Ed Miliband's weakness in opposition is now becoming boring

With the arrest of Andy Coulson confirmed as part of the ongoing mess surrounding News International, one man in particular should have been sweating nearly as much as the former editor himself. That man is the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who had employed Coulson as his ‘Director of Communications’ (read: Chief Spin Doctor) until the phone hacking scandal last reared its head at the beginning of the year. How can the PM’s credibility survive such close association with one of the country’s most currently hated men?
 
If things continue the way they are, the answer to the question is, “very easily”. Such a potential PR disaster is a gift to the opposition leader, Ed Miliband. However, his reaction to this whole affair has been fairly muted given the potential for political hay-making. A full and frank admission of “guilt” from Cameron earlier today appears to have wrong footed Miliband; he has been pre-empted and outgunned in what should have been a rare chance to put the boot in.
 
Miliband’s comment that the PM, “clearly still doesn’t get it” is slightly wide of the mark. The criticism refers to the fact that Cameron hasn’t personally intervened to make sure that the News Corp buyout of BSkyB doesn’t go ahead. He should know that Cameron no longer has any power here; Ofcom would have to be the adjudicator on any potential ‘fit and proper’ owner test since Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt green-lighted the takeover in March.
 
This isn’t the first time the younger Miliband has looked a bit out of his depth. His cringe worthy speech to protesters at the TUC rally in March showed a shameless appetite for the lowest common denominator. This is to speak nothing of Labour’s utter refusal to answer questions about where they would make cuts to public spending (and they do admit some are necessary). A toothless, and seemingly clueless, opposition is a sure fire recipe for political apathy. Let’s hope Miliband can develop a personality sooner rather than later.

Something we never thought possible: a new low for the British press

British journalism appears to be entering a defining moment in its history as progressively more lurid revelations about journalists hacking individuals’ phones come to light. The most disgraceful story yet surfaced yesterday; that teenage murder victim Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked by a PI working for the News of the World. As if this behaviour were not reprehensible enough, said investigator is also alleged to have deleted messages from Milly’s voicemail once he had listened to them, thus preventing it from becoming full and allowing more messages to accumulate. The upshot of this was that the girl’s parents believed their daughter was still alive due to the fact that her phone was in constant use.

This could be seen as something of a low point for our society; MPs and Peers alike are correctly calling for a full public enquiry into the phone hacking scandal that has engulfed our embattled news agencies. Press freedom is clearly a cornerstone of any creditable democracy; it is a key tool in holding the Executive to account. However, the reckless breaches of personal privacy and integrity that have been displayed by the News of the World in this fiasco have marked the transition to a world where the media feel they are above the law.

But how to hold them to account? The problems here are twofold. Firstly it will be difficult to prosecute the holding company, News International, directly for these alleged crimes. Corporate criminal liability is hard to prove, and requires the prosecutor to show a causal link between a “directing mind” within the company and the crime in order for the firm itself to be held criminally liable. This means that it’s more likely they will go after the individuals who authorised or carried out the hacking, and I feel this is a slightly unsatisfactory outcome when there looks to have been a malignant culture of phone hacking throughout the whole organisation.

Secondly, there are questions as to how fair any trial resulting from the police investigations will be. As this scandal is now dominating the front pages thanks to the latest developments (and is likely to for a few days), public anger will soon be at boiling point. Anybody put in the dock in front of a jury, especially over the Dowler hacking allegations, will probably be subject to a hopelessly prejudiced trial. The police have not yet finished their investigations, but those responsible (including Rebekah Brooks, NOTW editor at the time) already will not be able to return to anything like normality for the rest of their lives, regardless of the outcome of any legal proceedings. This public outpour of disgust leads to a real danger of cases being thrown out on legal technicalities, if juries are shown to have been influenced by prior reporting. Ironically, therefore, it could be the press that prevents those responsible from being brought to book when all is said and done.

Worse still, there has also been indication that they may be more shocking allegations to come, although you have to wonder to what further depths this episode can now sink. There is an inescapable feeling that the British press is about to get a very rude awakening when tighter regulations are discussed in Parliament. I feel this is somewhat unfortunate, because it is nearly inevitable that good journalists using sound methods will also suffer as a result of the hacking scandal. However, if those at the top of the tree at failed banks (notably Fred Goodwin at RBS) are fair game when failings are uncovered further down their organisations, the same rules must apply to other industries as well. Brooks’ protestation that, “…it is inconceivable that [she] knew – or worse – sanctioned these appalling allegations…” is therefore utterly irrelevant. She was in charge, she should be held to account. I eagerly await the public enquiry.