The BBC reports:
The Metropolitan Police has said it may reopen the investigation into claims of phone hacking by the News of the World if it uncovers new evidence.
Assistant Commissioner John Yates said officers would consider any new information – and examine if further action should be taken.
A former reporter on the paper has claimed the paper’s former editor, Andy Coulson asked him to hack into phones.
Mr Coulson has denied using or condoning the practice while editor…
One reporter – Sean Hoare – said he had been personally told by Mr Coulson to intercept phone messages. In a statement, Mr Yates said the Met has asked the New York Times to provide officers with any new material it has relating to the case. He said… “We were never made aware of the material from Sean Hoare before the [New York Times] article’s publication. We have sought additional information from them and will consider this material, along with Sean Hoare’s recent BBC Radio interview, and will consult the Crown Prosecution Service on how best to progress it.”
You can read the full BBC report here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems beat Labour in a Liverpool by-election for first time since 1997
Little Wonders #dundeewestend
Will Labour kill off the landmark climate and nature bill?
Lib Dems will continue to back 50 per cent cap on faith-based admissions to schools
Peter Davies
William Wallace
Slamdac
John Marriott
Steve Trevethan
15 Comments
The problem is, though, that they don’t appear to have dealt adequately with the *old* information – why the hell should we expect them to deal properly with any new information?
Now we will see what if any the PM has any moral and political judgement.
If they nail Coulson, Cameron is on a very very sticky wicket.
http://redrag1.blogspot.com/
What is Clegg’s view on all this. He’s been very quiet while minding the country for Cameron while he coos over his new babe.
Clegg’s post-election view that is.
Has he U turned on that like so much else.
If Coulson was unaware how the journalists were obtaining their info then he is completely incompetent. The public have suspected this was going on. If he is incompetent then why is he now employed in such a powerful position and paid more than Nick Clegg? Presumably he’s paid from the Public purse?
I would be furious to think people I did not know were listening into my phone calls. It’s a massive infringement on civil liberties. The public should be demanding proper answers. I am amazed the LibDems are not voicing their concern. What do they actually stand for?
When I want moral instruction from the party of Torture & Illegal War Ill ring up Labour HQ.
That aside Ive been dissapointed that we have made so little noise about this. Protecting privacy is a classic Liberal issue after all. While its difficult for the DPM to intervene the rest of our front bench should at least be demanding to know if their phones were hacked too.
Chris Huhne has commented: “Andy Coulson’s defence is that he did not know what was going on despite the mounting evidence that his newsroom was widely using illegal phone hacking. Either he was complicit in crime, or he was one of the most incompetent Fleet Street editors of modern times.”
Keep the Fleet St hacks out of number 10.
Have an official communications officer provided by the Civil service,working within certain rules.
Any other kind of political PR should come from the HQ’s of the party, and should be labelled as such.
No more Campbell’s,Coulson’s etc should ever set foot over the doorstep of Number 10
Q: Does the prime minister believe entirely Andy Coulson’s denials?
A: [No verbal response, although the spokesman did appear to nod faintly.]
Q: I didn’t hear that.
A: That’s what I said.
Q: But does the prime minister believe Andy Coulson?
A: Andy has made the position clear, and there have been a number of reports over the past few days but none of those reports change anything as far as the prime minister is concerned.
Q: Just to confirm … I’m asking you if you can say he believes Andy Coulson.
A: Obviously he accepts the position, obviously.
Q: Does he believe the statement?
A: Obviously he accepts the position.
Q: I note that you’re not saying he believes Andy Coulson’s statement.
A: This has been gone over many times in the past. The prime minister accepts the position. He has full confidence in Andy Coulson. And he continues to do his job.
Right, enough about the Tories who supported said things, what about Labour?
Childish petulance in the extreme.
~alec
Cassie, is that a genuine transcript?
~alec
Re: Kahaar
Yes it is from a Guardian journalist who attended the daily press briefing this morning.
It’s listed in the Guardian on the phone hacking story.
>I am amazed the LibDems are not voicing their concern. What do they actually stand for?
Lembit’s having a go, if that helps 😉
*no relation to Cassandra above
It must be only a matter of time before Coulson is brought down. You would think that Cameron would cut him loose; the association is damaging Cameron.
Oh, great t’other Cassie, that’s LibDem opposition scuppered.
Paul, if Coulson does come to be implicated, cutting him loose beforehand won’t matter. The ripples will travel right back to when Cameron took him on, like an exploding Tardis.
I’m surprised no-one else appears to have commented on the fact that it was the New York Times which broke this. Methinks this was ‘cos it was insulated from Britain’s grotesque libel laws.
~alec
How very boilerplate of them.