Downing Street Says » Police Inquiry/Email

Asked that if the document was not an email, then what was it, when was it written and was there any more information on it, the PMOS replied that yesterday, and for reasons that he hoped people understood better today, we felt that we had to comment. Today, however, there was not that need to comment, and the PMOS said that he was not going to give a running commentary. This was a police investigation, and the normal rules applied, therefore, under those normal rules, we did not comment on the police investigation or on any alleged evidence that came to light.

Put that it was now an "orgy of speculation" about the latest information, the PMOS said that none of it was at our instigation, and therefore, people should respect that we had been consistent. We felt that we had had no choice except to comment yesterday, but we did not feel that today.

Put that yesterday, the PMOS had said that the newspaper reports and the BBC’s version of events were inaccurate, and did that apply to the Guardian’s story today, the PMOS said that if people had listened to what he had said, there were particular reasons why we had to comment yesterday. We did not have that need today.

Asked why those reasons did not apply today, and was that an acceptance of the Guardian’s story, the PMOS replied that there was a real danger yesterday that something that was fundamentally inaccurate was going to become accepted as fact. Therefore a judgement had to be made. We had tried to stay out of this story and we had tried to avoid commenting as much as possible, but there had been one or two occasions where we felt that we had no choice.

Asked if we stood by what we said yesterday that the document was not leaked by Downing Street, the PMOS said absolutely and categorically yes.

Asked if the Prime Minister still had full confidence in his Middle East Envoy, the PMOS replied that Lord Levy remained the Middle East Envoy; nothing had changed.

Put that yesterday the PMOS had said that all those who were involved in the story had got it wrong, and did that include the Guardian, and were we aware that something was happening with the Guardian, the PMOS replied that we were not aware.

Put that the Guardian story today alleged quite a lot more than the BBC was able to report yesterday, and yet we did not feel a worry about anything that was being said today, but we did yesterday with the minimal amount of detail that the BBC had been allowed to say, the PMOS replied that there is a fine line between not wishing to in any way act as a running commentary on a police investigation, which was our fundamental position, whilst equally judging when it was necessary to correct fundamental misconceptions. We were in that position yesterday. The PMOS said that anything he said should not be taken as either a validation or to give marks for accuracy to particular stories. Rather, our intervention had to be strategic whenever we believed that there was a fundamental misconception.

Asked if one reason that we felt we had to comment yesterday was because the stories purported to be about an email from a member of staff in No10 to a senior member of staff in No10 as a No10 communication, whilst the Guardian story was not about internal communications within No10, but rather, a No10 staff member and their lawyer, the PMOS said that he did not want anything he said to be taken as a comment on the Guardian story today. However, the PMOS said that he followed the journalist’s line of thought with regards to yesterday.

Put that with regards to the email/document, were we acknowledging yesterday that we knew what they were talking about, and that they were fundamentally wrong in their reporting and interpretation of it, the PMOS said that was essentially correct. The PMOS went on to say that what he had not commented on at all yesterday was content, and he was not going to start. It was the way in which things were being presented yesterday that was the fundamental problem.

Asked if he had seen the document yesterday in order to be clear that their interpretation was wrong, the PMOS said that he did not need to see the content, as he was not going to get involved in making judgements about the significance of the content of something that was a matter for the police investigation. That was not his job.

Put that by not commenting on the Guardian’s story today, we were giving the impression that the story was correct, the PMOS replied that there had to come a point where we drew the line and stepped back over into not commenting on the investigation. This was that point. The PMOS repeated that he was not validating or giving marks out of ten in terms of the story being right or wrong. Rather, he was simply reverting to what had been our approach. Yesterday, that was not possible, and we regretted that it was not possible, as we did not like in any way having to comment on this story because we fundamentally felt that there should not be leaks. However, yesterday was such that we felt that we had to.

Asked if we were aware of where the document was written, the PMOS said that that was irrelevant in terms of doing what we had to do yesterday and it did take us into the matters which were part of what the police were doing. Therefore, the PMOS said he was not going to comment.

Asked if we knew where it was written and that we felt that it was better not to comment, or did we not know, the PMOS replied that those matters were not matters that concerned him in his role. The PMOS said that he would find out what he needed to find out, but he was not going to give a commentary on what he did not think was relevant.

Put that on one day, there were comments, but on the next day, we refused to comment on a report, the PMOS replied that he accepted that there was an awkwardness in terms of having to make any comment at all, but that awkwardness was not of our making or liking. However, the line had to be re-drawn, and that did not mean that we were validating any story or giving marks out of ten. Rather, what it did mean was that having had to act from our point of view to stop a fundamental misconception, we were now reverting to what was the preferred approach.

Asked where did this leave the Attorney General, as the Guardian had now set a precedent in terms of how far the media was willing to go, and where should journalists go from here in terms of how they covered the story, the PMOS replied that it was not for him to comment on the workings of the Attorney General and the relationship between the police, the Attorney General and the press. It was an entirely separate area from what we needed to comment on, and the Attorney General did the job that he had to do in that role. Therefore, it would be entirely wrong for the PMOS to offer any comment on that whatsoever.

Put that there was an understanding that this should be wound up by the end of the month, and was that No10’s expectation, the PMOS replied that people should wait and see.

Asked where the leak had come from, the PMOS replied that as he had said yesterday, people in the room probably had a much better idea than he did.

Asked if Downing Street’s denial of the leak was based on any form of internal inquiries, the PMOS replied that as he had said yesterday, the nature of the inaccuracies contained in the reporting over the weekend was such that we were absolutely sure that it did not come from No10. Any leak from No10 would not have contained those inaccuracies, but there was no leak from No10.

Asked if that also covered today’s Guardian story, the PMOS said that he had not asked everybody in the same way that he had yesterday about the BBC. However, he had absolutely no reason to believe that No10 was involved in the Guardian story today.

Asked to clarify that the inaccuracies were not to do with content, but rather, they were to do with presentation, the PMOS said that again, the question would take him into discussing the inquiry in more detail than he wanted to. It was fairly obviously early on yesterday that it did not come from No10.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Tuesday, March 6, 2007

Police Inquiry/Email

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries