardly prove that anybody is/was aware of an e-mail, even one sent to them.
So why is the BBC making such a fuss? Because it fits their biased narrative.
The issue that The Labour Party and the BBC are trying to disguise or avoid is the fact that Ken MacDonald (DPP) and Lord Goldsmith (AG) were both informed by the Met that there was a substantial evidence of wider phone hacking in 2006, but the police were instructed not to investigate any phone intercepts unless they could prove that voicemails were hacked before they had been received by the intended recipient (which hase no basis in law). Goldsmith yesterday denied restricting the scope of the police investigation, but that wasn't his job, it was MacDonald's (not a squeak from him). Goldsmith's job was to inform the PM (Blair) and the Cabinet. Did he?
Of course, if the Blair government and its law officers had acted properly, there would probably be no questions for Cameron to answer over Coulson. Meanwhile, MacDonald collects fairly handy sums from The Times for his occasional pieces on legal matters.
Why is the BBC sniffing around News International and the Conservative Party when the smell is coming from elsewhere.
2 comments:
It beyond parody.
No mention of the fact it is not the job or business of a proprietor of newspaper to know or want to know the sources of the journalists stories.
No doubt if BBC executive started demanding such information from their fellow beeboids the NUJ would walk en mass out.
It is worth noting that witnesses to select committees enjoy absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give, whether written or oral, provided that it is formally accepted as such by the Committee. Absolute privilege protects freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings; it is enshrined in statutory form in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which prohibits proceedings in Parliament from being called in question in any court. In practical terms this means that select committee witnesses are immune from civil or criminal proceedings founded upon that evidence; nor can their evidence be relied upon in civil or criminal proceedings against any other person.
So why don't the editors at the BBC push Watson back on the basis that his "police inquiry" will go nowhere because there is no "evidence" for the police or prosecxution to rely on?
Post a Comment