Paul Dacre at the Leveson Inquiry(389 Posts)
I was going to add comment to the other thread I started here at the beginning of the inquiry but purely for the comedy value alone, I felt this warranted it's own, shiney new thread. The above isn't word for word, just the guardian blog, but there are some crackers in there, and I haven't even got to the end.
Did you know, criticism of the Daily Mail stems from a lack of understanding on how journalism works? Next time you see a thread on here quoting the Daily Mail, just remember, we just don't understand how journalism works. Feast your eyes on the pearls of wisdom dished out by the one and only Mr Dacre, and enjoy...
I've just heard that Dacre is being recalled to answer questions about the Mail's 'mendacious' allegations about Hugh Grant. Good.
Dacre is clearly not used to being called to account. It happens to us all, Paul.
I liked that Robert Jay refused to let him speechify and Leveson allowed him to read one quote from the piles of self-serving and irrelevant opinion pieces he wanted to recite.
Top comedy moment for me came when Jay examined the Mail's assertion that turning on the bathroom light in the middle of the night causes cancer.
The idea that journalists should be licensed by a body controlled by publishers horrifies me. It's been mooted before, often with the disgraceful collusion of some police forces.
The idea that the police or any commercial organisation, particularly one tainted by bias and poor reporting standards, should control journalists is terrifying.
I carry an NUJ card. That is enough. I will not carry any other.
It was laughable that Dacre wanted only his approved card-carriers to get access to news events. He's just trying to stitch everything up for himself and his ilk. If he thought Leveson couldn't see that he's even more deluded than I thought.
I did agree with him over his story about Abigail Witchells though. If newspapers couldn't publish stories just because some people didn't like them we'd never know anything.
Same thing with Jan Moir's Stephen Gately article. It was distasteful and appealed to the prejudices and prurience of ignorant people but I think it was fair comment.
Dan Wootton's only talent is as a star-fucker and is part of the Mail's long tradition of comedy campers.
In what way was the Moir/Gately article 'fair comment'? (Not being snarky, I read it at the time, much frothing etc, cannot remember anything fair in it.)
Also where is the best live coverage of the Leveson inquiry? (Late to the game.)
I think the best moment was when he said, with respect to the Gately story, that "Jan Moir does not have a homophobic bone in her body" Really??
Alistair Campbell's twitter feed was hilarious. My Favourite was "For those wondering who is lady with the wheelie-bag behind Dacre as he enters court, she carries his prejudices around with him in case"
And this one also made me snort "Dacre showing Level 2indignation there. He needs 7 for leaders, 8 for front page headines and 9 for stories about women with cellulite"
Fair comment is a legal defence against defamation. It's that the matter complained of is a fair comment made in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest.
It doesn't have to be 'fair' as most people might take the word or even nice.
I don't like what Jan Moir said but that covers it.
I rely on Sky's coverage. If it's not in their general broadcast you can access the Leveson inquiry live via the red button (as they say).
I too am delighted Dacre is being made return, I thought he sounded tremendously pompous. He should respect the enquiry.
I get a live fee via the Guardian website or indeed the Leveson website.
Heather Millls gives evidence tomorrow
I'm clearing my diary, getting in a supply of snacks and drinks and thinking about getting a potty so I don't miss a single second of her bonkersness.
bunch over, I'm bringing popcorn
and several large nappies.
This inquiry really should be serialised, and broadcast. Better than corrie any day!
Heather Mills is going to be brilliant. Why, why, why am I at work!??
Just popping in to mention Alistair Campbell and his hilarious take on it, but Slug beat me to it. Was really funny.
I do not understand why he was right to publish the story about Abigail Witchells. It involved her private information, and she did not want to have it released. Why does the public have a right to know? Public interest and an interested public are not the same things. Mrs Witchill did not want her private information given out, no matter how interested complete strangers were, so it was wrong that it was given out. If she had wanted people to know she could have released the information herself.
I also do not see how it was fair comment in regards to the Gately story. Moir, who has no medical training, all but accused the spanish pathologist of lying because he said it was natural causes. She implied Gately's mother was wrong to think the patholgist was right, and claimed that healthy young men do not die of natural causes - forgetting that apparently young healthy men actually do, and she had no idea as to whether gately was healthy of just apparently healthy. She then implied he died because he was homosexual, but at no point come up with any evidence to say exactly what killed him, or why the Spanish pathologist was incompetant or lying. I think she was also the one that made a comment about the fact the pathologist said there was liqued in the lungs, as if this implied it was not natural causes, and ignored the fact that this (pulmonary oedema) is a sign of a heart attack. But of course anyone who thought the article was wrong had obviously not read it (although I am sure all those who complained about Ross and Brand being nastry about the guy from fawlty towers had listened to that radio show and not just read the mail's account of it). i am quite certain if the pathologist had been british and read her article the mail would have been in court for libel.
Dacre was just embarressing and the way he blustere dunder questioning demonstrated to me that he is not used to being challenged, which in my opinion something that an editor should be experiencing all the time as otherwise they become convinced that whatever they want to do is right -which is exactly what has happened.
Thanks LPO, I hadn't realised you were using it in the legal sense <dim>
I do feel that somehow the tide is turning for the Mail, this is the beginning. <rubs hands>
No doubt I am wrong, but a girl can dream.
The way Abigail Witchallss family was treated by the press was disgusting in many, if not most cases.
One of the purposes of this inquiry is to find ways that complaints to a governing body will be handled better and more rigorously. I welcome that.
You can see from my posts that Im not a fan of the Daily Mail or Paul Dacre but newspapers have to be allowed to publish things that some people dont want to read because if there was a law that said otherwise people would suppress things that we really ought to know about.
The Mail article complained of by Abigails mother was based on publicly-available facts the details of the attack on Mrs Witchalls and those about the attack on her brother. An apparently motiveless attack which left the victim for dead, and an attack that appeared to be a hate crime against a person with disabilities, are in the public interest.
Im not claiming that the public interest was uppermost in Dacres mind but the elements were there and thats why Im defending his right to publish the story.
The elements which could have been obtained illegally should be investigated and the culprits prosecuted if warranted.
But its not possible to legislate for taste and it never should be.
Regarding the Jan Moir article: Ive said it would be covered by a Fair Comment defence to a libel action this is why:
The unexpected death of any person in unexplained circumstances is always in the public interest. Thats why we have inquests.
The facts on which she based her comment were true: Stephen was on holiday with his civil partner, they invited another man back to their flat, Stephen died alone of pulmonary oedema.
Moir said that healthy young men do not generally die in their sleep but it transpired that Stephen was not healthy, he had a heart defect. She didnt say the pathologist was lying , comment on his competency or say that young men dont die of natural causes.
She did imply that Stephens mother was deluded and got it wrong when she dismissed Mrs Gatelys mention of a family history of heart conditions. That was very bad but not libel.
Jan Moir did not have to prove her comment was true; she couldnt, it was her opinion. In claiming Fair Comment it wasn't even necessary that anyone agreed with her
Like I said, I didnt like what Jan Moir wrote. It was designed to appeal to ignorant, prurient people and didnt address the fact that many heterosexuals have unconventional relationships too.
Theres no reason to believe Moir did not make her comments in good faith and without malice and they werent her sincerely-held beliefs. It is legitimate to express an opinion on relationships for good or for bad. We all do it all the time.
So I have to defend her right to make the comments she did and also to have them reported accurately.
Have I missed Heather? Max Clifford is on now.
Heather was disappointing. She was on for less than an hour and mainly confined herself to matters of truth. I think Jay and Leveson were on the lookout for voyages to the far shores of fantasy and wrapped it up before she could set sail.
She categorically denied Piers Morgan's claim that she played him a voicemail from Paul MacCartney. Piers Morgan is acquainted with the truth but nobody could say they're close friends. Even so if my life depended on it, I'd have to plump for Piers.
Caught the end of Max when he said there were many things he could say about Heather Mills but he'd restrict himself to denying all her claims.
He's not the most reliable character in the world but he spoke a lot of sense about trying to improve standards of reporting.
Dacre next. Get ready for another bout of unnerving grunty noises when he really wants to say: 'Fuck off you speccy-four-eyed cunt. How dare you fucking question me. You're fucking fired.'
Sky are rerunning Heather highlights on the red button atm.
Thanks, will have a look at Sky.
Yes Piers Morgan or Heather - who to believe. One is as smarmy as they come, I'm sure would do anything for a good story and also to save his own skin. Other is as mad as a box of frogs.
Ive been enjoying watching Paul Dacre squirm. Arsehole.
Dacre's a vile human being. A foul-mouthed bully, by all accounts.
I saw Paul Dacre briefly the other day and thought he was a sanctimonious git. I'm no Hugh Grant apologist but Paul Dacre almost made me feel sorry for Hugh Grant and that's quite an achievement. What a toad.
On a Mail-related topic, I remember reading a blog by a woman who agreed to do an article for the Femail section and was comprehensively screwed over by them.
The Mail's barrister's even threatened to take the shirt off her back at one point:
While I was considering my position, I received a call from the senior partner in the law firm representing Associated Newspapers. He ever so kindly pointed out that trials cost lots and lots of money, and it would be such a shame if they were forced to take my house off me were I to lose such a complicated case.
Scum. Absolute scum.
that blog post is absolutely shocking.
Steve Coogan can be a bit odd. Have met him. By turns obstructive then confessional about cheating on his former girlfriend as if telling me was a penance for his gittishness towards her.
It was for the News of the World. He at first refused to do it but then came round when he realised how many readers it had and how many tickets he needed to sell. Never needed to hack his phone.
I've never met Hugh Grant but I have more respect because I don't think he does do interviews except under the terms he outlined - a press conference for film publicity purposes.
Coogan keeps doing one-on-ones and is surprised when people don't portray him exactly how he wants them to. He's like a child who can't stay away from a hot iron.
'Don't touch that, Steve,'
'I said don't touch that.'
To be fair to Steve 'Oddball' Coogan I understand what he's saying.
It should be a defence to use subterfuge if that's the only way you can obtain a story that's in the public interest. It's good of him to acknowledge that under the circumstances .
I can't imagine there was anything in the public interest on his voicemail though so he deserved his compensation.
bump, I love this thread.....I love the analysis of the whole thing (am living in the sticks so don't hear so much media gossip these days). Still hope that Daniel Morgans death isn't forgotten about, those who ordered the killing (as well as those who did it) really need caught.
Ps. Sorry, the Daniel thing slightly went off the point.......still Dacre is a pompous man who thinks he can bully the truth away, it's interesting comparing the DM now to an issue a year ago. Much of the news is actually old news, I just don't believe they didn't use dodgy methods to get their previous results
Meanwhile 5 Sun journos, a policeman, an Army guy and an intelligence office have been arrested over the 'paying for stories' side to it.
I think it is time to remind ourselves that after the News of the World was closed, Dacre n Murdoch giving evidence to the Levinson enquiry and Parliament, huge chunks of money being paid out and all the rest. Nick Ferrari said on his miserable show a couple of years ago. The Guardian is still banging on about phone hacking. They are the only one, this story just doesn't have legs. Just shows what a 'nose' for news he has.
No problem with someone getting his just deserts over real wrong-doing but I believe at least one of the stories was about shortage of kit for soldiers.
If that's true NI should be doing all they can to protect their journalists and the whistleblowers rather than disgracefully offering them up to save the Murdochs' grip on the company.
Also I don't understand what was going on in the heads of the Times editor and senior executives who authorised the outing of the police blogger NightJack. He was doing us a useful service. They should be ashamed and prosecuted for lying to Justice Eady to get the man's injunction lifted.
In newsrooms some people put more emphasis on finding the story than asking whether the result justifies publication.
Juliet Shaw's blog piece should be required reading for anyone who's ever even tempted to read the Daily Mail, on or offline. God, I loathe that "paper". I want to see it & Dacre taken down.
So, we are back today and bloody hell. Talk about throwing in a few grenades. Sue Aker's summary of the findings/investigations so far. We kind of know what they have uncovered but to hear it summarised the way it was just seemed so much worse some how. Paddick's evidence was particularly eye-opening. Mulcaire having details of people in police protection schemes. This Paddick says one of the methods Mulcaire used was persuading the telecoms company to reset mobile the pin number to default by phoning their helpdesk So even if you were clued up enough to change your pin to prevent hacking, the telecoms companies were changing them back to default settings on the persuasion of Mulcaire. And who knows who else. Prescott's evidence too.
Seriously. Bloody hell. All this with the backdrop of Murdoch and his triumphalism over the Sun on Sunday too. Bloody hell. I've said that already haven't I?
The Met gave Rebekah Brooks a horse.
Couple of things that have stood out so far. This Mr Mulcaire was sentenced on the basis of activity that he received £12,300. The fact the court did not have before it information that was clearly known, known to the police because they told Rebekah Wade, known to Tom Crone, Andy Coulson, that was not in the court's knowledge is a serious failure which meant the court was asked to do a job on the basis of incomplete evidence
And now this Hames says she was put under surveillance, her email was tampered with, and people were trying to get financial information. She says it was impossible not to conclude that there was "collusion between people at the News of the World and people who were suspected of killing Daniel Morgan"
This part of the inquiry is just mind blowing so far. I'm just gripped by it all. This just goes way, way beyond a basic invasion of privacy that hacking is. How on earth has Brooks managed to remain at liberty with all this going on? Why is she not being huckled into the nearest police station? My brain just does not compute why Brooks is still a free woman. It's just makes no sense whatsoever that she can stick with the party line of claiming to know nothing, while the officer investigating the murder of Daniel Morgan is put under surveillance, for 'according to Brooks' having an affair with his own partner? This is just madness.
WTF is going to happen when we get to the last third of the inquiry?
Tom Watson is going to be talking on the issues raised at today's evidence, tomorrow in parliament, with parliamentary privilege, covering what has come out this week, including the issues surrounding the murder of Daniel Morgan. Oh. My. God. This is just about to go nuclear. I think. This is mental. Just mental. The link to Brooks with the meeting about the surveillance on the investigating officer has been highlighted this week, and Watson is going to give it both barrels tomorrow, with no come back due to parliamentary privilege. What Brooks told the staff at the NOTW when they shut it down, about there being much worse still to come out, wasn't an exaggeration. Bloody hell.
Is no one interested in this? This shit is HUGE.
Banana do you know what time? I'm close to a TV tomorrow.
My point about the horse is that I cannot believe how it's swinging from criminal behaviour to banal greed and favour-mongering.
PM's Q's is on at 12 lunch time, then coverage of the day's proceedings afterwards.
Knowing Tom Watson he will raise questions during PM's Q's ?
Not sure limited, it's between some parliamentary stuff i.e. a lull or something, after a scheduled debate or something. It was mentioned on CH4 news earlier but I didn't quite catch all of it.
I get your point re the horse. The more worrying aspect is how the met have responded to this info i.e. serious overkill in trying to normalise what has happened. Oh, she was just being a good egg looking after the horse before it was re-homed. My jaw has rarely lifted from the floor reading this stuff today. Yesterday was mind blowing, today has just taken it to another level. Serious, serious stuff being implicated/alleged and how the fuck NI wriggle out I can't imagine.
Not very good at describing parliamentary business am I? Just. Can't. Find. Words. <thicko alert>
Don't worry, banana.
I just copied what I wrote from the BBC Parliament's webpage for tomorrow's viewing !
I want to throw a sickie and watch BBC parliament all day tomorrow. That's just not normal is it? I just can't past how massive this all is.
It's an adjournment debate Tom Watson is having tomorrow <watching ITN news>. Still no idea what time though.
I'll watch for you ! Not that I'll be any good at reporting back.
It's funny, this got massive coverage, like the work experience/work programme is at the moment, and then a funny thing happens. Life moves on, and people forget. Nothing stranger than folk, I suppose ?!
It is massive, I agree. I don't completely understand how massive though...can you help me to understand ?
I realise that this has massive implications for the met and NI and current/previous employees, but how far does it go ? Are we to hear that good ol' Scameron knew all this when he let AC go ? How deep does it all go I wonder ?
If you can get near a tv tomorrow, I would imagine Tom will be talking after PM's Q's, which generally lasts an hour.
banana it is entirely natural to me but DH does wonder what I do on these days
MrsDeeBee Copying is a legitimate newsgathering technique.
I learned this as an inexperienced reporter doing my second shift on a national when I watched someone more experienced than me copy every single word from a TV report on an aircrash for his 'first person' piece the next day.
His name was Neville Thurlbeck.
Mate of mine who works for a popular mid-market paper said he was disappointed to find he was expected to copy stories out of the Sundays for Mondays. ffs. You spend all that time training learning how to find news, how to interview, how to write news and features. Then you get to a national and just have to copy other people's work!
damn, pressed too soon
you can watch it here ^ ^
Thanks so much for the link. I can be watching and posting...not that I shall make any sense.
When I was a keen, bright eyed and bushy tailed young reporter on a trade mag, I was surprised to find the national correspondents in my field would get together after the big BMA/RCN/whatever annual conferences and decide what the story was AND what the names of the speakers would be. Heaven forfend they might actually check what people's names actually were... if there's one thing I've learned in the past two decades, it's that getting people's names wrong is the thing that pisses people off most. You can write stories that paint them in a bad light all you like, but if you spell their name wrong they will be furious!
Copying stuff to curry favour with the news editor is just an entry drug to things like this for the News of the World
Before you know it you're sprawled on the camberwick bedspread masturbating to camera.
As a journalist it's my duty to see those pix so you don't have to.
I've followed the Morgan murder case for years as I've met Alistair Morgan, Daniel's brother, who has led the justice campaign. The Morgans have always believed that Daniel was killed on the orders of serving Met police officers as he was about to blow the lid on corruption and drug running within the force, which is why the Met, the PCA and later the IPCC spent years obstructing any investigation.
The prime suspect for the murder, Jonathan Rees, has since turned out to be one of the NOTW's most prolific hackers, and worked for them either side of a prison sentence for peverting the course of justice (he was working with a police officer to plant drugs on an innocent woman so she'd lose custody of her child). When a serious investigation into the murder finally started, the NOTW set out to intimidate and discredit the investigating officer, Dave Cook, Hames' husband. They also threatened the Morgan family. Some of those NOTW staff were also working for and with the Met police at the same time. When Cook complained to the Met Police, Rebecca Brooks was called in to see their Head of PR Dick Fedorcio. He squashed all further action against the NOTW people who'd attempted to derail a murder investigation to protect a colleague as he wanted to maintain a good relationship between the Met and News International.
The Morgan case did come to court last year but collapsed as, whoops, the Met hadn't disclosed all the evidence. They issued a statement afterwards stating that police corruption had hindered the case for years. Sorreeee!
The level of corruption involved and the depth of the relationship between the Met and News International is breathtaking.
My apologies for missing out half of your name.
My apologies for missing out some of your name.
Watching Leveson regularly, and also reading this thread - so you're not crying in the wilderness. Not energetic enough to comment much, but keep it going!
For those who don't know, Daniel Morgan was a private investigator whose business partner worked for NOTW. A Met police officer who later replaced Morgan in the business was tried for the murder but the trial collapsed. The police now admit the investigation was affected by corruption.
edam oddly enough it was a Sunday for Monday.
Catkins I agree, breathtaking. I would like to see people go down but I won't hold it.
As Edam says, getting people's names right doesn't matter when you're a journalist deebee. See what I did there?
i agree Daniels family need justice
Getting people's names right DOES matter, there's nothing more guaranteed to cause complaints. But if you are on the Mail, you don't have to care, as you don't need to talk to those people ever again (if it's members of the public, more care is taken with experts or top people in organisations like the BMA).
If you're going to shorten it, make it MrsDB please !
If you do deebee it takes me 10 minutes to realise you're 'talking' to me !
I have fucked up over names, though, even though I know it's really important and do try hard to get it right. Once subbed a letters page and managed to confuse two letters on the same subject - I'd asked one writer to clarify some details and when she responded added her comments into the other writer's letter. They were Not Best Pleased.
don't mind really...
yay I got company! Thanks for the link blackoutthesun, I was contemplating sky+ing BBC parliament but don't have the disk space <shakes head>. And Catkins, thanks for that info. I was not too clued up on the finer details of what happened, so that was really helpful. I am dying to hear what Tom Watson has to say tomorrow.
Have just read the wiki page.
I knew that the 'powers that be' were/are corrupt, but the lengths that they go to are astonishing.
If you could see me I am sitting here like this -->
edam I'm joking. Actually, I think that if you're trained properly to ask for spellings, ages etc it becomes automatic.
Why on Earth wouldn't you check details even if you intended to make the rest of it up? It becomes more important to check details in those circumstances so you can get your story straight. So I'm told.
I think many of the people working today never had that training and think it's all a bit of a fuss and bother over nothing. I've worked for a women's magazine editor who wailed to the lawyer trying to avert a contempt of court: 'You're always trying to ruin things.'
<not in jail yet>
<yes, we paid police officers - Rebekah Brooks>
<Er, no we didn't - Andy Coulson>
Seriously, why was she never questioned by John Whittingdale's committee over this astonishing admission?
MrsDB, my face has been like that --> most of the day reading through this stuff. It is really mind blowing isn't it?
Sorry never mind John Whittingdale - the Metropolitan Police Horse Welfare Society
Will definetly watch parliamentary debate tomorrow.
limited that is the million dollar question isn't it? Just what does she know that keeps her from getting too acquainted with the inside of a prison cell? The mind boggles...
Rebekah is bessie mates with Cameron isn't she? Cynical, me?
Ahh, bless you bananaistheanswer !
Yes. If I were an animal, I would be the OMG cat from youtube.
It does blow my mind. You're right in what you said earlier, brain can't compute.
I just don't get how it's been gotten away with for so long, well, I do, everyone from the top down are clearly just rotten to the core.
"We are all in this together".
Oh, are we, Mr. Cameron ?
Let me count the ways...
edam I had a horrible week as a trainee after mixing up the exploits of two local Girls' Brigade corps.
One Brigadier wanted to let me off with a correction and a light ticking-off while the other held out for a full court martial from the managing editor who lived in her village.
My chief reporter solved it with a phone call explaining the newspaper didn't hold with incompetency while shouting: 'Get out! Stop snivelling! You should have thought of that before you made a mistake! No, Madam. You've complained about her now and it would be weak of me to take pity on her. What's done is done.'
Thanks for the link black
i'm been sitting with a face like and since last summer
oh and don't thank me thank twitter
Brooks kills police horse scandal
Well, not really. She just didn't look after it that well. And it was re-homed where it later died of natural causes. But. She killed it really.
You think I could get a job working for the Sun on Sunday <whistles>? I've tried to cleverly twist the facts into a sensational, yet just slightly less than truthful, story. But managed to spell her name right . I think. <ponders if there should be an 'e' in there somewhere>
So she discarded the poor old nag when it didn't suit her any more. Aren't Rebekah and her husband soon to acquire a child?
MrsDB the work experience fuss isn't going away. Chris Grayling is today due to meet employers worried that their association with it makes them look like a bunch of chiselling weasels.
While he's at it perhaps he can explain how the police are getting on investigating his claim that the Socialist Workers' Party hacked his email account in order to bully participating firms. Surely he's reported such a serious crime by now? Shouldn't be too difficult to unmask the guilty party.
