Chris Bryant, Labour attack dog, and John Yates of the Yard lock horns in front of the Commons home affairs committee.
The great phone-hacking scandal goes on, endless but fascinating, rather like the Dreyfus case. There may never be an end, but we are all enjoying it. When we learned, amazingly, that the News of the World actually had a huge number of emails which they had told us, in all honesty, were quite irretrievable ? two of the leading protagonists went mano-a-mano in the Commons.
In the red corner was Chris Bryant, a former Labour Europe minister and attack dog. In the boys-in-blue corner was John Yates, the senior copper who handled the perhaps ? ahem ? somewhat lackadaisical investigation for a few years. Mr Bryant had used parliamentary privilege to accuse Mr Yates of general uselessness.
Mr Yates has been trooping round parliamentary committee rooms arguing that Mr Bryant has got it wrong.
At one point he threatened to sue for libel if the allegations were repeated outside parliament. Nobody has had their sword broken over a knee yet, but it can't be long.
The skirmish was at the home affairs committee. Messrs Bryant and Yates came in to hear each other's evidence. Mr Bryant's theme was that Mr Yates had misled MPs on at least two important issues: whether the people whose numbers had been unearthed and who might have been victims of hacking had been informed. Some were, some weren't.
There was also a legal quibble. Mr Yates had believed that no actual crime had been committed unless the hacker had heard a voice-mail message before the owner picked it up.
This is, you might think, like saying it's a crime to steal someone's car, or silverware, but only if they have not already used them.
It was, truth be told, difficult to follow the proceedings, since the committee had only one hour and the chairman, Keith Vaz, wanted to get things moving. He had several ways of saying "thank you!" in a voice that meant, "get on with it," "mush!" or simply "shut up!"
Mr Bryant said that Mr Yates had always insisted there were few victims while in fact Scotland Yard knew of a "vast number". How, asked Mark Reckless MP, could that be inadvertent rather than deliberate?
"Quite!" said Mr Bryant, in one of the longer replies he was permitted to give by the committee.
Mr Yates laughed at Mr Bryant's evidence, in that kind of "if you knew as much about this case as I do, you'd be laughing too" way.
Next it was Mr Yates's turn. He was asked if he had not enjoyed too many meals with News International staff. He replied that he had probably had more meals with Guardian people.
Aha, but there is a difference! I'll bet News International offers champagne and lobster. At the Guardian you're more likely to get a lentil-burger washed down with mild ale. Mr Yates decided to declare victory. Mr Bryant had made serious concessions. Mr Bryant, now at the back of the room, shook his head in horrified disagreement.
At the end, he legged it out of the room while Assistant Commissioner Yates was getting ready to leave. But once in the corridor they conducted rival briefings, each proving that they were right and the other one wrong. But this could go on forever.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/30/simon-hoggart-phone-hacking-scandal
Elizabeth Dole John Edwards Dianne Feinstein Bill Frist Newt Gingrich
No comments:
Post a Comment