he has commented on the Chronicle story referred to - like this:
Just for the record. My solicitors were contacted by officers from Operation Weeting earlier this month regarding some phone records that had just come to light and which are currently the subject of investigation. Ms Griffiths is of no relevance to the attempt to bribe a police officer in 2000 in the wake of my spat with the NoW over their Sarah's Law campaign and only of passing relevance to impersonation incident in 2004 which was a follow up by the NoW to her Mail on Sunday deselection allegations.
Along with other former MPs I agreed to provide Tom Watson with examples of illegal behaviour by News International to assist his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. I remain convinced, as I said in my statement, that there was a culture of criminality in parts of News International which had a corrupting effect on our public life. I await the outcome of the three police enquiries and Leveson with considerable interest.
I'll refrain from fisking for a little while, would be interested in what readers think. It is not his usual prose style, especially the missing article in line 4, would simply point out that if he was seeking to provide Tom Watson MP with examples of illegal behaviour he has not done so. It was not illegal to go to his house and try to speak to him. Oh and Mr S - why did you not sue? Especially over the fraudulent housing allowance claims 1997-2001? Hein?