UPDATE: Michael Howard must read my blog. He just asked John Reid if it was appropriate for the Chancellor to give stories on terror legislation to Sunday papers with conditions that they did not carry quotes from Opposition politicians. Reid said he was at one with his very close friend the Chancellor and batted it away.
UPDATE: Thanks to David Boothroyd for sending the Hansard of Reid's attack on Hain. Here it is...
John Reid: I want to make it absolutely plain that discussion on the
stop-and-question powers is going on inside Government. I did not raise the
matter, and neither did the police in mainland Britain. It derived from one
source. However, it is also evident that at least one source has major
misgivings about it. The problem is that the source is the same in both cases.
[Laughter.] We will carry on with the consultation on these matters.Here.
UPDATE: More on the Reid/Hain thing from Dizzy from earlier today.
28 comments:
Is Reid 'at one with' the Chancellor or does he merely agree with him?
Time was when 'at one' had some interesting interpretations. Maybe still does...
"if it was appropriate for the Chancellor to give stories on terror legislation to Sunday papers with conditions that they did not carry quotes from Opposition politicians. "
so you're calling the sunday hacks liars again? three of them have told you your story is wrong and yet you still seem to be peddling it?
strange.
Iain is this somehting to do with the "Fundemental flaw in the Project " article that Peter Hain has written saying that Gordon Brown has flirted with the anti Liberal tendencies of the "Right Wing Media "( GASP......), and should change direction. Its all our fault then ...
I am just reading it with my jaw wobbling dully on slack tendons somewhere near the carpet.Can there not be a Peter hain Bad language exemption clause . Its seems crule and unsual to deny your fans this useful therapy
"Michael Howard must read my blog" - is that an order?
Iain, Are you up for putting a complaint to the police under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906?
"If any person corruptly gives or agrees to to give or offers any gift of consideration to any agent as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do... any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business...
"he shall be guilt of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable on indictment to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years".
A 'principal' above is an employer, such as a newspaper. An 'agent' is an employee, e.g. a journalist or a spin doctor. A 'gift or inducement' could easily be a piece of privileged information or implicit threat that such 'consideration' will not be available in the future. A 'favour' could be agreeing to reproduce the press release verbatim or agreeing not to quote other relevant parties.
Now I'm not an expert lawyer, but it seem pretty clear to me that what you have here is prima facie evidence of illegal activity. That is, that Brown's spin doctors and their compliant journalists have broken the Criminal Law of England.
If you really believe your story is true, Iain, why not have it tested properly?
Aww! When I see aheadline like that I wistfully imagine something like the Taiwanese national assembly, only to find you meant "verbally attacked"...:)
I'd pay good money these days for a ministerial death match.
I presume you've seen the following comment by 'sundaytimesinsider' at Guido's?
"2: So what motivated failed Tory MP and still ambitious Dale's ejaculation on the subject? Answer: The Sunday Times was embarrassed the story was, er, not quite the exclusive it appeared to be and has tried to muddy the waters by claiming they had it exclusively before it was "briefed" all around. How embarrassing for their lamebrain lobby hacks. Just the usual nonsense from their dunderhead political editor David "crackers" Cracknell who persuaded a gullible Dale to run such guff."
Is the allegation that the source of your original story was David Cracknell of the Sunday Times correct?
And if so, are you still absolutely certain as to the veracity of the information you received from your source?
There is one more thing that's puzzling me Iain.
Looking at the articles you cite in the four newspapers in question I can find nothing of substance in Brown's comments that hadn't previously been trailed in the press either by Reid or by the usual unnamed 'Home Office Spokesman' except, perhaps, the matter of increase budgets - which is a Treasury matter anyway.
So how, exactly, is Brown interfering by putting forward his support for policies on which the press had already been extensively brief and had already reported?
Phew! Well thank goodness for that!!
Enjoyed the debate, but glad I left it on the channel or I would have missed the excellent Michael Gove and his band of merry back bencher's sticking the boot into Labour and the effervescent tax and grab Chancellor.
Worth watching.
''Catholic attacks Orangeman''.
One thing I should correct from my last remarks.
Brown does deviate from Reid's position on one point - that of the use and admissibility of intercept evidence in court, which Brown supports and Reid is 'not convinced about'.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does David Davis not also support the use of intercept evidence (as does Clegg), in which case the concensus on this matter is surely best served by bring together Brown and Davis and leaving Reid out of the picture.
Iain old boy, can you clear up one point. if the person who told you this story was above board/on the level/not telling porkies, why did they tell you Michael Ellams was involved in the briefing when he clearly wasn't, as ian kirby said yesterday. doesn't this weaken the credibility of their (and your) story ?
Unity,
An interesting theory, but I'm afraid that I haven't spoken to or had any other form of communication from David Cracknell for a couple of years. Sorry to blow that particular theory out of the water.
Michael Howard doesn't read your blog. Rest assured though, his researcher does.
Iain:
I've had a look an none of the Sundays - broadsheet or tabloid - carried the story with any opposition quotes - not even the Mail on Sunday or Sunday Express.
Thus far we have three political editors who've rubbished your version of events and just you pitching the entirely uncorroborated line that an unidentified hack was leant on by the Brown camp.
Any volunteers for emailing the papers/journos that haven't yet commented to see if any will confirm Iain's story or themselves as its source?
We've only Iain's word ruling out the Times, and nothing from the Indy, Mail, Express, Mirror or People, so you've a fair selection to choose from.
