>Times publisher News UK has declined to give more information on why the story was spiked, but Press Gazette understands the decision was taken due to legal reasons and the [New York Times said](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/20/world/europe/boris-carrie-johnson-times.html) an official had attributed it to “legal issues” without giving any specifics.
It is total codswallop.
But is raises this ‘cover up…’ issue:
>The revelation today that the Carrie Johnson story was pulled at the request of the PM’s office is concerning from a constitutional perspective:
>
>There is an official system for Government to ask the press not to publish articles contrary to the public interest, it’s called the D notice system and it still functions.
>
>Sometimes departments act outside this system to protect security and confidential information, but with great caution and reluctance and push back from newspapers.
>
>For a Gov office to ‘intervene’ in the publication of a story critical of the PM, in the absence of other information suggesting any valid concerns about breach of confidence or security, is hard to understand. It suggests a public office being used for non public purposes.
>
>Also worth noting, the national press have spent decades resisting any form of independent regulation on the basis that being subject to government or some quasi-gov body would inhibit press freedom.
>
>Yet the Times pulled an important story at the request of No 10 which request had no force or basis in law. Why resist independent regulation if you are going to accede to requests from Gov to pull stories? (we don’t know of course what persuaded the Times to do so)
>
>-
>
> — [Professor Tom Hickman](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/people/professor-tom-hickman) (@TomRHickman) – [Jun 21, 2022](https://nitter.net/i/status/1539138007751704588)
Anyone who comes into contact with Johnson and are involved in his lies and deceit comes off badly – The Times, The Met Police, Lord Guit to name a few
3 comments
Concerning this bit of the article:
>Times publisher News UK has declined to give more information on why the story was spiked, but Press Gazette understands the decision was taken due to legal reasons and the [New York Times said](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/20/world/europe/boris-carrie-johnson-times.html) an official had attributed it to “legal issues” without giving any specifics.
It is total codswallop.
But is raises this ‘cover up…’ issue:
>The revelation today that the Carrie Johnson story was pulled at the request of the PM’s office is concerning from a constitutional perspective:
>
>There is an official system for Government to ask the press not to publish articles contrary to the public interest, it’s called the D notice system and it still functions.
>
>Sometimes departments act outside this system to protect security and confidential information, but with great caution and reluctance and push back from newspapers.
>
>For a Gov office to ‘intervene’ in the publication of a story critical of the PM, in the absence of other information suggesting any valid concerns about breach of confidence or security, is hard to understand. It suggests a public office being used for non public purposes.
>
>Also worth noting, the national press have spent decades resisting any form of independent regulation on the basis that being subject to government or some quasi-gov body would inhibit press freedom.
>
>Yet the Times pulled an important story at the request of No 10 which request had no force or basis in law. Why resist independent regulation if you are going to accede to requests from Gov to pull stories? (we don’t know of course what persuaded the Times to do so)
>
>-
>
> — [Professor Tom Hickman](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/people/professor-tom-hickman) (@TomRHickman) – [Jun 21, 2022](https://nitter.net/i/status/1539138007751704588)
Add this fresh in:
>Tue 21 Jun 2022 20.26 BST:
>
>Guardian: [Evidence exists that PM tried to get top job for Carrie Johnson, says source](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/21/evidence-exists-that-pm-tried-to-get-top-job-for-carrie-johnson-says-source)
>
>Growing call for inquiry over claims that Boris Johnson tried to secure Foreign Office role for then girlfriend
–
eta:
>Tue 21 June 2022 • 7:28pm:
>
>Telegraph: [Exclusive: Job for Carrie Johnson at Prince William’s Earthshot charity ‘rejected’](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/21/exclusive-attempt-secure-carrie-johnson-role-prince-williams/) – ([🪞](https://archive.ph/ZQYNQ))
>
>An attempt to secure Carrie Johnson a role with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s charity was rejected amid concerns it would be inappropriate for the Prime Minister’s fiancée to work with the royals, The Telegraph can reveal.
–
The Times have really damaged themselves here.
Anyone who comes into contact with Johnson and are involved in his lies and deceit comes off badly – The Times, The Met Police, Lord Guit to name a few