What is the nature of a real conspiracy?

Most of us are extremely sceptical of any explanation of an event which requires conspiracy. It is generally held that conspiracies are rare and difficult of execution due to the number of people who have to be involved and the problem most people have in keeping a secret.

In this country we have been watching the saga of the News of the World and their illegal and distasteful phone tapping activities. All right thinking people are condemning this and there is to be an official enquiry or two. Mr Murdoch has agreed to withdraw his bid to buy BSkyB (for now) at the earnest request of the leaders of all three political parties: who apparently have no power to stop him, but have a good line in "pretty please" and very big eyes.

I think this is a true conspiracy.

The police were paid, it is alleged. Interestingly Rebecca Wade said this in terms, to a select committee of the house of commons: and that was a very long time ago. Apparently the answer was not pursued because they ran out of time in that session.

The police were supposed to investigate the allegations of phone tapping. The officer in charge at the time said they had done so but there was no evdence of widespread wrong doing. He has now admitted he did not review the case at all before making that statement

The PCC investigated the allegations: but you know what? The folk at the News of the World lied to them. I was led to wonder what the PCC thinks "investigation" means. I had the impression that if you were investigating something you could kind of expect some people to be a little less than honest: but what do I know?

Matthew Parris, a journalist from one of Murdochs other titles, blames the public: where did they think the stories were coming from, he asks? If the public are to be asked such questions then how much more those charged with investigating this? The MP's and the police and the PCC are presumably a little better placed to ask that very question.

It is my impression that a great many influential people knew about this: or if they did not it was because they went to enormous lengths to avoid the knowledge. It is not evidence that a conspiracy will not leak: it seems to have leaked very widely, and the corruption of the police force was openly admitted at the select committee.

So I contend it was a true conspiracy and it has many of the features of the kind of conspiracy which actually happens. A great many people with complex inter-relationships had good reasons for putting their fingers in their ears and singing la la la. These same people greet the suggestion that "one of us" would do anything wrong: indeed they imply the notion is preposterus. Once again "criminal" is something that you are: not something that you do. And none of "us" are criminals, of course.

It is sometimes said, when nasty stuff comes to public notice, that "everybody"knew: by this they mean everbody in the "Westminster village": it speaks only to the distance they have placed between themselves and the rest of us. The error in this case was one of escalation. Not that hard to predict. And now we have the rather silly spectacle of this mob trying to distance themselves. It was "nothing to do with me, guv" is the song they sing, together with "nobody could have been expected to know". Well Mr Parris rather undermines that view, methinks

More worryingly, Mr Cameron made noises about statutory regulation last week: the next day the press pilloried him for that: and he withdrew. This does not bode well for the sea change we are being encouraged to believe will follow from this "crisis"

So today Rebecca Brook was arrested and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner resigned.

There have been mawkish expressions of regret over the policeman's resignation: marvellous man, you know. Rather old fashioned in his notion that he should resign, but "the buck stops here" and all that. Integrity intact. Putting the reputation of the force first, as those who know him would expect. Blah, blah, blah.

As it happens they were both due to appear before a parliamentary committee to answer questions about all this on Tuesday. It was not very likely that that would be gruelling, given the track record so far. But if it happens at all it certainly won't be now. Ms Brook will presumably refuse to answer anything given it might inciminate her and she is out on bail. And the plod is not likely to be grilled, what with him being so obviously filled with industrial strength goodness.

But the reason for his resignation is interesting: he hired a deputy editor of the News of the World as an "adviser". I will say that again. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police employed a News of the World Executive as a public relations adviser. It is "unfortunate" that the man he hired has been arrested over the phone hacking. But I don't give tuppenny damn about that. I think the fact that the Chairman of the Metropolitan police hired a PR adviser is itself enough to show what kind of crazy, corrupt world these folk inhabit.

Also interesting is the fact that News International revealed the news that this same upstanding police officer and his wife stayed for free at an expensive spa which, it just so happens, employed the very same man as their PR adviser. The esteemed commissioner has made it plain he had no idea that said Mr Wallis was employed by the spa: just like he didn't know about the phone hacking; and he didn't know about payments to police officers.

Call me naive, but I was sort of under the impression that police officers were employed to find things out. Apparently that is no part of their remit.

We are told that he was very proper: "the free stay had been recorded in the senior officer's gifts and hospitality register", which is due to be published shortly. WTF is the point of such a register? Oh that is right: these folk all think that bits of paper are the job. So if you write it down it changes its character from "corruption" to "integrity", just like that??

The corruption and destruction of public service is very far advanced: so far advanced that this can be put forward as justification when it is really evidence of rot.

I do think it was a bit unkind of News International to publish this, mind: after all, the man has integrity, so far as we can see: he stayed bought.

Edited by FionaK - 18/7/2011, 00:35

This does not seem to be coming to an end. The Deputy Commissioner of the Met, John Yates, resigned today and there have been allegations about two other senior police officers, one of whom now writes for The Times, which is another Murdoch paper. Mr Yates also has a "clear conscience" and he resigns with regret because he cannot allow any distractions while the police are getting ready to deal with expected terrorist threats at the Olympics. "all honourable men...."