I'm looking forward to Tom
well she can't spell her name, it should be Rebecca
just heard that tom is on at 2.30 and not 4pm
I was just coming here to ask about that.
I've had to turn off the Parliament Channel because it's Bill Cash droning on about the Euro again.
james murdoch has stepped down
Why? What's going on? What's about to break?
No, it's not going away. Yet.
The govt. have announced that all sanctions for youngsters (16 - 24 years old) on the Work Experience Programme have been removed.
I mentioned on another thread, what concerns me is what about those on the Work Programme who are older than 24 ? Do we assume the sanctions still apply to them ?
Have seen that James Murdoch has stepped down from his position as Chairman of NI. He will still be working for News Corp. though,
pressed wrong button !
.....will still be working for News Corps, focusing on expanding the company's international tv businesses.
Just quit UK, is all.
I wonder if it's for a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
Yes, the over-24s many of whom presumably have no need of work experience, just work.
Oh, quite probably !
Work, of which there are 14 applicants per vacancy. (or thereabouts, I forget the stats, they change daily).
OK, just been neglecting my child to catch up on today's events . Thanks to blackout's linky further ^^ up the thread, I've been able to watch Tom Watson give his statement (it starts at 15:59:43 for anyone else not really interested in HMRC and Rangers/Scottish Football). I'm guessing the JM resignation has overshadowed that, but it was well worth listening to. Daniel Morgan's family won't get the judicial review they wanted any time soon, but it hasn't been ruled out completely. The met are to review the Murder/corruption etc. Watson underlined the link between Brooks and the attempts to subvert the murder investigation in 2006. He also highlighted Andy Coulson's link to the re-hiring of Rees (Morgan's former business partner/suspect in his murder) once he'd served his prison sentence for an unrelated crime. Watson sought reassurances that the Met will fully investigate all these links, and go through all the evidence they have from previous investigations to try and secure whatever evidence there might be covering NI's involvement in the attempts to subvert the investigation into the murder in 2006. If these further investigations don't result in further arrests, and convictions, I'll be utterly gobsmacked.
The inquiry today gave a bit more insight into the original investigation that resulted in Mulcaire & Goodman's convictions. The description of what happened when the police went to NI's offices to seize evidence just showed how difficult NI/NOTW made this investigation for the police, but at the same time, the 1st witness also highlighted just how little digging was done, and how few follow ups they did to try and piece the whole thing together in the beginning. It's the big wigs in the police giving evidence tomorrow. No doubt there will be more eye-opening revelations tomorrow.
isn't the comittee report out tomorrow?
its also been reported that brooks' phone was also hacked at least twice a week when she was ed at the sun newspaper
bloody hell, miss half my post again
this is the transcript from today
The news earlier said the committee report is still in it's draft stages, due out in 3/4 weeks - what is known is it's highly critical of James Murdoch's evidence given to the committee. Not exactly 'news' given that we all watched him try and bullshit his way out of any responsibility for what went on. Hence him hot-footing it to the US.
its also been reported that brooks' phone was also hacked at least twice a week when she was ed at the sun newspaper
Somehow I can't muster much sympathy.
How did I miss that? I had it on the Parliament Channel from noon until about 5pm with just a few breaks when the lunacy of Bill Cash was getting too much.
its also been reported that brooks' phone was also hacked at least twice a week when she was ed at the sun newspaper
If I was Mulcaire I'd want a few insurance policies. I guess that might be why he's managed to convince NI to pay his legal expenses after their wrigglings.
i know, but when you learn that the police told her, her phone was hacked by Glenn Mulcaire in 2006...
so back in 2006 she knew phone hacking was going on at notw
Thanks for the Hansard link Blackout, it's fascinating reading.
I knew that the policeman suspected of involvement in the killing had been put in charge of the murder investigation and later retired from the police and took over the victim's old job. Tom Watson also lays out how corrupt all the subsequent Met investigations were until Dave Cook was involved. What's mentioned in passing is that Roy Clark who was the Met's Head of Anti-Corruption carried out a secret investigation, which was also unsatisfactory. He later became Director of Ops at the Police Complaints Commission which I know from speaking to the Morgan family, did all it could to hinder the murder investigation.
What was new to me was the Daniel Morgan had approached the NOTW a week before his murder, to act as a whistleblower over serious Met police corruption. Did this act sign his own death warrant?
Morgan apparently approached Alex Marunchak at the NOTW. Marunchak knew and later employed Jonathan Rees, the suspected killer, as a NOTW hacker. Rees' company paid off Alex Marunchak's debts. Marunchak was one of the NOTW staff who organised the harassment of Dave Cook and Jackie Hames when Cook was investigating the Morgan murder. Marunchak was simultaneously working for the Met police as a translator.
Bloody hell black
If there's any justice Marunchak and that fucking clown Hayman ought to quaking in their beds tonight. Brooks should be a bit nervous too.
how was this man ever employed on the right side of the law?
Here's the new link to Tom Watson's statement, now the debate has been moved to Hansard's historical record rather than live feed.
so we now know Yates liked to be wine and dined
also a 32 year old woman has been arrested...
Yates isn't coming across as particularly bright I have to say. His reasoning behind each and every decision/action/public statement just paints him as at best, a bit dim and naive, clearly unable to see the bigger picture. His description of Nick Davies being a challenging individual I'll bet he was! And all that wining and dining too - this email Think John Yates could be crucial here, have you spoken to him, really need an exclusive splash line, time to call in all those bottles of champagne. kind of explains how NI/NOTW saw the benefits to these 'meetings' but poor Mr Yates didn't see it like that at all. And all that digging and digging he did, trying to find evidence of John Prescott's phone being hacked. Just couldn't find it at all.
Oh dear. Downing Street has admitted that David Cameron could have ridden on Rebekah Brooks's ex-police horse
Dare I say it ?
DC could have 'ridden' RB ? (or vice versa)
Marunchak has responded to Watson's comments yesterday.
He says: "Watson's comments about my professional dealings with murder victim Daniel Morgan are absolutely untrue."
Oh, that answers everything then doesn't it?
full article here
That's the thing with dead people isn't it ? They can't answer back.
Squeal, piggies, squeal.
Maranchuk: 'I was told to cover the Morgan murder story as the News of the Worlds crime reporter. Then news editor Bob Warren told me: Find out who this man is for a start. Weve never heard of him.'
Why would an editor bother saying that? Surely "we've never heard of them" is true of almost every murder victim?
I find myself strangely unconvinced by Maranchuk's, ahem, charm and eloquence...
I find myself strangely unconvinced by Maranchuk's, ahem, charm and eloquence...
I missed this today. I agree Yates is a dim puppy and greedy like the rest of them.
I was amazed at his continued rise while head of the Met's Celebrity Squad and the stunning failure of investigations and trials under his watch: Paul Burrell, Cash for Honours, sending officers business class round the world to find out the vital news whether Kate Moss did coke or not. Bet the tabloids were keen on that prosecution.
They couldn't prove it. Funny that, isn't it? Someone snorts white powder and there is no evidence to show what it was yet the Met spends a fortune deciding that er, we can't be sure what it was. It's a wonder Yates didn't launch a worldwide business class hunt for Al Pacino on the grounds that he buried his face in a ton of white powder in Scarface.
He did manage to nail the Coughing Major on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, so credit where credit's due.
It was almost as if he was being rewarded for his lack of results
All the while he drew fantastic press from the Sun, News of the World and Richard Littledick. I wonder why?
limited you old cynic
i want to know how the hell he got that job? his memory is shit and he really doesn't know a lot
Oi! Not so much of the old
apologies! limited you cynic
rumour is rupert murdoch will be called to leveson
Not too sure what that will do here. He'll just have trouble remembering his own name, let alone any detail about anything any of his staff has done, or what he knew about hacking. He's already played the almost senile Murdoch at the select committee, the inquiry won't suddenly spur him to unburden his conscience. Still, it would be worth watching him squirm as Jay picks apart his
oh i would pay to watch Jay and Murdoch
and did i hear right that andy culson also knew about hacking in 2006?
I like Robert Jay.
I admire his forensic, yet playful, line when questioning pompous oafs unused to being asked the time let alone to account for why theyve decided to set themselves up as Her Majestys Unofficial Opposition and Arbitrator of Public Morals.
I like his meaningful pauses of just the right duration that suggest that systematically trashing someones reputation for no good reason is of no more significance for pond scum than buying a scratchcard on the way home from setting up a secret webcam in next doors bedroom.
I even like his obviously theatrical outrage at Richard Desmonds assertion that the McCanns should have been grateful that his newspapers accused them of murdering their daughter because it kept the hunt for little Maddie alive even though, to the regret of the Express and Star, she was clearly not.
Also I like his spectacles with the yellow-tinged arms and his curly hair.
My name is limitedperiodonly and I am a Robert Jay addict.
methinks you have a bit of a crush there limited. I agree with your summary of his technique though. Just today, the way he set Yates up nicely with that exert from the email 'calling in all those champagne bottles' was just pure class. It's quite amusing watching those who think they are far too intelligent to get tripped up by the questioning, get themselves featured on the ten o'clock news, such is the impact of what Jay has extracted from them.
Does anyone else think that the Daniel Morgan murder case is going to be the Really Big Story That Changes Everything? I can't help thinking that a newspaper getting involved in an attempt to subvert the course of justice in a murder case is going to cause far more outrage than even the hacking scandal.
I agree about Jay. He's brilliant. I quite like Leveson too. Cool, calm, articulate and sharp. I feel hopeful, as a citizen, having those two leading the charge.
which kind of makes up
very slightly from watching plod and thinking 'dear God, these are/were the people in charge ?!'
I hope so hackmum
banana I'm just fascinated by legal procedure
MrGin I like Leveson too. I don't know he keeps a straight face at times.
Yeah. You can see a smile creeping onto his face sometimes.
He looked exasperated with Yates and co at times.
Jay mulling over the champagne email was perfectly worded and, well just brilliant.
Yates looked like he was speaking from some despot dictators office.
Some of Jay's best 'bits' for those who admire his work...
Calling in those champagne bottles
liar liar pants on fire
what aspects of the operations of mass selling of newspapers require... enlightenment
When this is all over Mumsnet should invite Jay for a webchat.
Miles more interesting than Goldie Hawn and I think he'd like the attention - though he'd protest a couple of times for decorum's sake.
He's got the Elvis Costello look about him, but a bit slimmer and much posher.
<that's just my personal perving>
Further to hackmum's question: surely several senior police officers will face serious charges. Maybe they'll get away with it. Who's going to order the investigations and make sure they're done properly and don't collapse like the Daniel Morgan trial?
And re-reading Brooks' patronising statement to NoW staff on the last day about in a year's time all becoming clear. It still sounds like she didn't realise it would hit her. I believe she and the other NI execs are arrogant enough to believe they could sacrifice the small fry but is she really that stupid?
Not sure about Mr Jay's tie this morning.
Paul Stephenson's trying to justify endless drinks and dinner with newspapers execs, primarily NI ones, on the grounds that it's his job to find out what these people think of the Met.
That's what your press team is for and then you could always take on an outside PR consultant, preferably not one who's left NI under a cloud.
Alternatively you could just read the papers.
Jay's tie does make him look a bit peaky. Navy is not his colour
And the laughable idea that this wasn't an attempt to get favourable coverage.
Stevens, Stephenson, Yates, Hayman and Clarke enjoyed fabulous press that glossed over considerable mistakes: 'the Coppers' Copper', 'Yates of the Yard' that double page spread in the NoW praising the Met and lying about John Charles de Menezes the weekend after he'd been shot.