John Reid: I want to make it absolutely plain that discussion on the stop-and-question powers is going on inside Government. I did not raise the matter, and neither did the police in mainland Britain. It derived from one source. However, it is also evident that at least one source has major misgivings about it. The problem is that the source is the same in both cases. [Laughter.] We will carry on with the consultation on these matters.
Here.
Sad to be yet another voice blowing Iain's story apart, but there was no ban on Opposition MPs being contacted re the Brown terror story. Just politically motivated guff from an ill-informed blogger doing his best to impress his Tory chums.
Come on Mr Dale - just who told you Opposition sources could not be contacted? And don't try that "protect my sources guff" because I think you'll find that ALL sunday papers will confirm what you've been told ad nauseam by Hennessy of the S.Tel, Kirby of of the NoW and Watt of the Observer. Admit you made it up and we can all move on..
Just for the benefit of those not following the original thread, we now have on-the-record rebuttals of Iain's story from Patrick Hennessy (Sunday Telegraph), Marie Woolf (Independent on Sunday), Nick Watt (Observer) and Iain himself has ruled out David Cracknell (Sunday Times) as the source of the story. Iain defended his story by saying "I happen to know it to be true in the case of one of the papers I mention." So either one of the individuals above is lying, which would be strange as Iain could immediately rebut the lie, or Iain got his story second-hand from an individual who didn't write the Brown terror story, and so presumably never actually spoke to Brown's spinners. I suspect the latter is true, which may explain why that individual also wrongly told Iain that Michael Ellams was involved in the briefing (see crediblehulk above). Iain, I think it's time for you to accept that you may have got this one badly wrong, and apologise to all concerned.
UNITY - Do you like your Bunny well boiled or still squealing?
Yep. Dale is wronger than the wrongest bloke on the Planet Wrong. There were no conditions attached to the briefing on facts which were pretty much in the public domain anyway - after frequent briefings from the Home Office. Dale or his Tory-leaning "source" got this one totally wrong. No conditions and no involvement from Ellam. Badly caught out or what!
Various Brownite Stalinist police. Can I point out that while you are ready to accuse Iain of morbid fantasies you are quite willing to believe journalists. Journalists , what’s more , who might be feeling pretty stupid at having pasted a Brown ex cathedra pronouncement without engaging their critical faculties at the very least and exposing their respective employers to ridicule on the grounds of sheer shoddy quality. Why should we ?
You also have no idea what pressure the new Stalin`s team may be applying when and where suggestions on the availability of further tit bits might have taken place. It would be surprising if nothing of the sort had taken place and in New labour close to risible . Do you imagine such things are done in writing?
Brown has an entirely unearnt reputation for honesty, by which it is meant , he is not Blair . He was however complicit in the brutal news management and the spin of the Blair era and Iain is quite right to point out that its business as usual . Hardly a surprise
Ah - but David Cracknell wasn't the only name on the Sunday Times story - David Leppard was as well. So one theory is that McBride told him not to speak to the Tories and he's the source. More likely, the other theory would be that Leppard was psd off at being second byline on the story and told David Davis about it. Clearly to protect himself, he would have told DD he couldn't act on the information, and made up some ck & bull about that being a condition of getting the story. DD then passes this on to Iain, and Iain gullibly crashes it out on his blog. Are we getting warm, Iain?
I feel the hirelings of the Dark One are amongst us and further demonic shrieks can be ignored
re this: Anonymous said...
Ah - but David Cracknell wasn't the only name on the Sunday Times story - David Leppard was as well. So one theory is that McBride told him not to speak to the Tories and he's the source. More likely, the other theory would be that Leppard was psd off at being second byline on the story and told David Davis about it. Clearly to protect himself, he would have told DD he couldn't act on the information, and made up some ck & bull about that being a condition of getting the story. DD then passes this on to Iain, and Iain gullibly crashes it out on his blog. Are we getting warm, Iain?
It makes perfect sense. Leppard's hatred of Crackers is well known at News Int. And Leppard frequently speaks to David Davis (former employer of one Iain Dale) and his mob - that would explain how PA got the story out relatively quickly - And allowed, the envious Leppard to bust Crackers p1 story on the Times. Job Done. Trebles all round for Leppard and another kicking around the office for Crackers from the editor
This is all getting very entertaining as conspiracy theories abound.
But one question keeps troubling me. If I kept asking journalists who their sources were they'd tell me (quite rightly) where to go in no uncertain terms.
Why is it though, that I am expected to provide documentary evidence for my sources? Ain't gonna happen guys.
so you're still sticking to your guns that you're in the right on this one?
have you ever realized that you can make the following anagram out of your name:
"Naa, I lied" - spooky
"Why is it though, that I am expected to provide documentary evidence for my sources? Ain't gonna happen guys."
Iain, I did wonder about their hounding of you to name your source and thought it deliciously ironic and a wee bit cheeky.
I have been reading through the threads with some amusement/amazement at a bunch of supposed respected journalists and the slightly sinister and thuggish Brownite astro turfers as they work themselves into a frenzy over this.
One question, after 10 years of the most cynical and malignant spin and news management from this government we are now seeing a new level of bullying emanating from No11 and I wonder how successful Brownite management of the Labour party will transfer to the blogsphere.
I don't bother to mention the dead tree press or media luvvies of the lobby because I think their record speaks for its self.
Hi saddos, why don't you try to get proper jobs! Think this website is going the same way as Guido, bye bye!
Post a Comment