Sadly a former NoW journalist, who told a Panorama investigation that phone tapping was "endemic" at the paper, was found dead today. Police say his death is "unexplained" but not "suspicious".

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9gOSsvLIO4&feature=player_embedded

Fox News says it was all a long time ago and is trivial in the scheme of things and we should all move on

Both Murdoch and Brookes have been allowed to make political points about our wonderful free press and the benefits it gives us. Given that the press have been in the forefront of the "accountability" nonsense for everybody else the hypcrisy is breathtaking: they trust the people who work for them: not what they advocate for the rest of us. GRRRRRR!!!

They are also covering David Cameron's arse by insisting they were closer to Gordon Brown. Probably did have loads of meetings with him and with Blair. So what?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14242763

There is a suggestion that James Murdoch is not telling the whole truth. I am shocked, I tell you!!

Apparently Tony Blair is godfather to one of Rupert Murdoch's children. Cosy!

http://ht.ly/6lw3e

I have been watching the leveson enquiry hearings and they are very interesting: makes good background if you happen to be cleaning up

www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearings/

Edited by FionaK - 23/11/2011, 20:10

It is amusing to watch the lawyers for the press uncomfortable with the idea of not having the right of reply

Journalists are giving evidence today. One former tabloid journalist called Richard Peppiat is first and he is saying a great deal about how stories are made up; about the pressures on journalists to make them do that; and about the harm he has personally been involved in causing in order to sell newspapers. It is shocking but instructive. Recommended watching and the hearings are all available online though this one will not be there till later today or possibly tomorrow morning.

Well, if I have learned one thing from following this enquiry it is that Paul McMullan is a shit.

A couple of things seem to be coming out of the Leveson Inquiry which speak to the sense of entitlement of the press.

I have mentioned before that these (with honourable exceptions) are the people who have agitated for the introduction of notions of "accountability" for everyone else and which have furthered the "evidence based" demand which is neither practical nor desirable in many fields. To the extent they have succeeded in at least supporting the agenda of politicians and finance people they have helped to cause great damage. So it was very interesting to see the editor of a newspaper yesterday explicitly saying that an newspaper cannot be subject to that kind of nonsense. He said, essentially, that deciding what goes into a newspaper is a matter of experience and judgement and you cannot make flow charts about it. I agree: just as that is true of social work; and medicine at the level of diagnosis and treatment; and any number of other things which journalists do not understand and assume to be different from their own work. It is comical, except for the damage they have helped to inflict.

We had other examples today. As with the "evidence based" nonsense, so with the oversight. The rules they howl for for others are NOT to apply to them. Presumably they are special. So, for example, one of the commissioners on the PCC told the inquiry that one cannot bring a case before the PCC and also take the case through the courts. Interesting. Every other institution I can think of has internal disciplinary procedures and those are very often used alongside court proceedings. Leveson pointed that out and asked why it should not apply to the press: the answer was the only reason for accepting the PCC at all is that it is cheaper than court: so if there are court proceedings there is no reason why the press should comply with the PCC. That is,of course, dependent on the fact that accepting the PCC as having a locus is entirely voluntary: which is not the case with any other internal body looking at standards of professional behaviour. The cry is that nothing of the sort can be compulsory because it interferes with freedom of speech and freedom of the press.O rly? What piffle!

Similarly, the press have regularly run campaigns against the self regulation of other professions. I don't necessarily disagree there is a problem with that (that is quite a wide question I have touched on in other threads, actually, and it is not so simple as first appears: but let that slide). But if it is a problem for everyone else why not for the press? And again the answer is that they are special. Well, to me, this whole inquiry makes a good case for their stance against mine. I can quite see why they are not satisfied with self regulation for anybody else because they know fine it does diddly squat in terms of holding them to account for anything at all. I would have to concede my whole position and give them their point, if it were not for the fact that they have a genuinely "special" amount of power because our politicians are spineless at best: the would not be in this position if the power of the press was not far greater than it should ever have become: and great power breeds great corruption. Whatever you think of that, however, special pleading is not impressive: it has a very strong whiff of hypocrisy, at best.

The press are not only intrusive; not only willing to break the law to get stories; not only bereft of any respect for privacy or even human rights; not only willing to whine about the pressures of "a very competitive environment" which apparently led them to all of this (and this is the same press which uses "competition" as a synonym for all good things): they also tell lies about people and whether they do or do not depends largely on whether the person so treated has he means to sue them. I mentioned upthread that they were very unhappy at the start of the inquiry because they did not have a right of reply: a right they deny to everyone subject to their "investigations". This has come to the fore at the inquiry today over Hugh Grant's testimony. He alleged the Daily Mail had engaged in phone hacking and his assumption was reasonable (though very likely wrong). The published an allegation of perjury against him the next day and the inquiry asked for information in support of that allegation. They stalled for about 6 weeks and they put a lawyer up today to talk to the paper's allegation. It was pathetic.

It was actually quite amusing: they are clearly not used to suffering the kind of thing they regularly mete out. They don't likes it precious.

Edited by FionaK - 28/11/2012, 09:51

The hearings today included evidence from groups devoted to gender equality and against violence against women. It was interesting to hear quite familiar concerns put together in the context of the print media. If anyone is not familiar with these arguments I would recommend watching this presentation to Leveson