Metropolitan Police as Clean As Their Whistles?

Well as I’m sure you have all been informed by the BBC, Both Sir Paul Stevenson and ‘Yates of the Yard’ have resigned in relation to the Metropolitan Police investigation into corruption.

Having met and worked with both of these gentlemen, I am horrified by the loss of Sir Paul who was and remains one of the finest police officers this country has. The loss of Mr Yates on the other hand is long overdue - a poor quality policeman with a long and appalling record of misjudgement and carelessness.

Whether or not ether of these men has substantiated links to the current crisis or to the ongoing corruption investigation is a complete irrelevance. The Metropolitan Police are responding in line with quality advice and will in all likelihood continue down the path of severing its links both viable and vicarious to this scandal.

There is a lot of talk by both the BBC and other media outlets in relation to “the crisis at The Met”. Having advised over the years all the government bodies involved in this ongoing scandal I believe the Metropolitan Police is not in crisis. The ‘Met’ has a strong and well thought out strategy to quietly and quickly remove any person who could be seen as involved, may they be guilty or not, and thus remove its self from this ongoing storm.

The removal of Sir Paul and of Mr Yates is the beginning of a clean up but not a clean sweep. The current corruption scandal in all likelihood goes far deeper than any of us realise and the public must understand that it is not in the interests of London or the country to pursue the underlying issues vigorously in the public eye.

The Gentlemen’s resignations and I am sure the many others that will follow, will allow the Metropolitan Police to ‘be seen to be’ dealing with the crisis. These actions are in the public interest and I’m sure we will find that their involvement is quickly removed from the news agenda.

Once the Met no longer has to defend itself to the media, it will have the ability to deal with the underlying problems without interference and without degrading the British police force’s reputation any further.

An investigation must be held and that investigation must in turn be held to account, but ‘vox populi, vox dei’ is not the answer.

We have a democracy in this country and to deal with all of these hugely substantial issues we must allow Parliament to lead us in this matter, especially when one realises that the reason this issue exists is because the media has had massive control over the establishment. Although it may seem the media is being tamed, you don’t have to look very closely to realise it is exerting more power right now because of this scandal than it did when it caused it.

The media is protecting itself and hiding its guilt by attacking politicians like Mr Cameron and civil servants such as Sir Paul. It is time the underlying issues were dealt with properly in line with the law instead of by media pressure forcing the hand of government officials.

We have already lost one good, honest and honourable man to this scandal and I imagine we will lose several more before the final judgement is out. 

The Fourth Council Estate

Power in this great nation has always been a finely balanced thing. The freedom of the press should ensure that politicians are bound by their words, actions and deeds, but the question we have to ask ourselves is what happens when the fourth estate takes that freedom and corrupts it?

Every major newspaper in this country (possibly not The Guardian but evidence suggests The Observer did) has at some point used dishonourable methods to acquire the private information of individuals. This in itself is not necessarily the cause of the fall of the fourth estate, but rather this was the beginning of the fall. Dishonourable methods have lead to illegal means and, as the information commissioner in his 2006 report “What Price Freedom” informs us, nearly every paper has engaged in illegal dealings of personal information.

Although the Murdoch empire has become far too powerful, it is being used as a scapegoat by those other media establishments who are also guilty of using the same tactics. Whether they may be illegal or merely dishonourable, one has to ask how this situation was allowed to continue? How was it allowed to progress from dishonourable and downright dodgy to clearly being on the wrong side of the law?  With no MP, Minister or Prime Minister being willing or able to put in place the checks and balances that could stop the fourth estate overpowering the political class or assaulting the freedoms of this country’s citizenry.

The leader of the opposition may have called for new laws, new controls and the end to media empires but if Mr Murdoch’s empire survives this they will not forgive or forget Mr Milliband’s attacks. Mr Milliband is taking a massive risk in assaulting the press in such an aggressive and reckless  manner and although parliament is currently in agreement on the need for action, he forgets to easily that he needs the press just like everybody else.

Media in this country cannot effectively be controlled by parliament. No matter the outcry at how close they are to the political class, the fourth estate must always and will always have a very unsettling relationship with politicians. This in itself is a necessity. The need for a blurred line between journalists and the political class has been known since the creation of the lobby press over a century ago and the more we push the politicians away from the press the less informed and involved the average voter will become.

Although the necessity for said blurred line will in all likelihood never completely diminish, the need for distance, and increased distance, is incredibly important. We have created and must maintain this new level of separation. No individual should ever again be allowed to exert private control over prime ministers or politicians. Mr Milliband is right on this issue, but where he his wrong is that separating journalists and editors from their political acquaintances is not a good thing.


Newspapers will always have agendas as long as voters have beliefs and ideologies. Those agendas exist to reflect those ideologies. Mr Milliband ignores this at his own peril. If he cannot foster the support from left wing papers, let alone those on the right, he may find himself in an even weaker position at the next election. After all the Daily Mirror is one of the worst offenders, committing more than twice the number of known dishonourable and possibly illegal activities compared to the News of the World. 

Wading Through Hell

Rebekah Brooks (nee Wade) has become as I’m sure you are all aware, the latest casualty of the current media crisis. Although her resignation is a massive step forward for News International, one must ponder what she or for that matter News International actually gain by it.


For the last twenty two years Ms Brooks has been an integral and irreplaceable part of News International. The power and experience vacuum created by her departure will in all likelihood remain an issue within the organisation while it comes to terms with its reduced influence and market share. Although News International has gained a considerable reprieve from the immediate media pressure, Ms Brooks departure gains them nothing other than time.


There is a concept called "the blast person". This is the principle that upon an organisation being critically effected by a news agenda the "blast person" is positioned to absorb the negative media and remains in that position as the news agenda continues to build pressure upon their organisation. When media pressure is no longer sustainable the "the blast person" takes the ultimate sanction and resigns or is asked to resign. The result of this action is ultimately to protect those above them and deflect "the blast" away from their superiors and the organisation as a whole.


This concept is a valid one, if it is capable of ending the organisation’s involvement in the news agenda. In the case of the News of the World and News International a single "blast person" will not be capable of removing the organisation from the agenda but will instead prolong and diversify it.


News International is in the middle of a single agenda multi-faceted news cycle that will continue being fed by legal proceedings and numerous government investigations. The loss of a major asset (Ms Brooks) may in the short term allow news international to separate itself from the immediate furore but it will not have the desired result of restoring faith in the organisation or its media outlets.


It is my honest belief the best course of action for News International would have been to suspend Ms Brooks along with any other journalists or staff who could be seen as vicariously guilty and for news international to ask a member of the house of lords to oversee a measured investigation into the gross misconduct that has been alleged. This may sound long winded considering the level of enquiry already placed upon them but Mr Murdoch has failed and continues to fail to deal with the underlying issues of restoring trust in his organisation and his family’s involvement in that organisation.