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.

Getty
Show Hide image

The surprising truth about ingrowing toenails (and other medical myths)

Medicine is littered with myths. For years we doled out antibiotics for minor infections, thinking we were speeding recovery.

From time to time, I remove patients’ ingrowing toenails. This is done to help – the condition can be intractably painful – but it would be barbaric were it not for anaesthesia. A toe or finger can be rendered completely numb by a ring block – local anaesthetic injected either side of the base of the digit, knocking out the nerves that supply sensation.

The local anaesthetic I use for most surgical procedures is ready-mixed with adrenalin, which constricts the arteries and thereby reduces bleeding in the surgical field, but ever since medical school I’ve had it drummed into me that using adrenalin is a complete no-no when it comes to ring blocks. The adrenalin cuts off the blood supply to the end of the digit (so the story goes), resulting in tissue death and gangrene.

So, before performing any ring block, my practice nurse and I go through an elaborate double-check procedure to ensure that the injection I’m about to use is “plain” local anaesthetic with no adrenalin. This same ritual is observed in hospitals and doctors’ surgeries around the world.

So, imagine my surprise to learn recently that this is a myth. The idea dates back at least a century, to when doctors frequently found digits turning gangrenous after ring blocks. The obvious conclusion – that artery-constricting adrenalin was responsible – dictates practice to this day. In recent years, however, the dogma has been questioned. The effect of adrenalin is partial and short-lived; could it really be causing such catastrophic outcomes?

Retrospective studies of digital gangrene after ring block identified that adrenalin was actually used in less than half of the cases. Rather, other factors, including the drastic measures employed to try to prevent infection in the pre-antibiotic era, seem likely to have been the culprits. Emboldened by these findings, surgeons in America undertook cautious trials to investigate using adrenalin in ring blocks. They found that it caused no tissue damage, and made surgery technically easier.

Those trials date back 15 years yet they’ve only just filtered through, which illustrates how long it takes for new thinking to become disseminated. So far, a few doctors, mainly those in the field of plastic surgery, have changed their practice, but most of us continue to eschew adrenalin.

Medicine is littered with such myths. For years we doled out antibiotics for minor infections, thinking we were speeding recovery. Until the mid-1970s, breast cancer was routinely treated with radical mastectomy, a disfiguring operation that removed huge quantities of tissue, in the belief that this produced the greatest chance of cure. These days, we know that conservative surgery is at least as effective, and causes far less psychological trauma. Seizures can happen in young children with feverish illnesses, so for decades we placed great emphasis on keeping the patient’s temperature down. We now know that controlling fever makes no difference: the fits are caused by other chemicals released during an infection.

Myths arise when something appears to make sense according to the best understanding we have at the time. In all cases, practice has run far ahead of objective, repeatable science. It is only years after a myth has taken hold that scientific evaluation shows us to have charged off down a blind alley.

Myths are powerful and hard to uproot, even once the science is established. I operated on a toenail just the other week and still baulked at using adrenalin – partly my own superstition, and partly to save my practice nurse from a heart attack. What would it have been like as a pioneering surgeon in the 1970s, treating breast cancer with a simple lumpectomy while most of your colleagues believed you were being reckless with your patients’ future health? Decades of dire warnings create a hefty weight to overturn.

Only once a good proportion of the medical herd has changed course do most of us feel confident to follow suit. 

This article first appeared in the 20 April 2017 issue of the New Statesman, May's gamble

0800 7318496