I'm beginning to think that the hapless Sir Ian Blair should have put in more time in restaurants with NI staff. They were probably scared that Brian Paddick was going to invite them to gay bars.
Wonder who the 'senior' police officer was who favoured NI? And have they already graced Leveson's Inquiry with their presence ?
Baker was good, you could almost sense his contempt for all those 'champagne lunches'. And this >> Exposing your genitalia while identifying yourself as a member of X-shire police might not be the corporate image you are trying to convey very succinct.
Kit Malthouse is getting a pasting now. And good 'ol Boris too.
On a side note, Andrew Neil's tweets about Murdoch dangling carrots for Alex Salmond, in a 2 fingers response to this whole mess, worries me greatly. I don't want the issue of independence being sidelined by the whole Murdoch/NI/BskyB debacle. It's far too important an issue for Salmond to simply roll over for Murdoch and do his bidding. FFS, you'd think after all the grubby links politicians have had with Murdoch and his empire that Salmond would know better than to jump at this. I think Cameron might well have found Salmond's achilles heel with this. Assuming Cameron gets out of this squeaky clean.
But I digress Roll on the 3rd part of the inquiry, with the focus on the politicians. Leveson himself says this part of the enquiry is 'almost redundant' with the work done by Filkin and Baker. I kind of agree, not sure what else there needs to be said about the Met's balls-ups. But, there might well be more grenades to come.
I didn't see any of it yesterday afternoon.
You're going to have to narrow it down if you really want anyone to guess the identity of that senior police officer who favoured NI
Who was Baker? Genitalia? I'm going to Google.
I loathe Johnson. I've never voted in a Mayoral election because there's never a worthy candidate but this year it's going to be Livingstone just to get that smug chancer out.
Malthouse is a thug.
I heard Neil on that Murdoch/Salmond alliance on his Sunday show. I think he's right.
Got it now. Roger Baker seems just the man to lead an inquiry into the conduct of the Met.
Sorry limited I was just picking bits out of the guardian blog, no idea who the 'senior' officer was who favoured NI. Let's face it, the list is way too long for the guess to be easy. My gut tels me they may well have already graced the inquiry though. Or at least had a mention at any rate. But that's just pure speculation on my part.
Agree re Baker. He displayed just the right amount of common sense, while showing utter contempt for the excessive hospitality Senior officers enjoyed over the years. He had a real no nonsense attitude that was quite refreshing to hear.
This is from the Guardian blog
Lord Justice Leveson is surprised by the brevity of today's hearing. "You have failed me, Mr Jay," he quips.
Early finish today. Pretty boring actually, all about press/media contacts, more lunches/dinners/jobs for the boys scenarios for retired cops/journos. <yawn>
I thought Baker was good too. A real contrast in his plain speaking Yorkshire-ness to the senior met officers who so enjoyed being wined and dined.
At one point he said if he was talking to a journo they'd be water or tea ' much like at this inquiry' , I think Jay quiped that maybe they should have Champaigne at the inquiry... everyone laughed.
Leveson said he thought it would all go much faster if there was.
I give Baker 8/10 for integrety.
Why did he lose those 2 points MrGin? You harsh thing, you.
Why did he lose those 2 points MrGin?
Didn't like his tie
Really interesting stuff today. It really is a wicked web that Yates/Stephenson/Fedorcio et al. have weaved with their socialising and media contacts. Fedorcio and Hayman, as well as Yates, all hinted at as allegedly being the source of leaks too. The Damien Green arrest is now dragging up political interferance, and how messy these 3 elements combined were. Yates is looking more and more like a complete idiot, clearly dazzled by his 'well connected' status. Stephenson doesn't come out well from today's evidence either. I know I've already said it, but roll on the third part of the inquiry with all the political elements/connections etc. Today's evidence opened the door slightly, and I'm already intrigued...
And Lord Justice Leveson swore as well!
Just pondering to myself - when will Oliver Stone make this lot into a 4 hour head-fuck of a movie? I think my brain is going to explode with all this stuff. Just when you think you've got your head around what's going on, something else is thrown into the mix and then the <wibble> starts over again. Bloody brilliant this!
Yeah, I saw Leveson swear yesterday. It was so matter of fact. It was great.
I agree about Yates looking more and more like a duped idiot. Someone yesterday mentioned him being 'groomed' by the press. I think that's pretty pertinent. He seems like a vain man who's been duped by meals in the Ivy and the high life.
And Stevenson's 6 week free ( £12,000 worth ) of spa treatment care of the ex-NOW deputy editor.
Yates saying he was 'very well connected' when refusing his phone records to be viewed.
The deputy Mayor putting pressure on to drop the phone hacking enquiry. The Damien Green case.
And most of them saying ' well in hindsight, yes it was a poor decision' . Yes you fuckers, you've shown appalling past judgement.
Jeeeeezus it's a nasty old mess. One
hopes wonders if it will go to the top.
It would of course be unthinkable that an ex-NOW editor who may or may not have known about hacking, might end up working for the PM as his press secretary and using said techniques to eaves drop on the opposition....
That would never happen of course.
cough Watergate cough
I didn't watch. Unfortunately work intruded.
But I heard the word 'groomed' and thought it was an excellent choice and deliberately so. Who said it?
What shocks me is how cheaply people can be bought. Obviously dinner at the Ivy is beyond most people but at the end of the day it's just fucking dinner.
What curse did Leveson use? I'm sure it was very judgely swearing. None of your 'up yer bum'.
I think it was Godwin who said 'groomed' but can't be sure. I agree it was an excellent choice of words and given what is coming out fits the situation perfectly.
Steveson said he didn't know anything about the Green case. Apparantly the Met are saying he did. The plot thickens.
I'm quite glad there have been a few police officers who are saying they simply met the press in their office, during the day and offered no more than tea and biscuits. It really does contrast with the likes of Yates and co who seem to argue that a champagne diner in the Ivy was a natural thing to do when dealing with the press.
Leveson said 'fucking' whilst quoting a Guardian article. It was very matter of fact.
There is a joke now that the inquiry is the only place where someone like Dacre doesn't swear and Leveson does
My heart is bleeding at this plea: Please Sir, can my client go now?
This bit at the end is breathtakingly cheeky.
There are a number of individuals out there whose reputations have been traduced. Few people know the impact of such publicity on their lives, and the depth of stress and worry they have had to bear.
Sheesh, the rank hypocrisy of that article really grates with me. This bit Understandably, the press reported this extensively. Instantly, stories appeared about various individuals who had been arrested as part of the inquiry. Er, they didn't have to name names, they didn't have to report anything. But, they chose to, in the interests of selling newspapers. Chris Jeffries anyone? The press reporting on issues being examined by Leveson, with those within the press then questioning whether they could possibly receive a fair trial as a result of press reporting? <head desk>
And in the context of what the press print in terms of comment on anything sub judice, should a lawyer acting for someone who is the subject of an investigation be writing press articles, and commenting on the case/their client?
Consider the Daily Mail's response to Hugh Grant's testimony.
I think the argument about Akers statement to the inquiry and whether this has prejudiced any future court case, or those arrested/investigated having their right to a fair trial prejudiced, is really clutching at straws. I hope this is dealt with swiftly, so as to move past the bleating, and whining. God forbid this gives all those being investigated a 'get out clause' from being prosecuted.
Every single person in this country has the right to a fair trial - whether they murdered 20 people or might have listened to Sienna Miller making an appointment at the hairdressers.
I'm not arguing against that nancy - I'm simply highlighting the rank hypocrisy in members of the press complaining about the possibility that press exposure might prejudice any trial for them, while being one of the biggest culprits in causing trials to collapse through irresponsible press reporting. I don't want any trial of those involved in this to evade justice, if that's what their actions warrant.
The issue of Aker's evidence possibly prejudicing any trial that NI employees might have wasn't raised straight away. As far as I'm aware (and I'm prepared to be corrected on this if wring) it stems from a complaint by 'someone' who is up to their neck in this. Whoever made the complaint isn't worried about a fair trial IMO - it's more likely to be a bargaining tool to get out of having to face a trial.
Every single person in this country has the right to a fair trial
In that case, maybe it's about time the press themselves took notice of that right, and stopped reporting details that have the potential to prejudice all trials/criminal cases then eh?
I don't see how the argument that this would be grounds not to proceed to trial stands up.
If so it would have been wrong to try Dobson and Norris for murdering Stephen Lawrence after years of negative publicity chiefly led by the Daily Mail.
Does anyone remember the trial of the Leeds Utd footballers charged with beating up a student that collapsed because the Sunday Mirror published and interview with the boy's dad in the middle of it?
That was Colin Myler's doing too. I don't think it was sinister. Just an urge to beat rivals to the story and a pathetic need to be seen sticking up for the Asian underdog.
I'm not insulting the Asian student or his poor duped dad who were robbed of a trial because of the Sunday Mirror's stupidity. The insult is in the cynical decisions of a group of people who think: 'Ooh, This will make us look good. Maybe there'll be an award in it.'
I don't understand how even the most junior reporter would miss the obvious contempt issue. I cannot decide whether it was stupidity or a calculated risk that they could get away with it.
And they did - there was no contempt of court charge against Myler or anyone else responsible for the decision.
Have been listening to this.
It's from last August but is still relevant. It gets especially revealing at about 28 mins when Dr Tim Brain, Chief Constable of Gloucestershire turned academic, insists that there isn't evidence of widespread corruption at the Met. That was then...
He sounds like what I'm sure John Yates and the rest of the senior Met would dismiss as Provincial Plod. That's a bit sad since Small-Brain defends Yates's integrity.
Perhaps it's just as well he left the police because he doesn't sound capable of tracking down a lost dog.
I've been up since 6.45am clearing up the kitchen. I had to listen to something
It's a desperate argument that the Met had more important things to do than investigate the whinings of soppy celebrity birds (a favourite of the policeman's friend, and Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn).
Phone-hacking was originally referred to counter-terrorism officers because it involved the Royal Family. That was as it should be. When it quickly became clear there was no terrorist threat it should have been handed over to another unit, leaving the counter-terrorism squad to keep us all safe in our beds.
But it wasn't, was it? Instead Hayman, who I cannot believe has never seen the inside of a custody suite from the wrong side of the table, kept control of it. I wonder why.
A 43 year old woman has been arrested at her address in Oxfordshire this morning along with 5 others.
I wonder who that might be.
Now that has made my day! <childish>
I won't comment as I wouldn't want to prejudice any potential criminal proceedings
I feel sorry for Dave. He's going to land in Washington in a few hours and have his important world statesman moment with Obama ruined by questions about Rebekah Brooks again.
I feel sorry for Brooks and her husband too. They were dreaming of their outing to the first day of the Cheltenham Festival when Plod woke them up at 5am.
arrested for ''Perverting Course of Justice'
Fedorcio is giving evidence just now.
arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
Is that ^^ more serious that just perverting the course of justice? My instinct says yes, but I've no idea.
ooh no idea, i know it can carry a prison sentence
Fedorcio isn't doing very well. Particularly during questioning on whether he briefed against Brian Paddick, Ian Blair and Bob Quick.
The short answer is yes.
There was quite an amusing exchange that boiled down to if a paper wanted to run a damaging story because it was good for them then all Fedorcio's
schmoozing in bars news management wasn't worth a damn. Not really, admitted Dick of The Yard.
The maximum sentence for the crime if convicted is life imprisonment. When Andy Coulson was arrested I read something said if convicted he might expect 3-5 years.
Don't know whether the conspiracy aspect makes it worse. Bet it doesn't make them feel better though
I just think the conspiracy bit could meanit's worse as they would have collectively worked to pervert the course of justice, which to me has a far greater prospect to be successful in that aim i.e. a number of people working towards the same aim is a lot harder to get around that just one person flailing around trying to scupper an investigation. I hope that means sentencing will be at the higher end of the scale you mention limited.
