Brooks and Coulson charged for third time

The pair face new charges over alleged illegal payments to public officials.

The Crown Prosecution Service has just announced that Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks have been charged over the alleged bribery of public officials.

In the case of Coulson, the charges relate to payments made for a Palace phone directory, known as the "Green Book", containing contact details for the Royal Family. Clive Goodman, the News of the World's former royal editor, who was imprisoned in 2007 for hacking phones belonging to the Royal Household, has also been charged in relation to these allegations.

In the case of Brooks, the charges relate to an alleged payment of £100,000 to Ministry of Defence employee Bettina Jordan Barber in exchange for information which formed the basis of a series of stories published by the Sun. Jordan Barber and the Sun's chief reporter, John Kay, have also been charged.

These are the third set of charges Coulson and Brooks have faced. Coulson has previouly been charged with committing perjury at the trial of Tommy Sheridan in December 2010 and with phone-hacking between October 2000 and 2006. Brooks has also been charged with phone-hacking, including in the case of Milly Dowler, and with perverting the course of justice by concealing evidence from police investigating hacking last summer.

Fifty two people have now been arrested as part of Operation Elveden, the Met's investigation into alleged illegal payments to police and other public officials, including 21 journalists at the Sun.

Former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

There's something missing from our counter-terrorism debate

The policy reckoning that occured after the 2005 terrorist attacks did not happen after the one in 2016. 

“Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun.” That satirical lyric about Nazi rocket scientists has come to mind more than few times watching various tech giants give testimony in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, one of the underreported sub-plots of life at Westminster.

During their ongoing inquiry into hate crime in the United Kingdom, committee chair Yvette Cooper has found a staggering amount of hate speech being circulated freely on the largest and most profitable social media platform. Seperately, an ongoing investigation by the Times has uncovered how advertising revenue from Google and YouTube makes its way straight into the coffers of extremist groups, ranging from Islamist extremists to white supremacists and anti-Semites.

One of the many remarkable aspects of the inquiry has been the von Braunesque reaction by the movers and shakers at these tech companies. Once the ad revenue is handed out, who cares what it pays for? That’s not my department is the overwhelming message of much of the testimony.

The problem gains an added urgency now that the perpetrator of the Westminster attacks has been named as Khalid Masood, a British-born 52-year-old with a string of petty convictions across two decades from 1982 to 2002. He is of the same generation and profile as Thomas Mair, the white supremacist behind the last act of domestic terrorism on British shores, though Mair’s online radicalisation occurred on far-right websites, while Masood instead mimicked the methods of Isis attacks on the continent.  Despite that, both fitted many of the classic profiles of a “lone wolf” attack, although my colleague Amelia explains well why that term is increasingly outmoded.

One thing that some civil servants have observed is that it is relatively easy to get MPs to understand anti-terror measures based around either a form of electronic communication they use themselves – like text messaging or email, for instance – or a physical place which they might have in their own constituencies. But legislation has been sluggish in getting to grips with radicalisation online and slow at cutting off funding sources.

As I’ve written before, though there  are important differences between these two ideologies, the radicalisation journey is similar and tends to have the same staging posts: petty criminality, a drift from the fringes of respectable Internet sub-cultures to extremist websites, and finally violence.  We don’t yet know how closely Masood’s journey follows that pattern – but what is clear is that the policy rethink about British counter-terror after the July bombings in 2005 has yet to have an equivalent echo online. The success of that approach is shown in that these attacks are largely thwarted in the United Kingdom. But what needs to happen is a realisation that what happens when the rockets come down is very much the department of the world’s communication companies. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.