Leveson's police grilling only the beginning

 

Let's not beat about the bush. No journalist in their right mind turns down a drink with a top contact.

It's part of the business. It builds contacts - and contacts lead to stories.

But the latest Leveson Inquiry evidence, suggesting that some Metropolitan Police chiefs dabbled in a champagne lifestyle with tabloid hacks, won't help the force rebut the charge that it was too close to News International.

The inquiry has moved into its next phase which is looking at the relationship between the police and the press.

We've had weeks of evidence of alleged tabloid excesses and something of an attempted fightback from the papers and their friends in politics.

But this second phase may ultimately prove to be the most important because Lord Leveson has to decide whether the relationship between certain cops and reporters has been ethical - even if it can't be expected to be entirely transparent.

Police reputation

The question for the inquiry is quite simple: Was the relationship between the Metropolitan Police and News International in particular at best too close and at worst corrupt? And if it was inappropriate, does that explain a failure to investigate hacking?

Peter Clarke Peter Clarke has defended the police's decision not to delve deeper into the activities of reporters

The hacking allegations surfaced amid the massive counter-terrorism operations of 2006. Clive Goodman, the only News of the World reporter jailed for hacking, was arrested in the middle of a hugely successful investigation into a plot to bring down transatlantic airliners.

Peter Clarke, the then national co-ordinator of counter-terrorism operations, has repeatedly defended decisions not to delve deeper into the activities of reporters.

On Thursday he told the inquiry: "Invasions of privacy are odious, obviously. They can be extraordinarily distressing and illegal but they don't kill you. Terrorists do."

Lord Leveson has signalled that he clearly understands that reasoning. So the real question is why did the police not investigate again in 2009-2010?

This is the point upon which the Metropolitan Police's reputation now turns.

Champagne policing?

John Yates, the assistant commissioner who quit last year, faced three hours of very tough questioning yesterday about his drinks and meals with News International hacks.

Mr Yates, highly respected by his peers, is under attack because it was his decision not to reopen the hacking inquiry after the Guardian newspaper's investigation showed the News of the World's "rogue reporter" defence was rubbish.

The worst moment for him came when he had to comment on an internal NoW email in which a news desk editor asks a star reporter to "call in those bottles of champagne" by getting Mr Yates to spill the beans about a terrorism plot.

"It's a phrase," said Mr Yates. "And I think it's slightly unfair that it's put to me in that way, and I've said I put a completely different spin on it to you. There may well have been the odd occasion, yes, when a bottle was being shared with several people, but nothing in the sense that you're suggesting."

John Yates John Yates, former Met Police assistant commissioner, is now working in Bahrain

While all of this was going on, Lord Prescott was on Twitter, angrily commenting on the evidence of Mr Yates and his former colleague Andy Hayman: "Yates spent 1 year investigating Cash 4 Honours & found nothing. Spent 6 hours reviewing phone hacking & missed EVERYTHING"

Leveson is going to hear from more key and former Met figures who will be asked whether they agree that the relationship with the press went wrong.

One of next week's star witnesses is Lord Blair who quit as commissioner four years ago in circumstances completely unrelated to hacking.

We heard a sneak preview of his evidence when earlier this week Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, read out part of the former Met chief's witness statement.

In the document, Lord Blair says: "I believe that where the problem may have become significant is that a very small number of relatively senior officers increasingly became too close to journalists, not I believe for financial gain but for the enhancement of their reputation and for the sheer enjoyment of being in a position to share and divulge confidences."

John Yates and his former colleague Andy Hayman denied on Thursday that there was anything wrong in their relationships with the press or News International.

But the question of the Met's general approach to newspapers will keep coming back as the inquiry looks at whether, in the words of Robert Jay, there was an "arguably over-cosy relationship".

So this week's evidence has really only been the opening shots in what is going to be a very uncomfortable time for Britain's top force.

 
Dominic Casciani, Home affairs correspondent Article written by Dominic Casciani Dominic Casciani Home affairs correspondent

More on This Story

The Leveson report

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 1.

    The police won't go down without bringing the politicians with them.

    Squeaky bum time for the previous Labour governments.

  • rate this
    +14

    Comment number 2.

    There's a role for the police and media to communicate,for eg,appeals to help solve crimes and the like.There is no need for individual officers to have working relationships with the media.Any such contact should only ever be thru officially appointed media officers/depts.There is no excuse for any officer talking about cases under investigation to the press or tipping press off about raids etc.

  • rate this
    +13

    Comment number 3.

    A different spin? There should not be any spin just plain truth, honesty and ethical behaviour.

    No excuses for deception or corruption please, we need to be able to trust policemen and politicians to the same extent we can trust doctors.

