There weren’t many surprises for us in the Thynne 2 report. Except for one……
This was an astonishing revelation involving the person coyly known as Person C.
As John Brace has outed Person C on his blog as being Liverpool Echo journalist Liam Murphy it seems a bit pointless in us maintaining the masquerade, especially as his identity has been known to us for quite some time.
Although being a key witness to the sordid Wirralgate scandal unfortunately Murphy declined to give a statement to Patricia Thynne during either of her investigations. The reason he gave was the need to keep the confidentiality of his sources. Which would be highly laudable if it wasn’t for the fact that Murphy has a rather curious notion of confidentiality!.
It would appear that Murphy was quite happy to show Wirral Council’s then Head of Communications Emma Degg the letter that Foulkesy had filched , presumably in the hope that Murphy would run a story in the Liverpool Echo ” smearing” political rival Cllr Jeff Green . According to Degg Murphy was “outraged” by Foulkesy’s conduct . Although seemingly not outraged enough to actually make a complaint about it – it seems he’d much rather have a sly fag and a quick bitch behind the back of Wallasey Town Hall.
Murphy was later to hear the infamous recorded conversation between Cllr George Davies and one of The Complainants and some months later then saw fit to tell Cllr Jeff Green all about it . Perhaps Murphy and Green compared notes on how “outraged” they were – especially when the latter seems to be in a permanent state of “outrage”.
However the most damning testimony that Murphy plays fast and loose with the confidentiality of his sources is the fact that at some time he made a (presumably) covert recording of the notorious Wirralgate tape. Not only that he played it back to Emma Degg – of all people. Remember she was Wirral Council’s Head of Communications at the time !.
We can only wonder if this revelation came as much as a surprise to The Complainants – the elusive holders of the original recording – as it did to us. Although we have to say it gives us a vicarious thrill to see the biters getting bit.
As a consequence we’re left speculating on Murphy’s motives behind his actions. Surely it can’t be currying favour to guarantee woeful exclusives like this :
If we consider that Thynne mentioned in her 2nd report that if she had heard the recording and it confirmed what witnesses had told her then there could be criminal matters that would need investigating. So if Murphy has a recording that would indeed confirm the testimony of others when does the bogus claim of protecting the confidentiality of sources become perverting the course of justice?