Skip to main content

The cost of investigating Rupert's illegal activities

The Brits should be rightly outraged that their police force is not only being tied down in investigating the illegal activities of News Ltd. and the divergence of resources from other policing activities, but the cost to taxpayers.     The latest estimate is £40 million.  There really can be no stopping now that the cat is out of the bag! 

"The cost of the Metropolitan police investigations into phone hacking and other alleged illegal activity by journalists is set to rise to £40m and tie up 200 police officers – about seven times the number investigating paedophiles in London, the Leveson inquiry has heard.

Kit Malthouse, Boris Johnson's deputy mayor for policing and crime in London, disclosed the figures to the inquiry on Thursday as he issued a robust defence of his review of the level of police resources tied up in the investigations, amid concern that this would be to the detriment of the detection of "serious and heinous crimes" such as murder, rape and paedophilia.

Malthouse told the inquiry that the Scotland Yard resources dedicated to unearthing alleged wrongdoing by journalists had grown "very significantly" as he contrasted the £40m anticipated cost of Operation Weeting, the inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World, and related investigations, with the £36m annual spend for detecting child abuse cases.

He told the inquiry that 150 Met officers were currently engaged in the various investigations related to alleged phone hacking, computer hacking (Operation Tuleta) and illegal payments to police and other public officials (Operation Elveden).

Malthouse said this number was forecast to rise to 200 – the equivalent of "eight murder squads" – at a time when just 27 police officers were engaged in "tracking down paedophiles".

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more