^^^Will Lewis is also Robert Peston's best friend and is widely believed to be the NI insider that RP cites in his reports.
― natalie imbroglio (suzy), Friday, 22 July 2011 14:40 (twelve years ago) link
Clarity.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 22 July 2011 14:41 (twelve years ago) link
Meanwhile on the security clearance front:
3.27pm: Ian Katz writes: Andy Coulson had begun undergoing high security vetting in November, around three months before he resigned as David Cameron's director of communications, the Guardian has learned.Downing Street has been under pressure to explain why the former News of the World editor was not subjected to so-called "developed vetting", the high security checking process most previous No 10 press secretaries have undergone. Both Coulson's successor and his former deputy, Gabby Bertin, are undergoing developed vetting.A Whitehall source said the decision not to subject Coulson to developed vetting was taken by Jeremy Heywood, the Downing Street permanent secretary. The source said it was decided that, as director of communications, Coulson did not need access to highly secret material and that developed vetting was a costly, unnecessary expense.The source stressed that Coulson's lower level of clearance, "security check" or SC, did allow him to have access to material designated "secret" and to "top secret" material under supervision. He also said that the controversy surrounding Tony Blair's press chief Alastair Campbell's access to intelligence material was a consideration in deciding to give Coulson a lower level of vetting.The source said that following the discovery of an explosive device on a plane at East Midlands airport in October, it was decided that Coulson did need developed vetting to deal with similar terrorism-related issues and the process was started. The process can take three to six months and had not been completed when Coulson resigned saying the phone-hacking scandal meant he could no longer work effectively.
Downing Street has been under pressure to explain why the former News of the World editor was not subjected to so-called "developed vetting", the high security checking process most previous No 10 press secretaries have undergone. Both Coulson's successor and his former deputy, Gabby Bertin, are undergoing developed vetting.
A Whitehall source said the decision not to subject Coulson to developed vetting was taken by Jeremy Heywood, the Downing Street permanent secretary. The source said it was decided that, as director of communications, Coulson did not need access to highly secret material and that developed vetting was a costly, unnecessary expense.
The source stressed that Coulson's lower level of clearance, "security check" or SC, did allow him to have access to material designated "secret" and to "top secret" material under supervision. He also said that the controversy surrounding Tony Blair's press chief Alastair Campbell's access to intelligence material was a consideration in deciding to give Coulson a lower level of vetting.
The source said that following the discovery of an explosive device on a plane at East Midlands airport in October, it was decided that Coulson did need developed vetting to deal with similar terrorism-related issues and the process was started. The process can take three to six months and had not been completed when Coulson resigned saying the phone-hacking scandal meant he could no longer work effectively.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 22 July 2011 14:42 (twelve years ago) link
He also said that the controversy surrounding Tony Blair's press chief Alastair Campbell's access to intelligence material was a consideration in deciding to give Coulson a lower level of vetting.
Bollocks
― R. Stornoway (Tom D.), Friday, 22 July 2011 14:51 (twelve years ago) link
Context, pls? How could a prior controversy lead to a lower level of vetting?
― publier les (suggest) bans de (Michael White), Friday, 22 July 2011 14:53 (twelve years ago) link
I assume the logic is that the controversy was caused by the press chief having access to intelligence material, so if you withhold access you don't have to do the vetting.
― PAJAMARALLS? PAJAMALWAYS! (DJP), Friday, 22 July 2011 14:55 (twelve years ago) link
Indeed. Still reads like a pathetic dig at New Labour to me though.
― R. Stornoway (Tom D.), Friday, 22 July 2011 14:56 (twelve years ago) link
That explanation is bollocks, and totally digs on Campbell out of tribalism rather than any substantive comparison between his and Coulson's positions.
I am sure Coulson was paid the same or more than a directly vetted official, even if he was only cleared to 'top secret', so Number 10's point is what, exactly?
― natalie imbroglio (suzy), Friday, 22 July 2011 15:06 (twelve years ago) link
i wonder if coulson ended up having access to top-level security documents despite his low clearance rating..
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 22 July 2011 15:11 (twelve years ago) link
i.e.
