A Downing Street source said the first No 10 knew that an injunction
had either been sought or granted was when they saw the 10 O'Clock
News.
Yeah, right. Believe that and you'll believe anything. Even if they didn't hear it from the Attoryney General's Office, they would surely have been contacted by Nick Robinson for a comment before then. And judging from the traffic to my blog from government IP addresses last night I just don't believe they knew nothing of it before 10pm.
Now to the substance of the matter. It seems that it was the Police who asked the AG for the injunction on the BBC. If so, this indicates that serious charges are about to be laid and the Police are fearful of anything that might jeopardise a successful prosecution. In turn, I believe they also fear that the CPS are looking for any excuse to say that a prosecution would not be in the public interest.
That's why everyone, including bloggers, has got to be incredibly careful now not to anything which might prejudice the Police case.
UPDATE 2.51pm: One of my readers, who works for the BBC, has just left this comment:
By the way, most BBC people were told about this story at around 4pm yesterday.
The injunction arrived about an hour later. Nick Robinson and another BBC
journalist got the same story at about the same time. I've probably told you too
much -- but I'm glad it's shut the "Robinson is Blair's Poodle" crowd up for the
time being.
Some of us have never subscribed to that theory anyway!
66 comments:
Your reading of this Iain tends to re-enforce my beliefs that the good Inspector forced the AG into seeking this injunction to stop a "spoiling" move.
I bet the AG was talking thru gritted teeth in the judge's chambers last night.
Now I wonder what the good Inspector used as an arm twister on the AG?
As for No.10's comments about when they knew of it - Yeh there really is an honest politican living in Downing Street!
Any idea why Guido's blog has disappeared? Or is it just me that can't see it?
Has Guido been injuncted as well? He's off line.
By the way, most BBC people were told about this story at around 4pm yesterday. The injunction arrived about an hour later. Nick Robinson and another BBC journalist got the same story at about the same time.
I've probably told you too much -- but I'm glad it's shut the "Robinson is Blair's Poodle" crowd up for the time being.
Guido's still reachable on http://www.order-order.com/ , which is where the 5thNov sites forwards you. Perhaps he's manoeuvring to ditch blogger ( since we're doing unsubstantiated rumours this week ).
Man in a shed: no he's not!
Barnacle Bill:
That's my reading of it too. If the AG wanted to avoid prosecutions surely it would be in his interest to let all the info be published.
For once a gagging order would seem appropriate, even though we are all itching to find out what this email says.
I can't even find anything about it on Google!
bj - well its where I'm being sent.
On an aside all this stuff may give a practical use for Britain's Trident submarines - when the next one docks after being out at see for 6 months the CPS can get its unbiased jury.
BB,
If Labour wanted the story to get out wouldn't they leak it out of the jurisdiction knowing that if it say turned up on Drudge bloggers would link to it?
Still no sign of Guido - Has anyone emailed him to check whats up?.
The DNS server is propagating across the WWW. Apparently. Whatever that means. Could take 24 hours, bizarrely it can't be seen by myself yet. Some can, some can't see it already.
All happening because am moving the domain and hosting onto Google's backbone.
So depending on your ISP some of you will be seeing it and some of you won't, I did this last weekend with www.GuyNews.TV
Where you can catch a half-built Beta glimpse of the future...
As for Iain's point, we are probably entering the final straights of the investigation. Am myself now very wary of publishing anything that Downing Street could potentially use to claim the trial was prejudiced.
I'm surpised no blogger has been able to dish the dirt on the reason for the injunction. Can someone point us in the right direction?
irritant - Let's leave well alone for the moment. We don't want to spoil anything, or help No 10.
I'm getting Guido with no problems.
Iain - as much as I loathe comment moderation, it might be a responsible idea to turn it on ...
My breath is bated, the pinning back of my ears is complete and my loins, if not fully girded, are as prepared as they're ever going to be.
Let's see those charges made.
No detractors please, you might find my latest snippet interesting...
Still unable to see Guido's blog...
Dear "irritant",
Guido's blog is back,has been off for a while,but now all appears well,so please stop wittering,it's only a blog you know.
I think those of you who can see Guido's blog are getting a cached version. If you ctrl-F5 it won't work any more.
The point bj misses, perhaps deliberately, is that Robinson could've been given this story by no. 10 in order to scupper the prosecution. We simply don't know.
The fact he got the story proves nothing about his allegiances and/or prejudices. We can still call him a poddle.
BTW, Jailhouse knows f*ck all new.
Agreed, no-one except for a handful of mendacious creeps want to prejudice any prosecutions.
Besides, I want to savour what hopefully is the coming destruction of Nulab, to watch the slime drip all over the front pages of the MSM, seep into the editorial offices of the beeb, choke the lying bastards who've sold their independence and judgement to be just another mouthpiece of the spin machine.
Only one thing can make it even better - that'd be that it turns out that Alastair Campbell is in it up to his neck too.
This I believe is the new address for Guido's blog.
http://www.order-order.com/
Jailhouse knows f*ck all new.
