None of the inquiries that found Blair didn't lie on Iraq were independent - they were all full of political appointees ; John Rentoul and Tony Blair try to pass off political fixes as independent inquires

John Rentoul, Tony Blair’s biographer and mini-me, and politics editor for the Independent,  added another disingenuous denial that Blair and his associates were dishonest about Iraq last September. This time he echoed Blair’s claim that “every independent analysis” has found he did not lie about Iraq (1). Rentoul helps out by specifying what these supposedly independent analyses are

‘Foreign Affairs select committee inquiry, 2003.

Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry, 2003.

Hutton inquiry, 2004.

Butler inquiry, 2004.

General election, 2005.’ (2)

Yet not one of these supposedly “independent” inquiries was actually independent at all – they were all headed by appointees of Blair or had a majority of members appointed by Blair’s government.

The heads of the Hutton and Butler inquiries were appointed by Blair, who also decided what powers they would have, what their remit would be (i.e what they could as about) and what evidence they could and could not see. Not surprising then, since the accused got to appoint the judges, decide the charges and limit what evidence they could see, that the accused was found not guilty on all charges. If all trials were conducted that way, no one would ever be found guilty of anything no matter how much evidence there was of their guilt.

(The Chilcot Inquiry is similarly made up entirely of people who supported the war or who owe their positions in the House of Lords to Blair or Brown)

Parliamentary Select Committees like the Foreign Affairs and intelligence and Security Committees have MPs as members, in proportion to the number of MPs of that party in parliament. As Labour had a big majority after the 2000 General Election, that would mean that in 2003 the majority of MPs on those committees would be Labour – and so not inclined to criticise their own party leader too much. On top of that, in 2003 Select Committee members were still appointed by party leaders – so all the Labour members of those committees were appointed by Blair, so would not be rebels on Iraq. Most other MPs on those committees would be Conservatives – and the vast majority of Conservative MPs voted for the war. So the idea that these were independent inquiries is utterly ridiculous.

Citing the 2005 General election is particularly ludicrous, as an election is not an inquiry into anything ; and as no British general election in the last century has been decided by any foreign policy issue. Many people who voted Labour in 2005 were completely against the Iraq war and thought Blair had lied about it, but voted Labour as they thought Labour were less bad than the Conservatives on domestic policies.

It seems that the Independent newspaper’s politics editor doesn’t know the difference between independent inquiries and political fixes – at least certainly not where his hero Tony Blair is concerned.

(1) = John Rentoul ‘Eagle Eye’ blog 5 Sep 2012 ‘Monbiot: the big coward’,
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/09/05/monbiot-the-big-coward/

(2) = Observer 02 Sep 2012 ‘Tony Blair should face trial over Iraq war, says Desmond Tutu’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/02/tony-blair-iraq-war-desmond-tutu

Sun editor's admission that she paid police for stories may show why police are covering up for the News of the World - and determined to get Sheridan

Police took money from the Murdoch press for information – which may be why they’re covering up phone hacking - and so determined to get Sheridan, whose phone they knew had been hacked, convicted of perjury

It turns out that in 2003 Rebekah Wade, then editor of the Sun, admitted to a parliamentary select committee that the Sun had paid police officers for information on people for newspaper stories (1). If that happens at the Sun, what are the chances of it not happening at the News of the World – another brand in the Murdoch cupboard of scratchy toilet paper? What are the chances that it didn’t continue until at least the current phone hacking scandal?

This puts a new light on the police’s unwillingness to investigate phone hacking at the News of the World much;  and their refusal to tell people they and their numbers were listed in the notebook of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire ( a convicted phone hacker, paid by the News of the World). If police officers have taken money for information from the Murdoch press, they won’t shop them for fear of losing their own jobs, possibly being convicted themselves – and at the least losing their additional income from feeding the tabloids in future (2).

It also put’s a new light on their determination to convict Tommy Sheridan, one of the victims of News of the World phone hacking.

Time magazine reports that in 2003 she (Rebekah) told the parliamentary media and culture committee that “We have paid the police for information in the past.”  (3) Rebekah (now Brooks) is now Chief Executive of News International, a subsidiary of Murdoch’s News Corporation. News International owns both the Sun and the News of the World.

MPs apparently backed off from demanding Wade (now Brooks after a divorce) be called before a parliamentary select committee again more recently, for fear the Murdoch press would target their own personal lives (4).

Since Wade’s earlier admission shows the police are hiding corruption in their own ranks and collusion with illegal acts by tabloid newspapers, it’s time MPs got some balls and stopped caving in to Murdoch.

The Guardian also reported in 2010 that 'the officer in charge of the inquiry [into phone hacking], assistant commissioner Andy Hayman, subsequently left the police to work for News International as a columnist.' , which could very easily be the paper rewarding him for being so lax in his investigation of it.(5)

(1) = Guardian 12 Mar 2001 ‘Sun editor admits paying police officers for stories’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/mar/12/sun.pressandpublishing

(2) = See sources linked for this previous post, http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2011/01/glaring-contrast-between-police.html

(3) = Time magazine 27 Jan 2011 ‘Did Police Ignore Evidence in Britain's Phone-Hacking Scandal?’, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2044608-2,00.html

(4) = guardian.co.uk 10 sep 2010 ‘MPs backed down from calling Rebekah Brooks to Commons’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/10/mps-backed-down-rebekah-brooks

(5) guardian.co.uk 04 Apr 2010 'Police 'ignored News of the World phone hacking evidence', http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/04/police-ignored-news-world-evidence