X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

Phone hacking fag-ends

21 July 2011

3:39 PM

21 July 2011

3:39 PM

Yesterday, in his statement to the Commons, David Cameron responded to a question from
Labour MP Helen Goodman about Andy Coulson by saying:

‘He was vetted. He had a basic level of vetting. He was not able to see the most secret documents in the Government. I can write to the hon. Lady if she wants the full details of that
vetting. It was all done in the proper way. He was subject to the special advisers’ code of conduct. As someone shouted from behind me, he obeyed that code, unlike Damian McBride.’

The story has developed since then. Channel Four have been told by unidentified sources that Coulson’s lack of top
level clearance would have impaired him from doing his job, and Michael Crick has been digging around and found that
Damian McBride and Alistair Campbell received the highest grade of vetting. In itself this doesn’t mean anything: perhaps Coulson went about his work without needing to be privy to classified
information. Even so, you imagine Cameron would prefer this story to disappear as soon as possible without further coverage.

[Alt-Text]


Two other questions from yesterday’s session have inspired further inquiry. First Nick Raynsford claimed that senior government officials have been hacked: the Cabinet Office has asked
Raynsford to provide more information. Also, Tory MP Geoffrey Cox claimed that Lords Goldsmith and MacDonald were in possession of sensitive information about phone hacking in 2006, but did not
proceed with it. The Home Affairs Committee will examine the allegations.   

These snippets are diverting, but there is a sense that the phone hacking media storm may finally have blown itself out.

PS: In response to the commenter SinoSimon, it’s worth pointing out that Lord Goldsmith has vigorously denied the allegations made by Geoffrey Cox, which appear to have been
based on a Guardian story published on 5 April 2010. He said that ‘there is no truth at all in the suggestion that he authorised or instructed police to narrow their investigations in
relation to phone hacking.’

It’s also worth pointing out that the Director of Public Prosecutions has operational control of the Crown Prosecution Service, who would be responsible
for these matters, not the Attorney General.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close