But it is nicely written.
'The DNS server is propagating across the WWW. Apparently. Whatever that means. Could take 24 hours, bizarrely it can't be seen by myself yet. Some can, some can't see it already.'
Is what Guido said above and I am assuming its correct!!!!
bj - OK. I pressed Control F5 and the blog went off the screen and came back on immediately. There's nothing wrong with Guido's site.
This is like waiting for xmas when your a kid, you know it could be all you waited for and more.so lets hope that bliars pacing a hole in the carpet in between trips to the toilet
and the drinks cabinet(the only one that he notices).
Verity: I'm in London's West End and it's still offline here. The fact is at present some can access it and other's cannot.
BT: For the record I was against TB in '97. He's always been wrecklessly opportunistic authoritarian creep.
Mitch: It's an interesting theory but I can't see any indications to suggest Nick Robinsons bosses have the appetite to go against the government to such a degree. Losing two DG's in a short period of time would provoke an internal crisis. Factoring in the loss of a previous DG in 1987 (Alisdair Milne) due to intense pressure by the then Thatcher Government, who knows how it would affect the BBC. Here's a couple of references for the whippersnappers:-
Wikipedia: Alisdair Milne.
Wikipedia: Zircon affair.
I see a lot of recent comments on Guido's site that name names and claim to have inside info. Look sinister to me, but I'm no blogging expert. Might be that comments are being placed as a clandestine attempt to do what the latest 'leak' has so far been unable to do, ie queer the case for a trial. Seems like a logical tactic for the dirty tricks boys. So, as you say, bloggers beware!!
ps. One has to be suspicious about the role of the BBC in all of this, I know that I am.
Iain,
I'm running a competition over at my blog for the best designed political Mii. I've already had a crack at the party leaders, but feel free to enter your own.
I reckon they tried to leak it to ruin the chances of conviction.
Sneaky scumbags.
Come on old bill make my year.
I bet one of the Sundays will blow it, if they can work out half a story. My bets are on New of the Screws, or one of the other trashy rags!
Anonymous 5:19 and Robert: Yes, indeed.
I hope Yates of the Yard can be fleet of foot now.
Thinking of the torture Blair must be in makes me so happy. Remember when Blair was so frightened of Michael Howard becoming leader of the Tories that he had to have a doctor out to Downing St to help him release trapped wind? This time trapped wind will reach high velocity, hurricane force when released. Ha ha ha ha ha! Are we finally going to be able to crack that special bottle of champers we've all been keeping on ice?
I rather suspect the conversation went, "Look Inspector Knacker, somthing's come up that's going to be a bit awkward for us, would you mind INSISTING that we go for an injunction ?"
From a political point of view we'd all love to know
From a criminal justice view we cannot.
Self censorship for the long game folks.
Lenten penance until after Easter - Guido would approve :-)
Marvellous Verity!
Surely the trapped wind from the office in No11 will propel the serial nailbiter (said quickly = Sir Anal-Bitter) even further away from No 10, even though Margaret’s little flat’s been his for some time.
And as the draughty gates to Downing Street won’t keep the wind out, let’s hope it rattles the French windows of that very, very expensive building opposite Big Ben, where so much doesn’t get done.
And I don’t mean the tube – that’s much better for blasts of hot air. When you think about it, there are probably more people in that superb station, going to work, thinking about making money and worrying about their own money, while the same number of wasters upstairs are planning on how to spend it and squander it on their stupid, ideas!
Are you saying that the BBC are helping out No 10 by publishing this email ?!!
...And judging from the traffic to my blog from government IP addresses last night I just don't believe they knew nothing of it before 10pm...
That would appear to be conclusive.
With the New Statesman's political editor questioning Goldsmith's motivation on Channel 4 News and their link to the Smith Institute I'm sure that any remaining of that 'coincidental' influx of leftward leaning journalists into the BBC in the run up to the 1997 election (as revealed by the Wilson report) will be desperate to help their political associates.
What the Telegraph's source at No.10 probably means is that nobody in the Communications Team knew about the injunction - presumably because Blair didn't want them to know so he could claim they weren't lying (just like he did when it belatedly emerged that he had been re-interviewed).
How do your two non-stories of last night get the label 'Exclusive'? The word is being cheapened in both cases. The second one is particularly laughable though.
James Higham - could you do us a favour and publish your list of govt. IP addresses? I think I have a complete list but it'd be useful to compare.
Interesting that the rest of us pick up ISP host addresses when we access the Internet but govt. machines go direct. Safer that way probably.
Suppose the name in the email is David Cameron and that he has promised all the Bullingdon Boys Ps and Ks as revealled exclusively on my blog last night at about 10:30pm. Still not been picked up by the mass media. All worrying about destroying Cameron's trial no doubt.
I thought Nick Robinson had been a young Conservative anyway
Guido said.
The DNS server is propagating across the WWW.
This means that his Domain Name Server now has to tell every other Domain name server in the world how to find Guido, and how to route to it.