Assistant Commissioner John Yates told MPs he had met Coulson to discuss, among other issues, counter-terrorism.
Yes, but you never know with the Met, he was probably discussing it with the cleaning lady as well
― R. Stornoway (Tom D.), Friday, 22 July 2011 15:13 (twelve years ago) link
Who was also recommended by NI.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 22 July 2011 15:13 (twelve years ago) link
...because right now, it's looking like Campbell was able to pass DV with flying colours, whereas Coulson abandoned the process and his job.
― natalie imbroglio (suzy), Friday, 22 July 2011 15:15 (twelve years ago) link
What, if anything, will this mean for Cameron's plans to privatize many public services?
― publier les (suggest) bans de (Michael White), Friday, 22 July 2011 15:29 (twelve years ago) link
Is this a distraction from that or will this sour the electorate on private corporations running public services?
― publier les (suggest) bans de (Michael White), Friday, 22 July 2011 15:30 (twelve years ago) link
It's one of those things where a majority of the public are opposed, but scar-ooooooo what we might think or want.
― natalie imbroglio (suzy), Friday, 22 July 2011 15:31 (twelve years ago) link
Cameron + Clegg aim to dismantle the public sector come what may, don't see anything standing in the way of that, and I've heard it argued that Clegg is even more fanatical about this than Cameron
― R. Stornoway (Tom D.), Friday, 22 July 2011 15:33 (twelve years ago) link
Dismantle the public sector or privatize it, suzy? Are unions and 'entrenched bureaucracy' the problem in some neo-Thatcherite way or is this just a trojan horse way to kill public services altogether?
― publier les (suggest) bans de (Michael White), Friday, 22 July 2011 15:35 (twelve years ago) link
Neo-Thatcherite, that sums up Clegg for sure
― R. Stornoway (Tom D.), Friday, 22 July 2011 15:36 (twelve years ago) link
http://i.imgur.com/QDcxn.jpg
― James Mitchell, Friday, 22 July 2011 17:12 (twelve years ago) link
o_O
― PAJAMARALLS? PAJAMALWAYS! (DJP), Friday, 22 July 2011 17:15 (twelve years ago) link
dunno abt co durham but i can believe the other two letters are real
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Friday, 22 July 2011 17:55 (twelve years ago) link
the letters don't matter, just imagine what's underneath that dress, phwooaarrrrh.
i mean, could they not just have a picture of a typewriter, or a hammer, or something australian for some context?
― whatever, Friday, 22 July 2011 18:10 (twelve years ago) link
a koala in a bikini? phwoar?
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Friday, 22 July 2011 18:11 (twelve years ago) link
anyway, bbc reporting notw hired someone to stalk tom watson back in 2009
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Friday, 22 July 2011 18:28 (twelve years ago) link
(presumably not robert peston)
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Friday, 22 July 2011 18:35 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8656131/Phone-hacking-inquiry-judge-attended-parties-at-home-of-Rupert-Murdochs-son-in-law.html
nice
― stet, Friday, 22 July 2011 22:17 (twelve years ago) link
Tinker Tailor stuff indeed.
― graveshitwave (Noodle Vague), Friday, 22 July 2011 22:37 (twelve years ago) link
Lord Leveson, while chairman of the Sentencing Council that advises the Government on punishing criminals, met Mr Freud at a dinner in February last year in an Oxford University college.The pair discussed how to promote public confidence in the criminal justice system.
delicious
― zappi, Friday, 22 July 2011 23:44 (twelve years ago) link
jesus christ just nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 22 July 2011 23:54 (twelve years ago) link
Sunday Mirror phone-hacking claim revealed by Newsnight
― Asamoah Nyan (Le Bateau Ivre), Saturday, 23 July 2011 11:02 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/23/news-international-liberal-democrats-bskyb
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Saturday, 23 July 2011 19:44 (twelve years ago) link
it's not even a tiny surprise at this point but here we are - amy winehouse was hacked. http://charleslavery.org/2011/07/24/amy-winehouse-was-hacked/
― lex pretend, Sunday, 24 July 2011 09:28 (twelve years ago) link
Here's the thing: anyone who was a showbiz editor on an NI title and later rose to an editorship there or anywhere else is probably a 'beneficiary' of phone hacking, if not an outright practitioner. I've never met a showbiz ed who hasn't been a giant, flaming self-aggrandizing asshole.