They're slaughtering Fedorcio over the way the contract was stitched up so Neil Wallis got it.
First of all he asked only Wallis to tender, then when told he'd have to get two other quotes he chose Bell Pottinger and another company called Hanover who were bound to be a lot more expensive than a one-man band.
When asked why didn't consider the more comparable small PR outfits run by ex-NI people Phil Hall or Stuart Higgins Fedorcio claimed not to have heard of Hall, a former editor of the NoW and previously a news editor of the People, and said he thought Higgins only did celeb news but didn't ask.
He's very unconvincing on the close links between Wallis and Yates - claimed not to know about them and claimed that Yates expressed no opinion on learning that his mate was going to get a senior job. Claimed not to know that Wallis was still associated with NI. Grudgingly admitted that if he did know of them he wouldn't have appointed Wallis.
"... I don't recall." Seems to be the phrase of the day.
Wish I'd known that as a youngster whilst mum was berating me for some mis-behaviour.
Leveson looses his cool with the Times lawyer. Picks up his statement and forces lawyer to admit his witness statement isn't accurate.
Leveson describes a second section of the witness statement as "utterly misleading".
Brett replies: "It is not the full story".
He says the inquiry is "being fantastically precise" about the witness statement.
Leveson sternly replies: "I'm being precise because this is a statement being submitted to a court, Mr Brett."
Oooh! I'm watching a day in arrears, but shall await this moment eagerly!
missed it! will try and get a re-run later when the short one is in bed.
Just read through today's evidence - Leveson was right to lose it with the times lawyer. WTF? How did they get away with basically lying to the court on how the nightjacker's identity was confirmed? Did anything happen with this, or is this yet another outstanding legal case that has yet to conclude? I wasn't fully aware of what this story was about, or the relevance (information overload at times with Leveson) but just reading what he said, and how they could come to the conclusion that it was fine to not 'engage' with questions about whether the journalist actually hacked into the police officer's email, and stick to that as he then 'legitimately' found the details via another route.
I particularly liked this bit from earlier evidence, Stephen Wright, the journalist heavily involved in the Daily Mail's coverage of the Stephen Lawrence case. When asked to add any comments to his evidence he said.
"The Metropolitan police is like journalists, not above scrutiny," he adds.
Leveson agrees, before saying: "...Who's holding you to account?"
I think we all know the answer to that question...
Why did I miss this? Work, that's why.
Don't understand how the Times justified the outing of Nightjacker. We want whistleblowers, don't we?
They were in love with the idea of playing detective. They're in the wrong job.
Brett must surely face professional disciplinary action now. Mustn't he?
Very uncomfortable with the way the Mail takes the credit for the Stephen Lawrence convictions when they did so much to jeopardise a trial.
I was cheered by that Murderers headline until I thought about it. Did it drag the case into the spotlight? Yes. Did it make it likely the Crown could not proceed against the men? Definitely.
The argument about the Mail publishing their story about the new forensic evidence seems to me like CPS and Met whingeing though.
That was churlish. Credit where credit's due to the Mail.
If they hadn't published that Murderers splash the Met would have buried the Stephen Lawrence case. So the end did justify the means.
Unlike Nightjacker and the Times. James Harding (times ed) probably feels superior to Dacre. He shouldn't. He's weak. If he didn't know what was going on he should have. If he did he's a liar.
What's happened to the Guardian blog for the inquiry? Just watched a clip on ITV news, and still no coverage on the blog. Where else is it covered, anyone know? Can't get onto the BBC live coverage for some reason, it won't load on my netbook.
Fedorcio has resigned to avoid disciplinary proceedings over awarding the PR contract to Neil Wallis. Not so shocking news. Not got much else as the guardian have let me down
well, well, well james murdock has stepped down from bskyb
also is it true that brooks is being called?
Update on the Times computer hacking
I wondered at the time whether anything was happening about this, and now it seems the victim of the hacking is taking action.
It's all awfully quiet round these parts... hoping this is the calm before the storm when they start on the political element of the whole mess. The press have had a kicking, the police have had their kicking, and soon it will be the political establishment who will feel the wrath of those still wincing from their treatment. <rubs hands gleefully> Can't wait ...
I am so looking forward to seeing James Murdoch wriggle today.
Leveson was quietly lethal yesterday with Sky News Head of News John Ryley.
'Er yes, we did hack the canoe man's emails'.
'That's illegal, isn't it?'
Explosive today. Cameron and co having dinner 2 days before xmas at rebecca brooks house yet no one seems to 'fully' recollect it . Cameron also discussed the bskyb take over with JM lying b'stard
And so it begins! The Jeremy Hunt being hung out to dry by James Murdoch, got to laugh at the comment in the emails about information being disclosed to them described as 'absolutely illegal' . Cameron is being set up for a mighty fall too. Wonder how many politicians will 'feel the force' of Murdoch tomorrow. I'll bet there will have been a few scores settled by the time Murdoch senior has finished. Not had time to read up that much, but will be back later once I've gone through it all.
Definately explosive noddy!
random 'the' in there. Makes Jeremy Hunt look like a euphamism
I thought it was intentional, banana
oh yes and the '!' now means a joke, who knew?
And Cameron meeting up to discuss the bskyb deal
Can someone do an idiots guide to what happened today please?
What did JM dob Jeremy Hunt in for?
And does this mean that JM has more dirt on other politicians (well, obviously but stuff that he can tell people about)?
explains it better then I could
just end up confusing myself
I've just finished reading through the guardian blog and I'm just . Don't even know where to start really. Maybe first of all, highlight the irony that Jeremy Hunt is the person that Leveson will report to with his findings at the end of the inquiry, assuming he'll still be in the job.
Hunt's now begging Leveson to allow him to bring forward his own evidence, which from Newsnight reports, Leveson isn't willing to allow. I think what will be most damning against Hunt is the fact that while he has allegedly been feeding daily information/updates to Murdoch via their respective lackys, he has not accorded the same courtesy to those who opposed the bid - this>> The "alliance" of News International and BSkyB rivals who opposed the bid for the broadcaster had one "wooden meeting" with Hunt compared to the daily drip of insider information afforded to Murdoch. shows that they certainly weren't in daily contact with Hunt over the process or what was happening. He's utterly failed in his role to act in a completely unbiased manor while considering the bid. I cannot see how he will get round that. When he does give evidence, Jay will unravel him. I have no doubt about that.
At the break for lunch, one of the ITV reporters tweeted this Leveson rises, James Murdoch's questioner Robert Jay QC walks away and mouths to colleague 'this is such fun'. Jay is a man who enjoys his work Can't say I blame him after today!
I so wish I could watch Murdoch snr tomorrow. I anticipate that Rupert will have a few grenades of his own to lob in, just for good measure. This is just the beginning of the fall out for the political part of the inquiry, as we haven't even got to the politicians giving evidence. Wonder how many will be laid bare tomorrow by Murdoch snr?
What did JM dob Jeremy Hunt in for?
Possibly just for the hell of it, or maybe because Hunt set up the inquiry as the area being investigated falls under his remit as Culture Secretary. I remember at the time Cameron made a big noise about choosing Leveson to run this inquiry, but Hunt will have had a huge hand in that too, as the Culture Secretary. I'm sure JM has a list as long as your arm as to the reasons for the grenades lobbed in today
can Cameron really duck out of responsibility now for any of the Murdoch/BSkyB stuff?
& did you see the Simon Kelner account of the time Murdoch & Brooks strode into the Indie offices shortly before the 2010 election & ripped into him about Indie posters telling the population Rupert couldn't tell them how to vote? (I can't find the link, it was def there earlier, Brooks was quoted as saying "we thought you were our friend" - WTF???)
Weird to contrast Murdoch's total recall today with his previous blanks at select committee
ah, found it - was on the Graun, not the Indie
I saw that quote ponders, and had a chuckle at this Their use of language and the threatening nature of their approach came straight from the "Mafioso for Beginners" handbook. There really is an arrogance about the whole lot of them, steadfast in their belief that they would never have to answer to anyone such was the power they wielded over each successive government.
Weird to contrast Murdoch's total recall today with his previous blanks at select committee.
I agree. It was remarkable. Murdoch snr has played dottery old man at the earlier committee already, wonder which version we'll get from him tomorrow?
Sorry, don't have the energy to summarise fully, but the Murdochs lobbed more than Jeremy Hunt to the wolves today - they lobbed themselves.
This collection of emails presented to the enquiry by Rupert Murdoch (the batch linked from today's BBC article about James' Leveson appearance) narrates in detail the lobbying process as the Murdochs worked their way through and round MPs to try to get what they wanted. I've only read the first 20%, as they attempt to manipulate Cable re the BSkyB takeover.
It gives the absolute lie to the Murdochs' claim that their papers are editorially independent - and makes a liar of James Harding, editor of the Times, who is shown being set up to have an interview with Cable about non-BSKyB business in order to get alongside him, because overt lobbying might turn Cable against News Corp. (Harding banged on at Leveson about how it was absolutely wrong to ever enter the corridors of power to influence power, rather than report on it.)
It discusses a decision not to attempt to use News International to achieve News Corp's BSkyB aims as this would have "no upside". Rather than because it was something NI papers couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't do.
It talks of helping ministers promote their particular hobby-horses or get their particular messages out, all in the context of the BSkyB deal not being referred to Ofcom.
Like I said, I've read about 20%. Fuck knows what else is in there.
It's not that I'm shocked the Murdochs did this: we always thought they did. It's that Harding and the rest have been swearing on their mothers' graves that editors don't take instructions about content, tone or political allegiance from proprietors.
Can't wait for today although have a gynaecology appt first thing shall be telling him to get on with it!
they are handing info over to the US!!!
'Adam Smith, the special adviser to the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has resigned, saying he acted without the authority of his boss and that he had allowed the impression to be created of too close a relationship between News Corps and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.'
Do we believe this?
Damage limitation attempt in full swing...
Wonder what he has been promised for that little action?
Have to say I loved Dennis Skinner and Tom Watson at todays PMQ's
Also wtf is this??? www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/24/david-cameron-rupert-murdoch?CMP=twt_gu
<saddo alert> I've sky+'d PMQs for later. Just seen a snippet of callmedave getting a tad worked up. Skinner's comment 'when posh boys are in trouble, they sack the servants' was I think 'fair comment'
ooh it was good
callmedave was getting very annoyed and hunt looked like he was about to burst into tears
thank god someone's talking about callmedave. I started a sad lonely thread about how he's always just dreadful at PMQs, like a horrible boarding school bully. His advisers need to tell him it's called PMQs because other people are supposed to ask him questions and he's supposed to answer them because he is at the service of the people. He always acts so outraged that he is being questioned - sort of "ugh the plebs are saying something - how dare they?"
I would have thought that after the "Calm down dear" debacle one of his advisers would have had a word but they are probably also Bullingdon Club tossers with a sense of entitlement so maybe don't get that he really lets the mask slip on these occasions.
This Jeremy Hunt thing is such a cock-up and it's a time to look serious and determined to root out cronyism, not get all shouty and red-faced and just generally toff-like.
I'm a bit confused about the Parliamentary status of these 'special advisers'
they're not civil service, they're not elected, they are appointed by Ministers - so if one of them makes a mistake, the Minister who appoints them should be where the buck stops, is that right?
But not in this instance...
I do like the likes of Dennis Skinner; like Tam Dalyell, he can say what he likes, pretty much
CallmeDave is well on the back foot here, isn't he?
yes the Ministerial Code makes it clear that ministers are responsible for their special advisers. I don't know how JH thinks he can hang on at this point.
