[Update] The News Corp scandal

[denphone]

Rupert Murdoch told a 'shameful lie' to Leveson, claims ex-NoW legal manager.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...ul-lie-leveson

The former legal manager of the News of the World branded allegations by Rupert Murdoch that he was responsible for covering up phone hacking by the paper's journalists a "shameful lie".

Tom Crone issued a strongly worded statement on Thursday afternoon saying the same applied to Murdoch's suggestion at the Leveson inquiry earlier in the day that a News of the World lawyer had prevented journalists from telling News International executives about allegations that phone hacking at the paper went beyond a single "rogue" reporter.

Although Murdoch did not name Crone during his testimony, the former News International lawyer said he can only have been referring to him.

"Since Rupert Murdoch's evidence today about a lawyer who had been on the News of the World for many years can only refer to me, I am issuing the following statement," he said.

"His assertion that I 'took charge of a cover-up' in relation to phone-hacking is a shameful lie. The same applies to his assertions that I misinformed senior executives about what was going on and that I forbade people from reporting to [former News International chief executive] Rebekah Brooks or to [ex chairman] James Murdoch," Crone added

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by denphone

Rupert Murdoch told a 'shameful lie' to Leveson, claims ex-NoW legal manager.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...ul-lie-leveson

How can we trust a word that man has said over the last 2 days

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...eveson-verdict

Nick Davis sums up Murdochs performance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...ess?CMP=twt_fd

An alliance of media groups opposed to News Corporation's takeover of BSkyB claim it was blocked from engaging with Jeremy Hunt and his officials for more than three months, and was only granted a single "sham" meeting with the culture secretary three weeks after he had already given his provisional blessing to the £8bn offer.
The treatment of the alliance – a somewhat unlikely united front of Fleet Street rivals, including the publishers of the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror – has been thrown into the spotlight following the revelation earlier this week that Hunt's office was in regular contact with a News Corp lobbyist while the Sky bid was being scrutinised by his Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Another whole can of worms opened

Hunt's office gave News Corp details of the alliance's key submission in March 2011, according to Michel's emails. The submission was the result of almost a year of work put together by law firm Slaughter & May, detailing arguments against allowing News Corp to take full control Sky.
Michel was apparently forwarded the document a day before Hunt's only meeting with the alliance, on 24 March last year, in order to obtain "critical views ... to help him forge his arguments".

It was pretty obvious the government was trying to push the BSkyB deal. Hopefully we can keep pushing this until this toxic relationship is eradicated.

I'm wondering how big a smile Vince Cable had on his face when the revelations emerged on Tuesday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17877149

Jeremy Hunt will not be allowed to give evidence at the Leveson Inquiry early "in the interests of fairness to all", an inquiry spokesman has said.

On Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg backed the idea of using the Leveson inquiry to investigate Mr Hunt's conduct, saying the inquiry was "the best context... to find out what happened or what didn't happen."
But a spokesman for the inquiry said: "Lord Justice Leveson is of the view that, in the interests of fairness to all, the inquiry should continue with the existing scheduling of his appearance."

BBC political correspondent Robin Brant said it was now clear that only David Cameron would make any decision on whether Mr Hunt broke the rules, because Lord Justice Leveson had emphasised that he would not act as an arbiter.

What's the quote about tangled webs?

---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 ----------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...son?intcmp=239

The Leveson inquiry may be able to force News Corporation to hand over potentially incriminating papers about the firm's hacking cover-up, despite its claiming legal privilege, a law professor has said.

"It is not necessary for Burton Copeland to have had an intention to assist in wrongdoing. Nor is it necessary for NI's 'fraud' to be criminal in nature. Nor does there need to be personal or commercial gain from underhand behaviour. If Burton Copeland's investigation was used as part of NI's cover-up, then it may well fall within the crime fraud exception," Moorhead saidon his blog. It was significant, he added, that Rupert Murdoch had now publicly admitted, in Thursday's Leveson hearings, that there had been a cover-up

Do we need a bigger tin opener?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17886023

David Cameron says he did not have any "grand deal" with the Murdochs to support their interests in return for News International's support.
The prime minister told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show it was not right to suggest he changed policies or did things to suit newspaper proprietors.

I'm still not convinced.However if he himself appears in front of Leveson and under oath gives evidence then maybe ,possibly I might be reassured.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'm still not convinced.However if he himself appears in front of Leveson and under oath gives evidence then maybe ,possibly I might be reassured.

Whats the point? He could just follow Murdoch Snr and pretend that he has forgotten all the relevant dates, times, meetings and conversations. For such a highly paid and experienced lawyer the cross examination Rupert got was laughable.

I've seen more probing and effective questioning from drivers representing themselves in district courts.

Originally Posted by Derek

Whats the point? He could just follow Murdoch Snr and pretend that he has forgotten all the relevant dates, times, meetings and conversations. For such a highly paid and experienced lawyer the cross examination Rupert got was laughable.

I've seen more probing and effective questioning from drivers representing themselves in district courts.

Which just highlights why waiting for Hunt to appear in front of Leveson makes more sense than Cameron actually having to go the correct route with Hunt and have an inquiry under the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Which just highlights why waiting for Hunt to appear in front of Leveson makes more sense than Cameron actually having to go the correct route with Hunt and have an inquiry under the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

cameron was awful this morning with his defence made it look like he had everything hide look shifty. That marr was not preasuring him he clearly would cracked.

We need jeremy paxman on the case he cracks nuts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...rt-of-comments

That interview cracks open more doors than closes them what every does he mean with his crypitic answers.

I think there whole sorry mess to untangle think all roads lead to this inner circle of friends.

Cameron must think the electorate are stupid or naive.

I thought this was cracking writeup in telegraph although about lobbying mess it talks about Hunt

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...lobbyists.html

This very interesting piece in there

.
The truth is that the French-born Mr Michel is one of the best connected operators in London, and ranks among the Murdoch empire’s most trusted envoys. A senior employee of News Corporation, tasked with managing the company’s relationships with politicians in Britain and now Europe, he was welcome in Gordon Brown’s Number 10 until relations soured after News International switched its backing to the Conservatives. He was then pivotal in managing the company’s relations with David Cameron, George Osborne and their lieutenants. He is also a neighbour and good friend of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

Now considering all this there bit about hunt courting news corp when he was in oposition.

Very interesting who Clegg neighbour is. Starting to wonder while party dies he still toes cameron like implicit faithful dog.

Should Lib Dems question why there leader not standing up and fighting why he been suspiciously quiet. Question the links between mitchel and Clegg friendship.

How did newscorp know to put sting on Cable to get him removed. I hope Leverson ask this question.

So by removing an enemy getting power in coalition to bring in favourable person in charge. Did hunt then get cold feet as things started to get nasty with news scandals break.

It looks to me telegraph opening alot can worms here with many questions about lobbying side.

We now got Cameron, osbourne, hunt and now clegg although how deep its with clegg is another. It maybe just small talk over garden fence to mitchel.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Which just highlights why waiting for Hunt to appear in front of Leveson makes more sense than Cameron actually having to go the correct route with Hunt and have an inquiry under the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Leveson also allows him time for it to blow over. He will go in front of the inquiry and be well prepared. The questions won't stray too far from the inquiry's remit, Leverson has made that quite clear on a number of occasions, and that reduces the focus on if Hunt breached the rules.

Then Cameron can counter any calls for a investigation by claiming it wouldn't be proper to 'pre-judge the results of the inquiry' and accuse the opposition of irresponsibility by trying to do so. Then when Leveson delivers his report it will have minimal focus on Hunt as it's not really a key part of the inquiry and it won't report on if Hunt breached the Ministerial code as that isn't it's place to do so.

So, yes, they are trying to get him to appear before Leveson because the moment he does so then they would have seen off the danger.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Damien

Leveson also allows him time for it to blow over. He will go in front of the inquiry and be well prepared. The questions won't stray too far from the inquiry's remit, Leverson has made that quite clear on a number of occasions, and that reduces the focus on if Hunt breached the rules.

Then Cameron can counter any calls for a investigation by claiming it wouldn't be proper to 'pre-judge the results of the inquiry' and accuse the opposition of irresponsibility by trying to do so. Then when Leveson delivers his report it will have minimal focus on Hunt as it's not really a key part of the inquiry and it won't report on if Hunt breached the Ministerial code as that isn't it's place to do so.

So, yes, they are trying to get him to appear before Leveson because the moment he does so then they would have seen off the danger.

Or worse we get position where critical information destroyed.

For me it might be better to bring in those who would investigate this with leverson. I am sure only reason leverson took his stance as its another person job.

In meantime worried evidence maybe buried/destroyed.

If people dont think could happen nobody thought nixon would goto lengths to protect himself.

I actually think this whole rotten mess goes alot further we think leverson just chomping edges.

There something very wrong with this inner circle of power hopefully leveson smashes it wide open. Will he be allowed to go too deep.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17893035

London Mayor Boris Johnson looked at securing commercial deals with News International at the same time the Metropolitan Police was investigating the company over phone hacking, BBC London has learned.
Mr Johnson, Conservative candidate in the mayoral elections, had constitutional responsibility for Scotland Yard - but at the same time he was also looking to the media giant to sponsor the cable car and a new academy in east London.
A spokeswoman for Labour mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone said the revelations raised "serious questions" and Mr Johnson needed "to open the books and publish all the email and other contact between him, News International and the Murdochs".

It just gets murkier and murkier.

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17889838

David Cameron has told MPs he has seen "no evidence" that Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt acted improperly in handling News Corp's proposed takeover of the broadcaster BSkyB.

Did any one hear what it was that Dennis Skinner said or did to get Cameron to tell him 'to take his pension' in the Commons today?

Never mind I found it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17900567

Originally Posted by Maggy J

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17893035

It just gets murkier and murkier.

Does it, though? Are we not in danger of confusing News International, a large multinational corporation, with those bits of it that got out of control and began engaging in legally dubious activities such as phone hacking?

I think there's more than a little score-settling going on here now. The BBC has every reason to put the boot in to NI (and Boris, after all, his politics aren't exactly the sort BBC news editors generally like to promote). In the absence of documents showing that Boris tried to link sponsorship with influence over the police investigation, I see no obvious conflict of interest here.