Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
erm, I didn't say they had paid for it* - I said they had "obtained confidential information from a Police Officer", which is still an criminal offence.
*that is the tack the Grauniad are taking as well - they are not denying they have received confidential information, they are stating "we didn't pay any Police Officer any money", which is answering a question that wasn't asked, but is close enough to perhaps mislead some people into thinking they answered the original question....
|
But that is a difference between the allegations at News International and The Guardian which is the comparison you had made. Both cases may be a criminal offence but that's where the differences stop and the details do matter.
News International are alleged to have engaged in a mass interception of private communications, with no specific public interest case in mind. It was a fishing exercise and they paid the police to do so. The Guardian broke the law but did so with confidence that they would get information about a specific issue which easily has a public interest defence.
I think that is a difference which avoids accusations of hypocrisy. If The Guardian hadn't used such tactics we may not have known about the phone hacking or the police officers accepting payments for information on private citizens. If News International hadn't used such tactics we wouldn't know who Hugh Grant has been having sex with.