The intriguing timing of Rebekah Brooks's arrest

The ex-NI executive is arrested two days after she resigned - and two days before she is scheduled t

Rebekah Brooks, the former Chief Executive of News International, has been arrested.

Police said that a 43-year-old woman was arrested by appointment at a London police station on Sunday on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications and on suspicion of corruption allegations. A spokesperson for Brooks confirmed that the appointment for her attendance at the police station was made on Friday.

Brooks was arrested by Operation Weeting, the investigation into phone-hacking, with involvement from Operation Elveden, which is investigating allegations of improper payments to police.

According to the BBC's Robert Peston, the arrest of Brooks is a "big deal". He adds: "News Int sources say they had no inkling Rebekah Brooks would be arrested when discussing her resignation last week".

The New Statesman's legal correspondent, David Allen Green, has questioned the timing of the arrest. He wrote on Twitter: "Am not a conspiracy theorist, but... the Met need to urgently explain the agreed timing of the Brooks arrest 'by appointment'."

It is the tenth arrest in connection with the investigation over phone hacking at News of the World.

In a statement, the Metropolitan police said:

At approximately 12.00 hrs a 43-year-old woman was arrested by appointment at a London police station by officers from Operation Weeting together with officers from Operation Elveden. She is currently in custody.
She was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, contrary to Section1 (1) [of the] Criminal Law Act 1977 and on suspicion of corruption allegations contrary to Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy of Channel 4 News has questioned whether the arrest makes it harder for MPs to question Brooks at the Select Committee hearing on Tuesday. Tom Watson, the MP who has championed the investigation into hacking, added: "Had she made her appointment to be arrested before confirming attendance at our committee? I wouldn't be surprised."

John Whittingdale MP, another member of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee, told the Telegraph's Christopher Hope the arrest "change[s] the picture somewhat".

Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch's biographer, Michael Wolff, wonders whether attention might turn now to James Murdoch, who is still employed by News Corporation. He tweets: "In 2008, during a two hour interview I did with Rebekah Brooks, she took seven phone calls from James Murdoch --that's how often they spoke.".

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496