Coulson & Tory Defences of him.

I don't have a clue about what went on in the Andy Coulson case. He may be an innocent know-nothing who miraculously rose to edit one of the nation's newspapers and subsequently be talented enough to be appointed as the main press advisor to the PM whilst not knowing the reprehensible tactics that his reporters were using in his newsroom. Inquiries into the matter so far (from the police, the PCC, and parliament) haven't proved this, nor have they proved the opposite, that Coulson was and is the unscrupulous ogre many people imagine him to be. (He has some form on this with an £800,000 bullying claim accepted against him.) Quite rightly people like Iain Dale point out that he hasn't been formally charged with any wrongdoing, a perfectly legitimate defence, one which until the NY Times article on this sorry business came out was perfectly acceptable. One might call it the 'You hate him anyway defence' which in the absence of proof or significant suggestion of wrongdoing invites the unbiased observer to view the accuser's bias towards the accused. It works well with Coulson. People on the left have every reason not to like him, he works for a Tory PM, he worked for Rupert Murdoch, specifically the NOTW and doesn't seem a pleasant chap. Added to this is the accusation of mischief making by those with nothing personal against Coulson and you have potent reasons for questioning the motives of those calling for his head.

The reason the NY Times Article challenges this point is that it isn't about Coulson. Coulson may be the focal point, and the claims against him are damning if true, but central to the point is the idea that the original investigations were either lied to or were given inadequate evidence. In the case of the CPS there is a prosecutor who claims not to have been given the correct evidence from the Met, a very serious allegation. The PCC are exposed as the supine press apologists that they are and the article accused Coulson of lying to a parliamentary inquiry that already accused him and the News International of 'obfuscation'. Add to this the fact that a huge number of people had their phones hacked, many with no connection to the work of the 'lone bad apple' who has been imprisoned, the massive payouts to those who looked like getting their day in court and accusations of excessive closeness between the news organisation and the police, as well as those who may not have been told by police that a crime was committed against them having their day in court if this is the case there is a need for an inquiry. The daft ad hominem attacks of Alan Duncan and Iain Dale merely express worry about the political cost such an inquiry would incur. Since when was it the role of a member of a government to trash the testimony of a prospective witness to a possible crime committed by a News Organisation? Really it shouldn't be a political issue. It should be a case of finding out whether initial investigations were told the truth, whether it was hidden or whether they were lied to. This is what the NY times alleges, with witnesses to back this up. The veracity of what these witnesses say should be determined by a judge, not a member of HM Government with a vested interest in them being untrue. Really an inquiry into this matter should be a no-brainer, it should be non-political. Tory attacks, their ad-hominem nature and deliberate ignoring of the real issue show that their closeness not just to Coulson but Murdoch mean that it isn't.