Just a month ago, London Green AM and Mayoral candidate Jenny Jones criticised the Metropolitan Police for spending too much time investigating phone hacking:
Jenny Jones, the Green Party member on the authority, said that the investigation, which is being handled by the Met’s serious crime directorate, was diverting officers away from more important crimes.
“Although this is not a victimless crime it is not something we should be spending a huge amount of time on,” she said.
“There are murders, child abductions and rapes that these officers could be investigating. All these people have to do is not use the voicemail facility on their phone and they will never be hacked again. At a time when resources are so stretched this investigation, for me, should be pretty low on the agenda.”
Will she now stand by her criticism of the size of the Met’s (belated) inquiry into phone hacking?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sparrows Can't Sing Q&A with Barbara Windsor and Murray Melvin
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Lessons from 1936 and 2026 for the Liberal Democrats (LDN#211)
Richard Flowers
George Thomas
Tristan Ward
Chloe
GWYN WILLIAMS
7 Comments
I have not been following the case into great detail but I could have said exactly the same a month ago. It all seemed like this story The Guardian was so proud to have uncovered that it continued to write about and while even then it seemed right that those responsible were prosecuted, it never seemed to justify “one of the largest inquiries being handled by the Metropolitan Police”. I was wrong as was Ms Jones, but based on the information that was then available I think that was understandable.
It was actually fairly obvious from early on that there would be things coming out of this which weren’t just about the rich & famous. I think Hugh Grant actually made this point some weeks ago, but the media more or less dismissed him.
It wasn’t a huge leap from one thing to the other, and clearly the Met must have known that there were some pretty horrible things going on to hold such a large enquiry. I do wonder, though, given the mess that they made of the original investigation, why they were allowed to continue with it rather than it being passed to another large force to look at (eg Strathclyde or West Midlands)?
My best guess is that she would have changed her mind by now. I suppose it shows the dangers of having decided what your opinion is before knowing what you are talking about.
I don’t think you can say that Green ideology is one that would want to protect News International somehow.
I know, I’m off to commit a few armed robberies… don’t anyone dare complain until all those unsolved murders have been dealt with. Like Daniel Morgan’s.
Jones, as we can see, was sitting on the committee charged with scrutinizing the Met. One would have thought she appreciated the need for varying priorities. One would also have thought she’d made herself aware of the known links between Morgan and other PIs employed by the NotW, with the acceptance of systemic Police corruption at the time.
Geoff, I doubt Green policy is about defending Murdoch. I just think this shows how unsuited Greens are for political responsibility.
~alec
You cannot judge the Greens by what one person says. I am sure they can dredge up some stuff about the Lib Dems. Lets not go there shall we?
If there’s a bandwagon around, Miss Jones will jump on it:
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/jenny-jones-to-re-quiz-met-commissioner-over-police-payments-from-newspapers-in-phone-hacking-probe.html
A pretty grim attempt to save face. She has now said: “There is a public suspicion that this has been a widespread practice in the past with the police providing tip offs and nuggets of information to journalists and photographers.” Perhaps some of those suspicious members of the public could be given her job for a few months. They might not be played so easily…
@ Geoffrey Payne – No one suggested the Greens would want to support News International. This Green individual simply shot her mouth off without knowing the facts – as you, yourself, infer – so we should “go there” when she tries to make political capital by standing her original argument on its head.