It can take upto 24 hours for many ISP DNS servers to propagate properly, it depends on how often your ISP does its DNS updates.
Its just the same as you having to tell everyone you know of your new address when you move.
hope this helps.
News of the world might have a game set and match attempt to pervert the course of justice by downing street....
Iain, the Beeb are doing the dance of the 7 veils!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6416393.stm
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1234278.0.bbc_injunction_to_be_lifted_this_week.php
Interesting slant
/heraldnews/display.var.1234278.0.bbc_injunction_to_be_lifted_this_week.php
Rest of address - sorry!
be_lifted_this_week.php
Third time lucky!!
Who is that I see coming over the horizon ?
Why it's Rupert Murdoch, riding to the rescue of Teflon Toney !
Hip Hip - Hooray !!
BOF2BS at 10:37, They could have got that from reading my article!
Seriously, I said the BBC would have lodged papers on the way out and would be back on Monday.
I suspect the appeal will not be heard in the high court, but the appeal court as well.
My stories, both on Friday are here
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/03/cash-for-peerages-has-there-been.html
and here
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/03/cash-for-peerages-that-injunction.html
I sincerely hope that there are strong willed editors in charge of certain of our Sundays.
Ones prepared to stand up to any pressure from their proprietor.
Otherwise I fear the Sundays may ending doing what certain parties hoped the BBC would do for them.
Spin - the greatest evil bestowed upon the British public by NuLabor.
Benedict White
Was in no way trying to detract from your excellent Friday work which I went to from Guidos - simply looking for 'Sundays" angles on situation.
Well done keep up the excellent work
chatterbox - that's a very apt description !
Once the injunction was taken disclosure has become almost inevitable. Maybe the Met felt it needed to shown to be trying ?
I wonder how this this info about the E-mails got to the BBC. Was it a deliberate leak to a Bliar poodle?
Please, please, please don't anyone publish anything that will damage the chances of the "cash for peerages" or "perversion of the course of justice" cases from coming to court. It is so tempting to be "first off the block" or "king pin". but please remember that us ordinary taxpayers and voters want justice too!!
I don't think the No 10 leak suggestion works as I assume the BBC will check stories with sources before going to press - hence the possibility of an injunction.
If they really wanted to leak there are so many far more effective options.
By the way what was the last major prosecution to be called off due to the inability to get a fair trial ? (No I'm serious - how often does it happen ? )
I'm still puzzled to why this doesn't apply to the man arrested for the recent letter bombs - where we had news teams outside his house telling us how he lived with his mother ( a well known sign of being a serial nutter - or so its implied ).
Any lawyers want to explain ?
Shedman,
Maybe because the Lone Letter Bomber of Littlehampton ended up with an overworked, underpaid Legal Aid lawyer whereas the Downing Street Mafia will have highly paid briefs by the hundred.
Iain said: "That's why everyone, including bloggers, has got to be incredibly careful now not to anything which might prejudice the Police case."
I'm glad to see someone exhibiting some sense over this. There has been much wailing & gnashing of teeth over the "gagging" of the BBC. If the police themselves sought the injunction, to preserve the integrity of their investigation, then the BBC must have known that the item they planned to broadcast could be prejudicial. Bigoted and paternalistic as they are, I had not previously thought the BBC to be completely irresponsible. A new low.
Well said bj 2.38pm. As Iain says, "some of us have never subscribed to that theory anyway!"
Word of warning: Google hosting is crap, seriously. Guido will be sorry. My boss already tried that route and got out of it as quickly as he possibly could.
Hee hee. So which Blairite newspapers leaked the details? Er, The Daily Mail leaked the most, with The Daily Telegraph in second. Murdoch's lot were nowhere though Observer gossipists have hapless George Osborne cleverly pissing off the NOTW with careless talk about them being in the bag to big up the spliffing toffs.
man in a shed [12.35 AM] I can't recall a single case in which the proceedings have been stayed because the conduct of the media made it impossible for the defendant to have a fair trial. The point may have been argued, but I am not sure it has ever succeeded.
What has happened, is that offending news editors have got a tremendous bollocking, fines, etc. from the court, but that's a different matter.
Anyway, the problem in the present case seems to have been that the investigation, rather than the trial, might be prejudiced. In other words, having further interviews yet to conduct, Yates & Co did not want the suspects prematurely alerted to the evidence against them.
I sometimes puzzle long and hard over the leaks in this caes, is Guido right?
If there's an email with evidence of wrongdoing them it speaks for itself. Just because somebody else reads and repeats it doesn't make the content no longer true.
I think you're all being a bit over-sensitive about 'not prejudicing possible prosecutions'. The legal process is a bit more robust than that.
Mitch I think what a lot of us are wary of is that the leaking of whatever might not in it's self damage / hinder the investigation.
But that when the charge sheet lands upon a certain AG's desk. It can be used as an excuse for no further action.
After all we have seen less spurious excuses used for non action by a certain AG.
Post a Comment