The funnist thing I've found is that the only tory they could find to defend Hunt was Gove, you know your screwed
'Adam Smith, the special adviser to the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has resigned, saying he acted without the authority of his boss.'
Didn't that Werrity creature say the same thing a little while ago? Anyone remember what happened to his boss? He had Dave's full support too.
Murdoch is a smooth operator so confident and self assured for his age (even if he is a **)
I'm enjoying him being put in his place and the little comfort breaks Leveson is building in purely to stop Murdoch playing the weak and feeble old codger defence.
I like various points raised including the unlikehood of him not knowing that Eady concluded that NoW journalists blackmailed a woman in the Mosley sting - being told by Leveson to go off and read the judgement!
Also the ridiculousness of not knowing what was going on after the phone hacking trial because he trusted people to tell him but didn't think to enquire when they didn't.
I also liked the 'Iask the questions' putdown from Jay and the lecture from Leveson about having to answer questions following Murdoch's rudeness to Jay and Jay's sarcastic remark that he has a thick skin.
I'm finding Old Man Simpson's periodic banging on the table a bit off-putting.
Wonder what happened round about 11ish when Leveson ordered someone to sit down and stop what they were doing?
I suspect it might have been Wendi getting ready to deliver a karate chop
anybody else wonder if Cable's set-up by the Telegraph might have been orchestrated elsewhere purely to get him out of the way so that Hunt could take over? (or am I a conspiracy fetishist? )
Only Hunt, as Shadow Culture Secretary, was in cahoots with the Murdochs about the BSkyB takeover long before the 2010 election...maybe they all assumed it would fall into his remit after the election & didn't expect it to go to the Business Sec?
From what I recall, the Telegraph didn't publish that aspect of the sting.
The information was passed to Robert Peston by a Telegraph source.
Peston is a big friend of News International what with being fed loads of his stories from there.
Murdoch was complaining about press harassment today! His questioner saw the irony, but Murdoch had to be brought to see it.
That 'sit down' rebuke from Leveson was when a solicitor for Linklaters tried to get NI's barrister to intervene during Robert Jay's accusation that there'd been a cover up between NI and the firm of solicitors Burton Copeland NI engaged to look into phone hacking.
Jay went on to point out the NI continued to resist waiving client privilege that would enable Burton Copeland to speak on the subject.
The other legal firm involved (can't remember the name right now) managed to get NI to waive privilege that revealed that NI's terms of reference were so narrow as to be useless.
NI were putting it about that they had authorised a full inquiry and allowing it to be believed that the law firm hadn't looked into it closely because they were incompetent.
Lot of firms of solicitors involved for NI, weren't there? Anyone would think it was an attempt to make sure no firm had a complete overview.
Harbottle and Lewis were the firm who won the right to point that they weren't negligent, just hobbled.
How long before Murdoch is back in bed with Labour? Not long methinks The sun and the sun on sunday about to switch allegiance again apparently
I don't think they'll be in bed with any politicians ever again.
(I would just like to say God bless the knee-jerk leftie Guardian for keeping on & on & on about this however much they were derided by the rest of the press & much of Westminster )
I think Murdoch has stuck the knife in and will now twist it!
I read sth this week about the rather remote but frightening possibility of the sun papers switching to ukip, their policies being closest to murdoch's. Labour if they want to capitalise on this govts appaling record would do well to not touch NI with a bargepole.
That would be scary! But not impossible
Oh I hope they do! that will finally put the lie to the notion that they ever influenced election results, rather than always jumping on the right bandwagon
very interesting. I didn't realise how much involvement mosley had had with the whole build up to the hacking 'scandal' and subsequent inquiry. It all kind of makes sense, him and Hugh Grant being so heavily involved in the Hacked off movement. I should have made the connection much sooner - especially after I read this article, way before the whole thing exploded.
I've already mentioned further up thread, but I'm really interested in hearing the various politicians who will be giving evidence. I just hope it lives up to my expectations. I hope Mr Jay is on top of his game when that starts.
'it was interesting - apart from the fact that Paul hates people like me, and I hate people like him, we got on quite well'
thanks for that, banana - I don't think I've ever read the entire transcript before - interesting
Hugh Grant is a smart cookie (& in fact Paul McMullan isn't so bad, either - in a very creepy kind of way )
Paul McMullan is off his rocker Ponders, in an amusing yet slight disconcerting kind of way .
but is he off his rocker when it comes to what he says about Coulson, eh? eh?
Ah, that'll be when he has had his rare moments of clarity
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17881382 another lawsuit for NI
Mosley has never forgiven NOTW for the 'Nazi sex orgi' story it ran, and later was sued as it was false
Cameron 'summoned' to answer questions over Hunt
Bercow has granted Labour's questioning of the PM's decision not to order an investigation into Hunt's conduct and alleged breach of the ministerial code. Cameron hates Bercow, I'll bet this has just made his day
It's entirely justified IMO, how Cameron can try to continue to hide behind the Leveson Inquiry to avoid Hunt being investigated when almost every politician who has an opinion on this, of all persuasions, have questioned the ministerial code breach, is beyond me. Especially when the inquiry have told them it's not their job to comment on whether Hunt breached the MC.
I think that 'shoogily peg' Hunt's 'jaiket' is currently resting on, is about to shoogle him onto pastures new.
And Cameron is side stepping the actual question being asked. Jesus wept. When in my lifetime will I ever hear a politician actually answer a question and not 'dance' around the point raised and question asked. So there is no need to investigate ministerial conduct. All's well then eh? <rolls eyes>
What did Cameron say about Dennis Skinner today? #Welovedennis is trending on twitter.
I'm not sure why cameron is stating that Hunt will be under oath at Leveson? You have to tell the truth in Parliment anyway.
he told him to bugger off and collect his pension. Very rude
'Labour's Dennis Skinner asks why Hunt has got better employment rights than other workers in Britain.
Cameron says Skinner should retire and take his pension.'
cameron is a cunt!
ooh feel a namechange coming on
this is fascinating
'At the height of the so-called "Sachsgate" scandal involving BBC presenters Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross in October 2008, Cameron and his wife had dinner with James Murdoch, his partner Kathryn Hufschmid, and William and Ffion Hague in London. The couples discussed "topical subjects" and politics, according to documents submitted to the Leveson inquiry this week.
'The following Monday Cameron provided a barbed comment piece for the Sun, strongly critical of the "bloated" BBC which he accused of "squeezing and crushing" commercial competitors online. The sentiment was echoed little more than a year later by dinner partner James Murdoch, who described the size of the BBC as "chilling" in an excoriating MacTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh TV festival in August 2009.
'James Murdoch, then the chairman of BSkyB and chief executive of News Corp in Europe, also took aim at the media regulator Ofcom, which he attacked as too ready to intervene in the lucrative pay-TV market. The media executive found sympathy with the Conservative party, which in July 2009 vowed to cut Ofcom's powers "by a huge amount".The MacTaggart speech came four weeks after James and Rebekah Brooks told Oliver Letwin, the senior Tory minister, of their fears over excessive media regulation.'
Ofcom told Hunt he should refer the BSkyB deal to the Competition Commission. He didn't.
Cameron says (this afternoon) that if Hunt had not indicated his willingess to accept undertakings in lieu as an alternative, he would have been liable to judicial review.
Undertakings given by NI being trustworthy enough to justify letting them have their own way? Anyway, what undertakings? Do we have details?
I do hope the Guardian (or someone) will put together a detailed timeline of who saw who when, & what was subsequently said & done, over the last few years
Go Tom Watson.
Louise Mensch: you are a shamelessly partisan disgrace and an embarrassment and so is the stuffed stripy shirt alongside you.
Eh? Where was this said? What have I missed?
Publication of the report of the Culture, Media and Sport sub committee here.
Louise Mensch thought everyone who voted against her was being horrid to the Murdochs, expecially James. Then she rushed off to pick up her kids and get her highlights done.
Did he tweet that or something? Or was it said in the commons? I'm at work, and been trying to skim read the report. Nothing on BBC about this comment. I did pick up earlier that the 'partisan' line had been drawn. FFS, if they couldn't sit down and keep all that crap at the door, they should not have been involved in the bloody committee. How the report can come to the conclusion that Murdoch isn't a 'fit and proper person' yet still have some of them shouting it's all a fix, is just insane.
No, sorry the comment was mine
the voting split is contained here
Mensch whined that she would have supported the whole report if the direct criticisms of the Murdochs weren't in it. She said the committee had seen no evidence. She claimed the pro-voters were partisan.
Therese Coffey and the Tory MP in a stripey shirt tutted along with her. John Whittingdale said he wasn't happy eitehr but couldn't vote.
Watson said in answer to a Ch4 reporter at the press conference that he had insisted on the wording because he felt it was more important to lay that down than reach a consensus.
He was vicious in his speech against NewsCorp and the Murdochs, however, I agreed with him (I would though). He was smart enough to repeatedly insist that he wasn't partisan but was seeking the truth (or words to taht effect).
you had me going there! If he had said it, it would have been awesome!
He was pretty good despite that. He is a man with a mission, maybe I wouldn't go along with all of it.
It was plain the Tory side of the committee were desperate not to be harsh on the Murdochs and the coverage from Sky's Joey JOnes was predictably Pravda-esque, or in other words, partisan. Make of that what you will. I think it at least means Joey Jones is eyeing up the job of Dave's press secretary.
The bloke in the stripey shirt, who I can't be bothered to look up, was saying that he didn't think it was fair to say Rupert Murdoch was unfit because he'd been running papers since before the MP was wearing stripey babygros.
Maybe Murdoch's unfit, or maybe not, but that's not a good argument.
Amazing that there are still toadies willing to lash themselves to the Murdoch mast.
Government applying to become a 'core participant' at Leveson Inquiry
Interesting move, particularly as it's after James Murdoch landed Hunt/the government in the shit.
Also, Brooks and Coulson to appear next week. And I'll be in Florida <shameless boast> so will miss it all. I'll be relying on all you fellow obsessives to keep me abreast of all developments.
'Tis all available on the Leveson website - you can watch the sessions streamed live or later.
Lying by the pool is no excuse, you know!
This govt is so corrupt. I cannot believe this Hope Brooks brings him down
Marvellous summary of recent Leveson by Ian Hislop on HIGNFY last week. (iPlayer Episode 3)
< gets popcorn ready. settles into chair for this afternoons entertainment >
Anyone know if Hunt will be appearing tomorrow? Smith due back for more but not sure if Hunt will appear tomorrow as well.
So far, it seems as though no one explained 'quasi-judicial' to Smith. Ahem. Also interesting email Hunt sent to callmedave before Hunt appointed to take over from Cable.
Who'd have thought Jeremy Paxman would land Piers Morgan in it with his evidence yesterday?
I think Hunt is next week.
Adam Smith is being given a very hard time right now by the tag team that is Jay and Leveson.
Leveson talks so effing slowly - this could all have been over by now if he learned to speak at a normal speed
< sets up massive bowl of popcorn. settles into chair. >
Loving the protester at Bliar's evidence today. Leveson repeatedly saying 'excuse me' over and over while the bloke shouts his point (and he got it all in as well). Leveson was ever so polite. How very British in the run up to Jubilee weekend...
Gove - looks like a precocious schoolboy. Wonder if he is wearing scratchy wool shorts and ankle socks beneath the desk.
Watching him, I'd say stockings and suspenders
How so we think Jeremy Hunt is going to do today? <very excited>
Sky had a helicopter filming his progress from home to the court just now. He stopped off at his office in the Houses of Parliament.
Probably having a long, last look at the view of the Thames.
I guess more of ' I can't recall ' , ' I don't remember ' , ' it wasn't me ' etc etc etc.
