Private detectives working for the News of the World targeted Tony Blair, the royal family and senior politicians, including a former Home Secretary, an MP claimed in the House of Commons Wednesday. Meanwhile, quoting "close associates" of Jonathan Rees, a private investigator who worked for the tabloid around 2005, the Guardian …
This is getting quite absured!
If the alleged crimes are important then they require prompt criminal investigations. The remit must be broad enough to assure that relevant further criminal activities can be investigated without it turning into a continuous fishing expedition. It should be executed expeditiously and reported fully if it is determined to be in the public interest to know who the players are (in this context, not just footballers but investigators and those who engaged their services).
At the moment The Police look like the Keystone Cops and the media/Newspapers - the lot of them from the tabloids through to the broadsheets and the periodicals - look like a bunch of sleazy lizards. In fact they give lizards and keystone cops a bad name!
At the end of all this - in about 12 months, please! - when malefactors are guests of Her Majesty and the media companies have been exposed, fined and put under control New legislation to properly protect information that has no public interest needs to be put in place with adequately deterrent penalties included.
It wont happen, mind. Not while the great and the good worry about what has already been collected on them and what might just be exposed.....
In teh meantime it will be a lawyerfest...
Maybe more like the Will Hay version of "Ask a Policeman".
It's funny that it now appears John Yates was himself targeted in the 90's but because he ran such a half-arsed and lackadaisical investigation into the original allegations he didn't find out.
When people no longer find it funny it'll be the Cannon and Ball version.
or, more sinisterly ...
"It's funny that it now appears John Yates was himself targeted in the 90's but because he ran such a half-arsed and lackadaisical investigation into the original allegations he didn't find out."
Hang on ... possibility that someone fell vicitim to a hack in the 1990, and that someone was subsequently less than effective investigating that hack ?
What did the original hack uncover ?
The police won't have asked them about Rees, as they are not investigating him.
No doubt they will say, as they did before being forced to re-start this enquiry, that there was 'no evidence' linking him with the crimes.
Well, they won't BE any evidence if you don't look for it, you idiots.
More and more, this looks like a cover-up by the police, not the first by any means (Phorm, Ian Tomlinson etc.) and probably not the last.
All the news that's fit to fake...
You have to wonder why no one saw the news stories being written the day before they happened, metaphorically speaking, of course.
The paper profited big time from these abuses and no one in management ever asked about the source? Unbelievable.
Mines the jacket without the microphone.
Not for the politicians anyway.
The same people who wouldn't investigate Phorm, tried to introduce ID cards and DPI, favoured the music industry over the principle of presumed innocence, and were busy filling their pockets with my money while abusing the parliamentary furniture with their secretaries.
Not to mention ContactPoint, the dodgy dossier, the complete erosion of civil liberties and the fact that a fifteen year old can't go into Tescos and buy a set of plastic spoons.
It's one of my few pleasures in life to see them red faced on the front page of the Screws.
Delightful isn't it?
The man who wanted to put all of his fellow citizens under near constant surveillance finds himself being spied on by his favourite media mogul.
Never mind Yates, there's another name in the frame.
"If the alleged crimes are important then they require prompt criminal investigations. "
Former Metropolitan Police terrorism expert Andy Hayman did those, some time ago (under the supervision of Yates?).
Then Hayman retired from the Met (full pension, likely) and took up a new job.
Working for News International, who he'd been investigating a few months before.
Who needs superinjunctions when you have a compliant media anyway.
Could someone please explain to a confused foreigner the deep significance of the operation name?
... I'm native to the UK, and I don't understand it, either! Google gives it as being a place in either Norfolk or Suffolk, or alternatively, "weet" is an archaic form of the verb "to know". I suppose, very vaguely, the second one makes a sort of sense, but it could just as easily have been named after the place some senior police drone had been on holiday (at someone else's expense, of course!)