Priti Patel has thrust herself into the formally *independent* business of the *independent* panel on the #DanielMorgan murder, demanding more time to read the report before MPs or the public see it and threatening to black out passages of text. 1/6
Bear in mind that this case is all about corruption. It is the most investigated unsolved murder in UK history because of corruption – corrupt police officers, corrupt journalists, and perhaps others. The panel report has been 8 years in the making. 2/6
That long gestation may itself owe something to corrupt interference with witnesses. We'll see. But we know this: after 34 years of being cheated, the Morgan family deserve from the British state a good, trustworthy report delivered by clean process. 3/6
So Patel just had to stick her grubby oar in, and as the Panel itself points out, she has offered the most transparently feeble excuses for doing so. Her only formal role was to place it before MPs and the public, and as a courtesy she should have seen it 24 hours early. 4/6
Instead, she wants it for days and is reserving the right to redact the text. So a report 8 years in preparation, which was explicitly designed to clear the air over an appallingly murky episode, may now turn up with passages blanked out. 5/6
Is she protecting the police? The Murdoch press? Who is pulling the strings? Legitimate questions, because if you know anything about the Daniel Morgan case you know that it is a deep sewer of wrongdoing and there are people who will stop at nothing to keep it closed. 6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Were you frustrated by the ending of #LineOfDuty? Imagine what it's like to fight police corruption in real life for 34 years – and still not have seen your brother's murderers brought to book? Maybe, just maybe, things are going to change for @AlastairMorgan next week. 1/9
After 5 failed investigations, an 'independent panel' has been reviewing the Daniel Morgan case *for 8 years*. It reports on Monday. Has it got to the truth? Or did corruption (which the police have admitted in the past) block the panel's way too? We're about to find out. 2/9
You have almost certainly heard of the case. Daniel Morgan was a private investigator killed with an axe in a pub car park in south London in 1987, possibly on the brink of exposing police wrongdoing. Among the many remarkable things about the case is this. . . 3/9
Leaked to friendly hacks. No prior peer review. It doesn't look as though even the government had much faith its big race report will stand up to scrutiny. 1/4 bylinetimes.com/2021/03/31/rac…
In truth this is no 'commission', just a panel handpicked by the Conservatives to provide a veneer of respectability for their awful slogans of prejudice. No institutional racism? Please. 2/4
This kind of thing is going on across Whitehall – a stampede of inquiries and panels without the slightest whiff of independence to them. And where they don't come up with the 'right' answers ministers just start the process again. 3/4
There is nothing new in what the press is doing to #MeghanAndHarry, though the scale and venom are amazing. They did the same to Caroline Flack – also in the full knowledge that she had mental health problems. There are countless victims. They – and we – deserve better. 1/5
Journalism is supposed to be a force for good, and if we are seeing anything that gives ground for hope today it is those few journalists who are stepping back and saying 'Not in my name'. 2/5
For far too long the 'thugs with press cards' have been indulged by journalists with better instincts. For too long cruelty, bigotry and misogyny have been tolerated, defended and treated as if they were equals to honesty and fairness in the world of journalism. 3/5
Judgment in the latest stage of the breach of privacy and copyright case brought by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex against Associated Newspapers will be handed down tomorrow, Thursday, at 4pm. A short thread on what can happen. #MeghanAndHarry 1/5
It's an application by the Duchess for 'summary judgment', seeking to cut short proceedings on the grounds that, her lawyers claim, Associated's case is so weak there's no need for a trial. 2/5
The judge can find for or against her on both claims (privacy & copyright) or give a partial judgment, 1 in her favour and 1 against. If she wins both it's over. If she wins neither, that is not an overall defeat for her; it means the whole case will proceed to trial. 3/5
If Paul Dacre is made chair of Ofcom he will be responsible for standards in UK broadcasting. So how is he doing in his current job as Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers? Well, Associated is currently losing legal actions over bad journalism at an extraordinary rate. 1/8
Today it settled a case brought by Prince Harry in which the Mail on Sunday falsely accused him of turning his back on responsibilities to the Marines. This could have been avoided if they had simply put the allegations to the Prince, but they didn't. 2/8 bylineinvestigates.com/mail/2021/2/1/…
Newspapers in the group, and MailOnline have also settled or lost a string of other cases in recent weeks, including:
Paying significant damages to a former Labour candidate for falsely suggesting she assisted Holocaust seniors. 3/8 skwawkbox.org/2021/01/10/exc…
A Home Office report into 'grooming gangs' says 'it is likely that no one community or culture is uniquely predisposed to offending'. So where does that leave @thetimes and its rogue reporter Andrew Norfolk? 1/6 bylinetimes.com/2020/12/17/hom…
The Times insisted there was 'overwhelming evidence' of 'a deeply rooted pattern of criminal behaviour with a clear ethnic component'. But 2 years of effort by Home Office officials (plainly under pressure to prove the paper right) produced no credible evidence at all. 2/6
So there is no 'clear ethnic component'. No one can claim it is disproportionately 'a Muslim thing'. Reporter Andrew Norfolk's creation, beloved of the extreme right, turns out to be just as flawed as his discredited 'Christian girl forced into Muslim foster care' story. 3/6