Hunt today Jay looks like he is looking forward to this one.
ooh, Hunt is struggling. He is offski straight after this. Expect resignation whilst a "fair and impartial" investigation can occur by parliamentary standards.
I still think it's terrible that Cable loses his job for expressing a view over the deal, but Hunt keeps his for doing far worse.
haha has anyone seen the texts yet? Osbourne needs to be called now
I am not watching it but have just read the Guardian live feed - SURELY Hunt can't survive after this.
Ooh, u-turn #5641 Treasury announces climbdown on charity tax
Another good day to bury bad news...
all of the texts and phone calls and emails just read like the "old boys network" getting together to dupe the little people into having what they want anyway and THEN taking huge joy in doing so.
the texts about cable are so hypocritical.
i hope one of the things to come out of this will be that no private communications are permitted for MPs, including unminuted meetings with individuals/companies who could benefit from ministerial influence.
scumbags the lot of them!
It is unbelievable but I bet he won't go!
Asking Andy Coulson out for a drink.... he wasn't a friend of course
The messages saying Vince is making mischief He is a little weasel!
urgh... another one saying they would have done things differently in hindsight.
He is trying to paint himself as the 'good boy' who wanted to involve Ofcom even though the murdochs were against this
he keeps mentioning the OFCOM thing, and how terribly angry Murdock was....
And how in spite of this he stuck to his principals
Is everything that's going on really what DC meant when he told us "We're all in this together" ?
They are a complete bunch of arses aren't they ?
I'd like to know just how much DC knew about how much shit Coulson was/is in.
I remember Rebekah Brooks made some remark about how much more there was to come out...was it to staff before she left ? How much more is going to come out ? How much worse can it get ?
Someone should tell the BBC to commision a new soap, or daytime drama.
Parliament-enders, Big Bullshitters, or something.
I agree that Jeremy is trying to make out he has his own mind and it was the "nasty Murdochs" who made life difficult. <coughs>. Bullshit.
I love the way he has tried to say that he was not actually in favour of the BSB bid, yet everyone around him assumed it was a 'done deal'. George Osbourne's text says it all.
They are all teflon coated.
Have faith GetOrf.
Leveson is looking into Press standards and that alone - though this is slowly lethal and all of Dave's doing. How the papers must love him for instigating this inquiry to save his thin skin.
Hunt will have to appear before Parliament to answer charges that he lied to them. People smarter than me say he did. It's generally a resigning matter but it may have to wait until after the summer. Or maybe not...
Anyway, it's not going away and pressure is continuing what with Coulson's new arrest and whatever else might happen.
Meanwhile Kelvin McKenzie, who's a mischief-maker but not an idiot, has made a £1,000 bet that Dave will be out of office by November over this.
Whether that happens within the schedule or not McKenzie is going to keep banging on about it. And it's all for charity - Hope For Heroes.
Part of Tom Bradbury's comments on the news earlier suggested that the conclusions of the Leveson Inquiry might well be the final nail in Hunt's career, if Leveson's summary of Hunt's evidence and actions suggest he did fall short of conduct expected of ministers. Or something like that. It's still all about callmedave and now gideon keeping that firewall in place as long as possible.
Interesting part to me was Jay's comment during questioning that Cable was stripped of responsibility for demonstrating apparent 'bias' while Hunt got the job of overseeing the bid while displaying 'bias' at the opposite end of the scale. Which then leads to the question over why callmedave decided to give Hunt the job after Hunt made representations via his email championing the Murdochs' cause.
It is frankly amazing that politicians <generic> have a collective skin thicker that 12 rhinos stapled together.
The assumption that the public at large will just lap up anything just 'cos they say so. Mensch wading in about how it was outrageous to suggest Hunt lied to Parliament. A touch of 'these are not the droids you are looking for' from her, and we'll all just nod and go away satisfied 'cos she says so.
Wonder if Osbourne will now be compelled to appear as well?
Interesting part to me was Jay's comment during questioning that Cable was stripped of responsibility for demonstrating apparent 'bias' while Hunt got the job of overseeing the bid while displaying 'bias' at the opposite end of the scale. Which then leads to the question over why callmedave decided to give Hunt the job after Hunt made representations via his email championing the Murdochs' cause.
Yes, I think the same. And then after that the PM made an announcement that Hunt's behaviour did not warrant any referral. At which point I thought HOW can today's revelations not be seen as utterly outrageous.
Bloody hell re Kelvin mackenzie's £1000 bet!
I think it is all slowly falling around DC's ears.
I saw that bit with Tom on the news. Wasn't it him who also said that Jeremy is essentially still in place to 'protect' DC, and if he goes, then it's 'in for the kill' with DC as it were ?
Don't think Gideon has done himself any favours, and do they really think we are stupid enough to fall for the shocking u-turn today on charity tax ? Tom mentioned that in his report, that at the same time as Jeremy was dropping Gideon in it at the inquiry, the press were told to ask GO about the charity tax.
I'm sure that something came up last week during Levenson, saying that Gideon would have to appear.
That made me laugh, banana that Jeremy just couldn't seem to grasp that he was only given the job as he had demonstrated bias towards the bid.
I really do think that they all think they are invincible, and untouchable. They are all like little pigs with their noses in each other's troughs. DH and I are wondering whose going to squeal first ?
I also thought it was interesting that Tom Bradby also mentioned that the govt. essentially have to keep Jeremy 'sweet' now. Because the last thing they need is for him to leave office pissed off. I just can't help smiling when I think of the mantra "We're all in this together"....the irony is lovely !
I saw Kelvin make the prediction that DC would be out in November before any of Jeremy Hunt's antics came out. Think it was either on QT or This Morning ?
He must be feeling really confident if he's actually placed a bet !
I just can't help smiling when I think of the mantra "We're all in this together"....the irony is lovely !
The other thing I thought was quite amusing was the mention of Hunt's 2 favourite journalists and the reaction to that info in the press room where there must have been dozens of journalists gathered. Oh I hope those 2 favourites were there as well. Can you imagine all those eyes suddenly swivel in their direction?
Can you imagine all the narrowed eyes and the laser-like beam of thought that is "and why are you his favourite ?"
Cue 2 journos suddenly needing the loo !
Was that cretin Mensch paddling into this? When will she ever learn to get her highlights done instead?
From the BBC
'But Conservative MP Louise Mensch said "he has been completely exonerated today". Talking about Hunt's evidence and the outcome, and responding to Chris Bryant's summation of Hunt's evidence 'We learned that Jeremy Hunt at the very time when it was being decided who should be taking over responsibility for the decision on the BSkyB takeover was in conversation with James Murdoch - you know, sent him a text saying, 'Congratulations on Brussels; just Ofcom to go,' which is not just sympathetic: that is effectively colluding with News Corporation. . Ahem.
And then she had to rush off to pick her kids up.
the coast is clear James
<awaits DC's response to Wench Menschs complete stupidity "I have complete faith in her and she will remain a valued
delusional member of the party">
I used to think I could quite like her. But then she has this awful habit of opening her mouth and speaking.
Right everyone, you need to pull a sickie for next week
Osborne & Brown on Mon.
Major, Harman & Miliband Tue.
Clegg and Salmond Wed.
Cameron on Thurs - I do hope that Jay questions him and Cameron loses his rage like he did at PMQ's
was just about to post this blackout. A packed week ahead indeed. Dunno why but I think I'm looking forward to Salmond as much as callmedave/brown. Just for the entertainment value alone.
So looking forward to this cringe fest! Dp and I have a week off next week together to find a house not quite sure how I am going to break it to him!
Can't you view houses in the evening and weekend???
Do you really need to move?
Good luck btw!
Do you think Dave will be fed beta blockers or Valium? Possibly a cattle prod.
I can't see how else Conservative Central Office will deal with his Flashman episodes against clever eternal outsiders such as Jay and Leveson.
Yes, I do mean Jews. And I mean that in the most respectful way. Go Robert and Brian.
I can't wait to see how jay scratches away shiny dave's veneer. None of yer 'calm down dear' bollocks or insults to impress his lackeys. Jay is going to get a whole new career out of this when it's done. Head of the new PCC or whatever takes its place perhaps He seems to have a passion for his work We'd need a special tv slot kept open for the ritual ripping apart of anyone who 'breaches the code'.
Looking forward to Gideon especially since I have an estate agent from one of the most odious firms coming on Monday too.
His approach to economic policy makes me think of a toddler who's pooed his pants and can't decide whether it's a mistake or the warm feeling is rather nice.
That's Gideon. I'll let you know what I think of the bloke from Foxtons after he's been.
Jay could be the new jezza
You might well be right about gideon's appearance. He doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the box, jay will make mincemeat of him. And your toddler comparison is spot on next time I see him squirming on TV I'll think of that post and chuckle
I'll sit there and ponder..."Well, Gideon ? Have you shit yourself ?"
jeez - can't believe these kids are in charge of our country. I want to slap his chubby legs for telling big fat lies.
Just skimmed through GB's evidence on the guardian blog. He didn't hold back did he? NI are still sticking to the anonymous father spilled the beans story about his son, while Fife NHS publish an apology for a leak of personal info. It gets stranger and stranger. Also, none of this can't recall bollocks either he pretty much nailed his comments to the mast and no doubt many press will be scurrying around trying to pick this stuff apart. I look forward to the text between Sarah Brown and Brooks about Watson. Proof in the puffing and all that. For all the slagging off Brown gets, I actually have a teeny bit more respect for him after that. I guess time will tell once what he's said has been checked, if it stands up to scrutiny. Off to check out gideon's progress now
Bloody iPhone! Proof in the PUDDING!
gideon's not doing well. He's the worst case yet of 'didn't see, hear or say anything, not ever, no sir, except I have absolute clarity about any conversation that has no bearing on this enquiry'.
I think Fife may be falling on their sword unnecessarily - unless they actually know something rather than simply "can't rule out" staff.
Here's La Brookes at Leveson, 11 May afternoon:
8Q. Where did he[the source] get his information from?
9A. He got it from the fact that he -- his own child had
10cystic fibrosis and he was given this information when
11information was sought about cystic fibrosis.
14Q. How had he got the information?
15A. He'd got the information because his own child had
16cystic fibrosis and he'd got the information, I should
17say, through a very small -- it's not a small charity,
18but there is a charity aspect to the Cystic Fibrosis
19Society, and he got it slightly by involvement through
The CF discussion starts on p30 and runs to p42 of that evidence, with some worthwhile diversion in the middle.
But that looks like Brookes is fingering someone at the Cystic Fibrosis Society, which the Browns may have asked for information.
Do you think they will ask about coulson? I am surprised he hasn't been mentioned or maybe i missed it as was out?
He got the information because his own son had CF, and could well have been told this by a member of NHS staff in giving him advice on support? It's still entirely plausible that a member of NHS staff was the original source of info. I doubt they'd have thought a conversation with a father of a child with CF would result in that father contacting a journalist. The bottom line is, that info was leaked against their wishes, and the initial source IMO had to have had knowledge of the situation through involvement in providing care or 'loose talk' between staff who provided that care. I do find it very 'odd' that a father of a child with CF would contact a journalist with information that he's been told by someone who I presume has told him while trying to provide support. I don't get how NI continue to defend their actions here. They gave the Browns no real choice in whether the story was published. That part of this I do believe.
It's a sad day when parents faced with a diagnosis, reach out for help and support and in doing so, get betrayed by someone either from the hospital who they asked for help or the charity they were referred to. It is still a pretty poor thing to do. And the paper don't get brownie points for not having paid someone to nick or look at medical records of a small child. They still published a story the browns didn't want 'out there'.
Oh agreed. Absolutely unacceptable who ever leaked it.
I've been surprised (perhaps foolishly) by the spread of organisations fingered by the papers, though. When the birth of Hugh Grant's baby was leaked, the first thought was to blame the hospital but the Mail iirc mumbled things at Leveson about having spies at the Register Office.
