Who is right, the Metropolitan Police or David Cameron?

Here’s the extract from a letter recently received from the Metropolitan Police:

“The information regarding Mr Rees may be outside the Terms of Reference of my investigation but the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] are assessing your allegation along with others we have received to consider a way forward. I have passed your letter on to the officer completing this assessment and I will write back to you when I know more.”

Question and response of David Cameron today in PMQ’s:

Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab):As the Prime Minister has previously said, the hacking inquiry should go where the evidence takes it. The Metropolitan police are in possession of paperwork detailing the dealings of criminal private investigator Jonathan Rees. It strongly suggests that, on behalf of News International, he was illegally targeting members of the royal family, senior politicians and high-level terrorist informers, yet the head of Operation Weeting has recently written to me to explain that this evidence may be outside the inquiry’s terms of reference. Prime Minister, I believe powerful forces are involved in a cover-up; please tell me what you intend to do to make sure that that does not happen.

The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this subject, and the point I would make to him is that there is a police inquiry, and a police inquiry does not need terms of reference. The police are free to investigate the evidence and take that wherever it leads them, and then mount a prosecution with the Crown Prosecution Service if the evidence supports that. In the case of phone hacking, which is illegal and wrong, there have been prosecutions and imprisonments, and if that is where the evidence takes them, that is what will happen in the future. There are no terms of reference as far as I am concerned; the police are able to look at any evidence and all evidence they can find.

3 thoughts on “Who is right, the Metropolitan Police or David Cameron?”

  1. On current form I wouldn’t believe a word that leaves Cameron’s mouth. If Met say there is a terms of reference, then there must be a terms of reference. Maybe Cameron is still trying to protect his close confident Coulson from any prosecution forthcoming.

  2. keep up the good work tom,i’m sure many powerful people would like this story limited to the voicemail hacking . more sleepless nights by news international executives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *