[Update] The News Corp scandal

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

My father was a labourer, I was brought up in Govan and lived in tenements, so coming from a "common" background is not a reason to profess ignorance (and seeming to be proud of it).

Luxury! We yearned for tenements! We lived in a septic tank at bottom o' lake......

Originally Posted by Osem

Luxury! We yearned for tenements! We lived in a septic tank at bottom o' lake......

Monty Python fan eh.

We seem to have wandered away from the topic again...so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/wo...html?ref=world

Under pressure in the widening phone hacking scandal, the News Corporation on Wednesday said that it would no longer pay the legal fees for the private investigator at the center of the hacking and partly lifted a confidentiality agreement on one of its law firms to allow the firm to give evidence to Parliament and to the police.

Hmm! Another crumb thrown to the police and any inquiry.

[BenMcr]

Also http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-live-coverage

James Murdoch's account to the Commons culture select committee about his involvement in agreeing the out-of-court settlement with the former head of the Professional Footballers' Association, Gordon Taylor, was "mistaken", according to a statement issued by former News of the World editor Colin Myler and former News international legal manager Tom Crone.

Why doesn't that suprise me in any way

[denphone]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Also http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-live-coverage



Why doesn't that suprise me in any way

Yes it does not surprise me either as l still think there is a lot more to come out in this scandal and some of the main players are not telling the full truth.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Also http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-live-coverage



Why doesn't that suprise me in any way

That would be quite significant! Not only because it meant he would have lied to the committee but because that e-mail would be the smoking gun in this whole thing as far as James Murdoch is concerned. The e-mail was a list of transcribed voicemail messages sent to the senior reporter at the News of the World, it is the proof that voicemail interception was common place at the paper and not the work of one lone reporter.

Murdock and the executives at News International have maintained they never saw this e-mail until after the New York Times article at which point they handed it over the police.

This is pretty critical because if he had seen the e-mail at the time, then he was aware of criminal activity at the paper and didn't call in the police. Rather they paid Gordon Taylor quite a large amount. An amount which suggests it was hush money.

It's the cover up that gets you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/wo...html?ref=world

At the Royal Courts of Justice in London, lawyers for the actor Hugh Grant and his former girlfriend, the socialite Jemima Khan — once the subject of relentless tabloid attention — mentioned The News of the World and unspecified “other newspapers� while demanding police information on Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who was jailed in 2007 for hacking into the phones of royal staff members. It was the first suggestion that Mr. Mulcaire, who had an exclusive contract with The News of the World, might have sold his information to other publications. Those publications were not named in the court proceedings, but the judge referred to “one or more newspaper proprietors.�

So I wonder what is/has been going on in other unspecified newsrooms this last fortnight?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-live-coverage

Matt Nixson features editor of the Sun has been sacked over allegations of serious misconduct while he was working for the News of the World.

&

The top civil servant at the Department for Education (DoE) has confirmed that one of his senior officials believed his mobile phone was being hacked.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So Cameron should apologise for hiring somebody who has not been found guilty of anything, only charged? And he has stated that if Coulson is found guilty, he will come back and apologise.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Again, this has little to do with his time at Downing Street (I am sure if there was any nefarious activity we will be informed as time goes by), but more to do with the reasons why Cameron ignored the warnings and advice he was given not to hire him. Any responsible CEO of a large corporation would have heeded such misgivings and steered well clear of him, but not Cameron and we as a nation deserves an answer as to why he did it. We are also entitled to know about the conversations he had with the executives at News International. Conversations we now know happened, because Jeremy Hunt has confirmed these conversations took place; despite the Prime Minister continually prevaricating about them.

Why allow your stooge to "let slip" about them, instead of coming clean yourself.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by richard1960

Monty Python fan eh.

Well the old ones are always the best aren't they? That's what I tell my wife anyway...

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Again, this has little to do with his time at Downing Street (I am sure if there was any nefarious activity we will be informed as time goes by), but more to do with the reasons why Cameron ignored the warnings and advice he was given not to hire him. Any responsible CEO of a large corporation would have heeded such misgivings and steered well clear of him, but not Cameron and we as a nation deserves an answer as to why he did it. We are also entitled to know about the conversations he had with the executives at News International. Conversations we now know happened, because Jeremy Hunt has confirmed these conversations took place; despite the Prime Minister continually prevaricating about them.

Why allow your stooge to "let slip" about them, instead of coming clean yourself.

So - don't hire someone because he has not been charged or found guilty of anything, just base your hiring decisions on hearsay and rumour.......

Instead of spreading rumour and innuendo ("I am sure if there was any nefarious activity we will be informed as time goes by"), why not wait to see what the police enquiry and the inquiry panel find - or is it easier to ignore "innocent until proven guilty" if the person involved is a Conservative?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You want the Prime Minister to resign because someone he hired lied to him and to a Select Committee, and who had not been charged with any crime at the time - talk about passing on the sins of the fathers to the sons.....

I have 127 staff working for me - am I responsible for all the things all of them had been accused of doing in the past (but never charged or put on trial), if it is found out that they lied about them to me?

If you had employed them, knowing that they probably did those things and it is likely to put the health of your business at risk, then I would hope the shareholders of your company would have the foresight to demand your resignation, because they would have every right to do so.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Again, this has little to do with his time at Downing Street (I am sure if there was any nefarious activity we will be informed as time goes by), but more to do with the reasons why Cameron ignored the warnings and advice he was given not to hire him. Any responsible CEO of a large corporation would have heeded such misgivings and steered well clear of him, but not Cameron and we as a nation deserves an answer as to why he did it. We are also entitled to know about the conversations he had with the executives at News International. Conversations we now know happened, because Jeremy Hunt has confirmed these conversations took place; despite the Prime Minister continually prevaricating about them.

Why allow your stooge to "let slip" about them, instead of coming clean yourself.

I think we have all agreed it was a stupid mistake..but so was Labour at fault for not making sure there was a full inquiry back in 2007..Why aren't they apologising?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Osem

If poor judgement on such an issue* were a reason for resignation Bliar, Brown, Milliband, Balls and numerous others shouldn't have lasted 5 minutes.

* trivial when compared to say??.... ermm..... lying about WMDs to drag us into a war, selling vast amounts of gold at the bottom of the market, cash for questions, cash for honours etc., etc., etc., etc.

And yet again, another one, although is happy to accuse others of bringing party politics into this, who harps on about total irrelevances. What have any those issues got to do with the subject of this thread?

Strange, I thought this thread was about the trustworthiness of politicians, and how they were influenced by outside interests - a few of Osem's points are very relevant in that case....