Someone who used to work for ESM in the early '90s got into tabloid journalism via the other method - dealing Class A drugs to fellow hacks. There was an ESM bus trip to a club outside of London back in the day and this person managed to lose an entire baggie full of pills en route. Most of us couldn't stand this person and spent the rest of the trip indulging in quiet satisfaction as we watched the individual hunt high and low for the lost pills, trying to pretend nothing important had happened.
― natalie imbroglio (suzy), Sunday, 24 July 2011 10:11 (twelve years ago) link
So, uhhhh...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8657058/Tories-did-deal-with-Murdoch-over-BBC-licence-fee.html
― natalie imbroglio (suzy), Sunday, 24 July 2011 14:13 (twelve years ago) link
i find it really hard to gauge the import of a lot of this stuff, since things that i would've thought would be explosive have so far been brushed off - but that should be huge, right?
― a website about Jewish rock stars (schlump), Sunday, 24 July 2011 14:21 (twelve years ago) link
It already feels like something that's a weird relic. "You bent over backwards for these guys that much?"
― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 24 July 2011 14:26 (twelve years ago) link
i just don't know where the 'line' is, in differentiating between the kind of dealmaking that obviously happened, but was perhaps implicit, & that obviously labour did in not opposing media takeovers, & happens a lot, etc, & the sort of thing that just seems like egregiously non-democratic influence-buying, as above.
― a website about Jewish rock stars (schlump), Sunday, 24 July 2011 14:29 (twelve years ago) link
xpost "I wonder what they have on you?"
― StanM, Sunday, 24 July 2011 14:32 (twelve years ago) link
The sad thing is that I feel like in the US there are stories unearthed about how some company basically asked a legislator to take some action or even handed him a pre-drafted bill to present all the time, and they rarely blow up into anything. Hopefully the timing of this plus the blatant anti-competitiveness of it will help it gain steam.
― didn't even have to use my akai (Hurting 2), Sunday, 24 July 2011 14:35 (twelve years ago) link
yeah i mean it fits p neatly into the narrative currently being, they were too cosy, they met a lot, they discussed deals maybe in breach of propriety laws &c
― a website about Jewish rock stars (schlump), Sunday, 24 July 2011 14:38 (twelve years ago) link
it's pretty difficult to prove influence, is the problem
― graveshitwave (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 24 July 2011 14:44 (twelve years ago) link
Wait for it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/interactive/2011/jul/19/rupert-murdoch-twitter-pie
― I'm Not A Girl, Not Yet A Man Grown (Leee), Sunday, 24 July 2011 23:11 (twelve years ago) link
or 'why not to use twitter'
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Sunday, 24 July 2011 23:19 (twelve years ago) link
i am so amazed by the technology of that sort of thing that i lose any critical faculty. the way the bubbles gravitate towards the centre & that the bubbles represent people's writing. like i just don't care whether it's good or bad.
― radioactive computer (schlump), Sunday, 24 July 2011 23:26 (twelve years ago) link
i see they weren't counting "wtf" though
― lex pretend, Sunday, 24 July 2011 23:29 (twelve years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsJwM1DnLu4
sort of wonder if it would be legal to 'buy' an mp and get them convene committees at which they randomly slander and abuse public figures
― MY WEEDS STRONG BLUD.mp3 (nakhchivan), Monday, 25 July 2011 00:02 (twelve years ago) link
pretty sure that ilx poster ismael klata is in fact one of the millibands, tbh? not narrowed it down to which yet obvs
― who shivs a git (darraghmac), Monday, 25 July 2011 00:08 (twelve years ago) link
they're jewish......
― MY WEEDS STRONG BLUD.mp3 (nakhchivan), Monday, 25 July 2011 00:12 (twelve years ago) link
server glitch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtVm8wtyFI
― zvookster, Monday, 25 July 2011 00:13 (twelve years ago) link