  • rate this
    +10

    Comment number 4.

    There's a turf war going on.

    It will get nastier,more entertaining and enlightening.

    The truth might set some free,but won't be pretty for others.

    I only hope the can of worms gets tipped over further.

  • rate this
    +21

    Comment number 5.

    Why is it that I have a feeling that eventually politicians, police and journalists will eventually all tell us that 'there were mistakes made'. Then there will be a few slapped wrists and a period of pretending that 'lessons have been learned'. Then in three months time the CPS will announce that no one will be be charged, or anyone important at any rate. *sighs* Nothing changes.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 6.

    and why did this happen...because the sensation crazy public want to read and hear about the details of other peoples lives but would fight tooth and nail to protect their own privacy.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 7.

    We already knew journalists were slimy just as we know politicians lie and a lot of coppers are bent. Do we really need an inquiry to state the obvious?

  • rate this
    +11

    Comment number 8.

    I was taught to "respect the police" by my parents and regarded them as figures I could trust and rely on. Now children seem to have less trust of the police and stories that come out from the Leveson inquiry will only fuel that mistrust.

    We need zero tolerance applied by the police to the public and themselves. We also need to support "whistleblowers" who bring evidence to bear in both respects.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 9.

    We also need the Leveson enquiry to actually define what is and isn't in the public interest.

    Do stories about Caroline Spellman's son taking 'sports drugs' and David Cameron riding a friend's horse of any relevance?

    Yet you can find tabloid stories of this kind daily on the BBC web site.

  • rate this
    +7

    Comment number 10.

    Hayman spent public money amounting to £613, which included £235 for alcohol in one day, happily revealing that it was the custom/practice to entertain each other at public expense when someone was promoted - the individual promoted should have been more than happy to entertain colleagues. Police budgets are under pressure and this abuse of public money should be stamped on.

  • rate this
    +10

    Comment number 11.

    A "Ménage à trois" of three very ugly sisters - Ms Politics, Ms Police and Ms Press.

    May they all fall out of bed together.

  • rate this
    +17

    Comment number 12.

    The cancer of Murdoch has corrupted multiple organs of the body politic including the police. Step 1 must be to cut out that rottenness to its last atom. Only once that is done can we seek to rebuild a British police force of which the country can be proud.

  • rate this
    +12

    Comment number 13.

    'Peter Clarke, the then national co-ordinator of counter-terrorism operations, has repeatedly defended decisions not to delve deeper into the activities of reporters.

    On Thursday he told the inquiry: "Invasions of privacy are odious, obviously. They can be extraordinarily distressing and illegal but they don't kill you. Terrorists do."..'

    A truly, truly, pathetic amoral comment

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 14.

    We all know NOTHING will change, no one will take responsibility and no one will be charged. It's just another waste of taxpayer money. This "enquiry" will cost us millions of pounds and the only thing it will achieve is to make the rich people conducting the "enquiry" richer. Same old corrupt Britain.

  • rate this
    +13

    Comment number 15.

    We are told by the police that there was no time to inquire in to 'hacking' whilst dealing with terrorist threats.
    Yet they had plenty of time to have media lunches and dinners.

  • rate this
    +9

    Comment number 16.

    We are told invasion of privacy does not kill, terrorists do. Both do.
    We have at least one unsolved murder, and plenty more examples where witnesses are confronted and scared off from attending court. Where do these criminals get their information from?
    Suspects are tipped off to either disappear or dispose of evidence.
    How does this happen?
    Hopefully the Lev. Inq. will reveal this corruption

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 17.

    The l BBC is obsessed by the Leveson enquiry, personally I think the majority of the British public have had enough of it.

    As soon as I heard that Charlotte Church was awarded £600,000 for having her phone hacked, I thought what a disgrace. Members of our armed force can have their limbs blown off and get nothing like this amount.

    The media obsessed with itself.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 18.

    In 2005 the Government tore apart HM.Customs and Excise because of a procedural error in a highly complex trial. In comparison the activities of the Police as an organisation makes the failure to disclose a few documents pale into insignificance. The thoughts about privatising elements of the Police service at this stage make me think that a lot of coppers will need to hang on to their hats.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 19.

    Corruption amidst the politico`s and police....?

    No never....surely !

    Feed the press...

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 20.

    "...Let's not beat about the bush. No journalist in their right mind turns down a drink with a top contact...."

    ===

    Sadly so, it's just that the meaning of "top" is usually taken to mean the one of whom most readers have heard, rather than the most authoritative in the field.

    The rest follows...

 

Page 1 of 3

This entry is now closed for comments

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.