Guardian fights 'unprecedented' police source grab

The Guardian is determined to resist any attempt by the Metropolitan police to uncover the confident

By Press Gazette Published 19 September 2011

The Metropolitan police have applied for a court order against the Guardian and one of its reporters forcing it to disclose confidential sources used in its acclaimed coverage of the phone-hacking scandal.

In a statement the force said its phone-hacking inquiry, Operation Weeting, was one of its "most high profile and sensitive investigations" and claimed the public interest was "protected by ensuring there is no further potential compromise".

"We pay tribute to the Guardian's unwavering determination to expose the hacking scandal and their challenge around the initial police response," the Met said.

2 comments

Mon, 2011-09-19 14:20 — Ian5

I know I'm a bit thick, but I'm always confused by the term Freedom of the Press, strange that they should want to hide behind Article 10 ,when most have run rough shod over other peoples Article 10 rights. I see no mention of Press Freedoms in the Act. Why, because they do not really exsist. The act requires "All public bodies (such as courts, police, local governments, hospitals, publicly funded schools, and others) and other bodies carrying out public functions have to comply with the Convention rights." Newspapers are firstly private bodies, except possibly the BBC, and secondly not individuals.

What exactly is wrong with the police interviewng the source of the Guardian articles? Oh the police might reveal that parties name? Well who's been bribing oops paying the police for information for years...why the FREE PRESS.

Bit late for you lot to be taking a moral stance, just like the disgraceful Wiki-leaks saga of late, the horse has already bolted. I'm assuming the Guardian has never published any article reliant on material gained by "phone hacking"

I do believe that whistleblowers need protection under the law, but news papers hiding behind HR laws is beyond the pale. Your not entitled to its protection , you flout it to suit your own purposes far to often.

Wed, 2011-09-21 12:21 — nojer notsae (not verified)

The point about this story is that the police are attempting to find out who might have helped the Guardian publish a story that shows the police were sitting on vast amounts of evidence of criminal activity to the benefit of those who committed that criminal activity.
Even now the full extent of this activity, who were the victims and who were the perpetrators has yet to be exposed. Further, have the police properly explained how all this evidence was ignored (or suppressed) for so long?