Timeline updated
What did he know and when did he know it?
2013 in his 12/4/16 statement Wittingdale says they met on Match.com in August in the year
November 2013 Latest
date that Byline suggests relationship starts, although it could be at any
point before then
November 2013 People
Investigation into Whittingdale commences
November 10 2013 MTV Europe awards the couple attend
December 2013 Sport Ball attended by couple
New year 2014 Westminster New year party attended
January 2014 People concludes investigation according to Private Eye as it appears person selling story then moved on to trying to sell story to the Sun this must suggest that they must have been told the story was not going to happen at the first paper. after all you don't blow the exclusive fee
February 2014 Mail on Sunday investigation starts
February 2014 Whittingdale finishes relationship according to statement
January 2014 People concludes investigation according to Private Eye as it appears person selling story then moved on to trying to sell story to the Sun this must suggest that they must have been told the story was not going to happen at the first paper. after all you don't blow the exclusive fee
February 2014 Mail on Sunday investigation starts
February 2014 Whittingdale finishes relationship according to statement
spring 2014 point where reporters inform Whittingdale of
investigation and relationship ends according to Wittingdale Statement. According to Telegraph this was reporters from the People
is the Telegraph mistaken about which papers minions were involved? If not then why would reporters from the People turn up to confront him weeks after the story was cancelled
is the Telegraph mistaken about which papers minions were involved? If not then why would reporters from the People turn up to confront him weeks after the story was cancelled
January 2015 last point at which Byline suggests
relationship was known to be still running
May 2015 Independent starts Investigation
October 2015 Independent gains information on MTV Europe attendance
20 October 2015 Independent shuts down its Investigation
April 1 2016 Nick Mutch Byline Article appears
April 6th hacked off
launches Camerons Broken
Promises campaign, doesn't mention
Whittingdales problem. (if they were part of
an organised attack, you would think it would top their list)
April 10th 2016 Senior Hacked Off people appear to notice at
around 7:30 pm
April 10th 2016 First
official hacked off Comment 10:30 pm
April 12th Private eye appears with large Whittingdale
article, story appears in line with Byline version
April 12th Whittingdale produces a public statement about
the affair
April 12th Newsnight first Brings Whittingdale story to
wider audience Brian Cathcart on for an interview, over the affair, but apart
from that hacked off have no involvement in the segment.
April 13th press commentators begin to suggest that
Hacked off are behind the Byline stories here and here
April 13th onwards a selection of journalists take it as read and comment as if it is proved that hacked off are the Machiavellian figures behind the stories on Whittingdale
Comment
Mail goes as far as claiming Hacked Off funds Byline,
something that Byline and Hacked off emphatically deny. Telegraph manages to
blame the BBC and calls the story a smear, quoting a minister, he suggests that
there is no public interest in running the story. If the story was purely about the ministers
sex life this might actually be true, Unfortunately there are also suggestions that this situation has
resulted in pressure upon the minister to make political decisions in a way
that would result in advantage for the people who he is meant to be regulating.
It is difficult to see how any story
produced by newspapers in the last six months was less in the public interest
when you take this into account.
Much of the presses attack on hacked off comes from the
suggestion that they have Hypocritically changed their position on the privacy
of individuals, It looks as if the press
are using this scandal as less a problem,
and more an opportunity to attack their opponents. Place your opponents on the defensive when
they should be rightly holding you to account is a good strategy, however if
further information appears the whole situation could reverse very quickly,
with fleet streets PR fronts looking even more grubby than they usually do.
If we look at what
Hacked off and its senior people have said in the past we find theres actually
a considerable difference from the
"privacy at all costs" fanaticism that the newspapers suggest
they espouse. When asked about public interest and privacy in front of Lord
leveson the following reply came back
PROFESSOR CATHCART:
Yes, I would also say, with George's
18 assistance, Hacked Off is looking at
these issues and
19 will in due course, I hope, with City's
co-operation, be
20 producing a proposal for you on these
issues of
21 a definition and where it might apply.
22 On the issue of privacy legislation,
I'm more with
23 Steve.
I'm doubtful about the need for new legislation,
24 and I think one of the reasons we debate
the need for
25 new legislation is because the media,
which have
1
a vested interest in wrecking what there is now, have
2 hogged the debate for so long and have
shouted at us all
3 through their mighty megaphone for so
long that we
4 believe there's something wrong, when
I'm not convinced
5 there is.
Reading the whole of their evidence, Hacked off acknowledged that there were situations
where privacy would come behind the
public interest, but favoured a legal definition of what the public interest is
so that journalists and the subjects of their stories knew where they stood.
this is somewhat different to the ideas that a variety of columnists and
reporters have claimed they possess. If there is any sign of a smear, it more
appears to be coming from a variety of journalists and ex journalists.
