Sunday, 17 July 2011

Rebekah, unintentionally, 'wades' into another controversy

I was out at the time when the news broke about the arrest of Rebekah Brooks, an occurence that raises some interesting initial questions. She was, it will be recalled, due to appear on Tuesday next with both Murdochs at a session of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. So:

Who took the decision to arrest her?
What discussions, if any, took place between the police and the government (Cameron) about when she would be arrested?
By arresting her, are the police guilty of interfering with parliamentary business - if she is still in custody, how can she attend the hearing?
Is there any significance about the fact that she was arrested after resigning, rather than before.
Does the timing of her arrest have anything to do with the prevention of disclosing police corrpution at Westminster?

The list of questions for a cynic such as I is virtually endless.......

On another tack, much has been made of the fact that Cameron made a glaring error hiring Coulson after he had been sacked by the News of The World. Now regular readers will be aware that I am not 'best mates' with Cameron, however I have to raise the question: what is the difference in Cameron hiring someone fired by the News of The World and David Laws being 're-hired' by Cameron? Both have what may be called 'questionable cvs', do they not? Yet I recall not one politician's voice raised in anger about the proposed re-hiring of the latter - and most certainly not that of Clegg!

Apologies, did someone just mention something about double-standards..............?


Gandalf said...

This is the Bilderberg group offering up meat for the MSM to devour, and to stop her attending the government Judge led inquiry, she cannot answer any questions that may impact upon a police investigation

TomTom said...

Did you really suggest the Police consult with Cameron before proceeding with Arrest and Caution of a Witness/Suspect ?

Surely you cannot believe your MP is so stupid as to compound his problems by interfering in Police inquiries ?

I am of the opinion Cameron will be resigning but I had not thought he could be so unbelievably stupid as to dig his grave any deeper in acting as you intimate

WitteringsfromWitney said...

G: Agreed but it also means that even if she is released, she can't say owt either. More to the point it also stops any accusations being made against the police. As yet I have not seen any criticism of the Met police investigating their own, either.

TT: Did I insinuate that? All I did insinuate is that pound to a penny the police queried whether it might cause a problem were RB to be arrested at this time. Any such question would have been passed up the chain without doubt.

Cameron will be able to show he has not interfered in any way. No doubt his response was that as he said the police must follow the trail wherever it leads and that the decision was theirs and theirs alone. I am not saying that he did not infer anything by intonation of his voice in what he told them. Either way, on this question he can come out with lily-white hands......

Lastly, have you ever known a politicians to stop digging when he's in a hole?

PeterCharles said...

Double standards? Politicians have a separate standard for every eventuality, providing an infinite progression of such.

As to the police, well there appears to be a genuine investigation under way with the activities of Sue Ackers while at the same time the brass are having screaming hysterics and will be desperate to limit the damage the eponymous spiv Hayman and the cretinous Yates did with their recent explanations.

Brookes' arrest doesn't really change anything, the committee should not be taking testimony from anyone involved while a police investigation is ongoing, there is far too much scope for corrupting evidence and, as it is a public forum, of prejudicing any eventual prosecution, but who knows, maybe that was part of the plan. She could not, or should not, have been asked any questions relating to the investigation or those under any suspicion, including herself, and if she was asked she should have correctly refused to answer. In fact she may have been arrested purely so that she could not appear thus scuppering any chance of grandstanding idiot politicians inadvertently poisoning the case the police are building. All praise to Ackers if that is the case.

On the other hand, since at her last cosy committee meeting she gaily told everyone they had been paying police bungs for years, evidently not realising that was criminal, someone may have decided too much might be exposed if she were allowed to run her mouth off again and moved to quash any chance of it happening.

I think it doubtful Cameron was overtly involved in the decision, made aware before hand possibly. Which does not mean he couldn't have had any involvement, I'm sure there are plenty of friends of friends of friends that can be relied on to pass instructions to the right ears with little risk of any future attribution to anyone.

Whatever the reason, I doubt she will now be called to give evidence to the committee.

TomTom said...

It is more important to stop further destruction of evidence and seize RB's files and computers - then to turn her and get her to implicate others. She can appear before the Cuolture select Committee with QC in tow as she would have done anyway.

Unless of course she was being offered Immunity from Prosection for a Section 79 RIPA Offence

PeterCharles said...

I see Sir Paul Stephenson has just resigned as well because of his Wallis connection. He claims he is resigning to prove his integrity. Since Met Commissioners and Chief Constables today are in the job mainly for their political skills, hopefully not allegiances, I doubt they have much integrity to prove. His predecessor certainly showed none.

Anyway, it seems a bit previous to me if there's nothing else they don't want us to know, but perhaps that just my cynicism or my suspicious mind.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

PC & TT: Again PC, I was being a tad sarcastic! On the point that RBhas been 'silenced' by her being arrested is negated by TT's point about not answering any questions on the basis it mightincriminate her and that it would be compromising the investigation. TT is probably right in that she will be turned and offered immunity.

I also believe PC is right when he suggests Cameron was consulted, but at arms length - something I also hinted at. One thing is obvious though the decision to arrest RB had a definite political aspect to it.

PC: agree with your afterthought comment!