This may, of course, all be misdirection...
I think that's the real worry isn't it? It just seems endemic and far too many people willing to break the law for a few quid being paid by certain sections of the media. Anyway, need to check Gideon - wonder if there is a faint waft coming from him yet
Nothing really from Gideon - did we really expect anything ?
He asked RB if she thought AC was a 'good chap', and he is sad he hasn't been able to speak to his friend for a year. Poor lamb. <boak>
He also didn't mean anything by the text he sent JH "I hope you like the solution", merely that he meant that he hoped JH would enjoy the extra responsibility he was being given with his new job.
Never heard such a crock of shite in my life !
The waft is definitely there then!
It's just ridiculous really, isn't it ? It's like when he was talking about AC and said they went for a drink and he asked him if there was anything else they (the govt) needed to know about phone hacking etc...and AC said "no".
Oh, so no potential for arrest for perjury then ?
Although to be fair, the arrest wasn't related to the phone hacking !
A wee distraction
Got something on your mind shiney dave?
Oh dear, oh dear. Happens to the best of 'us' parents, but how could you 'forget' your 8 yr old DD when you would have had security coming out your ears? Wonder who noticed she was missing?
There is a huge thread running about this. Apparently the story is over 2 months old...
I don't care. How the hell, as a parent do you forget to check that you have all your children with you ?
Doesn't say much for the security either.
[oops] Only just seen the other thread.
It's all got carried away !
Can't believe how many people actually have and admit that they have forgotten their children doing various things.
<shuts up now>
Police have handed 5 files to the CPS over phone hacking
Isn't brooks back in court this week?
I'm REALLY liking John Major - never thought I would say that about a tory! He is a classic example of the damage the tabloids can do. I was too young to care much about politics when he was in power but my over riding memory of him is being a bit of a joke. A wet, grey drip devoid of any personality which was how the papers constantly portrayed him. But I'm pleasantly surprised. I feel like I TRUST him. Amazing! Bring back John and get the school kids, Cameron, Clegg and Osborne, out.
Hmm, didn't Murdoch say 'I've never asked a PM for anything'
Can't believe I'm agreeing with a tory tho
I've had to work this morning.
Was John Major interesting?
in not so many words about Murdoch asking for policy change while he was in power. F
I'll see if there are edited highlights.
ladysoandso Major's not the only one. To have one of the finest orators of modern times reduced to 'the Welsh Windbag' because more people read The Sun than listened to Neil Kinnock's speeches and one-liners to Margaret Thatcher in Parliament was a crime.
It was fear of a superior operator in action and it worked.
Sorry had to read and run major also spoke about his son being followed by reporters
limited - yes yes! You are quite right. God, how many careers have they ruined. Depressing.
Ooh can't wait until tomorrow
Brooks back in court
Clegg has told lib dem MP's to abstain from voting about Hunt
Oh and Ally McCoist had his phone hacked too
Was there any point to Harriet Harman being there today? Her arse barely warmed the seat...
Tomorrow a big day for Mr Hunt. Libdems abstaining from vote in commons over an investigation into ministerial code breaches etc.
And <rubs hands gleefully> Alex Salmond appears tomorrow. That's going to be entertaining. He's up to his neck in it, but seems to have a teflon-like quality about him. Wonder if Jay will be able to nip the grand-standing about Scottish independence in the bud before he takes flight ?
Milliband <yawn> was slightly interesting. He's pledged support for cross-party work on Leveson's recommendations, putting callmedave on the spot to also pledge full support for the outcome of this inquiry. Not so easy to do if his judgement/actions are called into question in the report's conclusions?
Brooks is at crown court on the 22nd
Just watched PMQ's isn't cameron a fucking cunt!!!
Took the piss out of Liverpool MP Steve Rotherham for his elocution and accent asking him to avail of Michael Gove's new curriculum that will include poetry recitation classes.
I saw that earlier, BlackOutTheSun.
He reminds me of a petulant little schoolboy who resorts to insults because he isn't clever enough to respond in an articulate manner.
You can always tell when he is frustrated, or getting angry. He either is insulting, or completely loses his temper.
I'd hate to be his Missues. She must shit herself on a daily basis when he walks through the door for the evening, not knowing if he has had a good or bad day, and what sort of mood he may or may not be in.
I missed that. He's always rude to those he considers his social inferiors.
It's not just unkind, it's a stupid idea. Most of the electorate are Dave's inferiors - socially, at least.
I wonder how he'd have coped with taking orders from oiks such as Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit?
He is nothing but a bully
Hope Jay knocks him down a peg or two tomorrow
Oh SamCam if your on here, then leave the bastard!!!
I am hoping that Jay will rile him. I would love to see him totally lose it, then we would all the the real DC.
I wonder if he uses The Incredible Hulk/David Banner's famous quote ? "Don't make me angry..."
Well i'm hoping that if Ed can piss him off, then Jay should not have a problem
Sad, but I don't think Jay will go for Dave.
Leveson marked his card at the start of the week saying, moreorless, it wasn't his remit to bring down politicians. Not that Jay makes a move without Leveson.
I suppose it would taint Leveson's inquiry and he doesn't want to be another Chilcott.
Got my popcorn at the ready. I'm not expecting anything major today, given shineydave's 'rehearsals' and Jay's 'limitations' a bit, but I'm just hoping for something that Jay extracts that makes him look like the eejit he is.
Ooh, liking the first question! Asking about his time as a special advisor and how he made it clear he would be expressing his view and not the minister's <that he was working for> view. Even if the answer is all bollocks, I like Jay's thinking!
Yes, good start. Both Blair and Camerons voices make my skin crawl.
Bit off topic - but who the hell is advising this lot to 'keep smiling'? Hunt hasn't taken that smarmy grin off his face. Same with Charlie Brooks yesterday. Who the hell smiles when they are being charged with conspiracy??
Dave seems very nervous - and looks extra scrubbed, like Sam gave him a facial with a Brillo pad. He's very pink and shiny
Yes, Charlie Brooks looked more deranged than insouciant.
Dave is doing his serious face. To me, it always looks like he is stifling a belch.
He had a look of fear on his face when Jay was starting to dissect his statement. Seems to be sitting a bit further back now, and not so much on the edge of his seat. And if I was there in person I'd be tempted to ram those thumbs of his up both his nostrils. That patronising hand/thumb gesturing he does a la Bliar really does my head in.
that is priceless! I thnk we are currently about the tricky question shade. Can't wait for the Klaxon!
LOL! Love the chart!
Yes, the belching and the thumbs! Bliar has a lot to answer for - 'let me be clear' is a particularly annoying one that has infected all public speakers.
Is he a bit pink isn't he
wonder if jay's red tie is a statement
Oh dear, seems Jay has picked up an 'error' in supershiney's statement. And it's now a convenient time to take a break.
Jay probably needed to go and call down from the heat coming form Dave's forhead. It is very shiny
Why would James want to know about aircraft carriers?
<twirls new name>
Could we be dealing with a James Bond scale baddie in this story? Murdoch covets aircraft carriers to assist with their world domination plans?
I was impressed by how nice Rebekah's hair looked yesterday.
It reminded me of the story of a Russian empress who tore the tongues out of her hairdressers so they couldn't tell anyone she was completely bald under her wig.
It wasn't Catherine the Great btw. She was the one who got into trouble over a horse.
Do you think they were for the war against Gordon brown?
Back to Leveson. Dave's just apologised for not being able to answer a question about his friendship with Brooks 'because i can't remember and I wouldn't want to give the wrong answer.'
Jay has just read an utterly arse-licking email from Brooks to Dave with such sarcasm. I love him.
The idea that she's a fantastic networker - she's a shameless toady who knows how to deal with a vain man. Simple but effective.
Very interesting isn't it? Trying to distance himself from the impact that the Sun headline was intended to have in it's timing, to the benefit of his party, the thing he seemed to invest so much time and effort in bringing about.
It's fascinating watching him squirm.
I'm about 8 mins behind, been rewinding trying to catch some of the nuances being said. Looking forward to that bit!
Text message from Brooks to Cameron in 2009
I am so rooting for you tomorrow not just as a proud friend but because professionally we're definitely in this together! Speech of your life! Yes he Cam!
Wonder what that means?
Is that not from Obamas campaign and it's changed from can to Cam.
Not sure but it was the headline of the sun paper when NI decided to support the Tory's the day after the text was sent
Is it just me or is shineydave looking particularly shifty being asked about Coulson?
He's up to the Coulson Klaxon colour on the chart
Of course it's just you. Everyone deserves a second chance.
I'm very impressed so far. I'm glad to have to take back what I said last night.
I wonder if it's part of Leveson's remit to allow Jay to probe into how the Coulson family managed in a £1 million+ house with three children at private school and the various other trappings of a well-paid lifestyle after taking such a drastic drop in salary?
Limited - Whats that?
He is very, very red now thinking of changing the colour contrast on my telly
Here's that text in full
'But seriously I do understand the issue with the Times. Let's discuss over country supper soon. On the party it was because I had asked a number of NI [News International] people to Manchester post endorsement and they were disappointed not to see you. But as always Sam was wonderful (and I thought it was OE's [Old Etonians] were charm personfied!) I am so rooting for you tomorrow not just as a proud friend but because professionally we're definitely in this together! Speech of your life? Yes he Cam'
Limited you have got it spot on with this she's a shameless toady who knows how to deal with a vain man. Simple but effective.
The truth laid bare.
Shame they have stoped for lunch, Dave was looking like he was about to lose his rag
Really gets my goat when you hear some of these people saying it's ridiculous for people to think there is a grand conspiracy....
Right or wrong people think for fairly clear reasons.... cosy relations between PM and Rebecca Brooks, Andy Coulson as press secretary, senior met officers cosy relations with NI, complete failure to investigate hacking claims... it just goes on and on and bloody on !
Yikes, what channel are you guys on?
I'm more than a week behind on the website streaming but I'd like to catch some of today live without breaking the internet - think the site was struggling a bit earlier!
(And my first try at that sentence read "I'd like to catch toady live..." )
Thanks, MrGin. But also Darn, was hoping it was on a TV channel so I could live-pause as convenient.
I dunno, imagine having to actually, you know, watch stuff live. Don't know how we ever coped...
I've watched it on other days on BBC parliament tv - Im sure cameron will be on there but it's coming to an end now.
Its sometimes on the red button
Another one arrested this morning under Operation Weeting.
And Glenn Mulcaire losing his appeal at the Supreme Court yesterday against revealing just who at NI paid him to spy on people.
He's thinking of going to the European Court of Human Rights. Hilarious that NI expect clueless Brussels judges to ride to their rescue.
Two NHS employees arrested in Somerset this morning by police investigating inappropriate payments to public officials.
I wonder which poor sod has had his or her medical records stolen by the papers this time?
I don't mean the European Court is necessarily clueless btw
I imagine they will be professional enough to put all the trashings in our press aside when it comes to considering Mulcaire's case
Took me ages to find this. Just wanted to add a mwahahahahahahahaaaaa!
That is all.
Revived his thread in the light of this
I do not understand why no police officer is facing criminal charges or severe disciplinary procedures over the bungling of the Milly Dowler investigation which led to her and her family being smeared and the deaths and injuries of other girls.
That's for police work that was incompetently done. It's aside from individual officers' arrangements with NI and other newsgroups which should be subject to other proceedings.
The Surrey Force had the cheek to try to cloak itself in glory after the conviction of Levi Bellfield when the lazy bastards should hang their heads in shame.
Thought I'd revive this as the report is due next week. Waiting with anticipation.
And Dacre given a thorough kicking by Leveson, I'm glad to see.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.