Douglas Caddy

Phone hacking: attorney general to decide over Guardian prosecution Dominic Grieve and CPS would assess whether Official Secrets Act case would be in public interest before it went ahead By James Robinson and Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 September 2011 08.39 EDT Article history Lawyers condemn Met's use of the Official Secrets Act Link to this video http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/19/phone-hacking-attorney-general-guardian The attorney general's office has said he would rule on whether a prosecution of the Guardian under the Official Secrets Act was in the public interest before a case could proceed. A spokesman said on Monday that Dominic Grieve would liaise with the Crown Prosecution Service to assess whether there is sufficient evidence that the act had been breached and whether such a step would be in the public interest. "It is a matter for the police to decide how best to carry out any investigation," he said. "If the police provide evidence that would support a charge under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act the attorney general's consent would be required. "If that stage is reached, the attorney general, with the DPP, will consider whether there is sufficient evidence and whether the public interest is in favour of bringing a prosecution." Scotland Yard's decision to use the act as part of its bid to force Guardian journalists including Nick Davies and Amelia Hill, who revealed that Milly Dowler had her phone targeted by the News of the World, to reveal their sources has been condemned by rival newspapers and senior politicians. Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor-in-chief, has said the paper will resist the attempt by the Metropolitan police to reveal its sources "to the utmost". Scotland Yard applied for a production order last week against the Guardian "in order to seek evidence of offences connected to potential breaches relating to misconduct in public office and the Official Secrets Act". A senior investigating officer applied for the production order under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, citing potential breaches of the Official Secrets Act, the force said. Actor Hugh Grant, who has become one of the most high-profile figures to campaign against phone hacking and media intrusion of privacy, on Sunday condemned police efforts to force journalists to disclose confidential sources, saying Scotland Yard's decision was "worrying and deeply mysterious". Liberal Democrat MP Don Foster, the party's culture spokesman, also on Sunday said Grieve should use his discretion to rule that invoking the Official Secrets Act was not in the public interest. "I understand the attorney general has the opportunity to use this power," Foster told the Guardian. "He should use it and say this is not in the public interest." Lawyers from around the world attending an international legal conference in London on media legislation condemned the Metropolitan police's resort to the Official Secrets Act. Lord Lester, the Liberal Democrat peer who was addressing the conference, said that it seemed to be "an abuse of the Official Secrets Act" to use it to force journalists to hand over information unless "unless there's an overwhelming public interest to the contrary". He added: "I'm not aware of that overwhelming public interest in this case. I hope the Metropolitan police will reconsider." Lord Lester said it reminded him of past governments' resorting to the Official Secrets Act in such prominent cases as the Crossman diaries (where an attempt was made to prevent publication of cabinet conversations) and the Spycatcher revelations. Sandra Baron, director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York, which organised the London conference, said: "The use of the Official Secrets Act against a newspaper is going to result in a miscarriage of justice. "The act has no basis for being used against a newspaper, particularly one that has been serving the public interest to such a degree. Why would it ever be thought that it was in the public interest to muzzle or intimidate the media?" Dave Heller, also of the Media Law Resource Center, added: "I would have thought that the Official Secrets Act was to do with national security and state secrets … not leaks of police information. It's quite absurd." Matt Woodley, a media lawyer from Edmonton, Canada, said that use of the Official Secrets Act "seemed to be a very strong-armed tactic". "It's very draconian. What it will do is make sources more reluctant to come forward and speak to journalists," he added. "It will create a sense that they are not protected so that stories which should be revealed will not come out." The London media lawyer Caroline Kean said: "I don't think they should be prosecuting the Guardian. I think it's outrageous. "They must be using it because they don't think there's any other power that will give them such a remedy. They must be using it to prevent other leaks. It does seem extraordinarily draconian." Robin Shaw, a solicitor from Davenport Lyons which acts for Private Eye, was surprised at reference to the Official Secrets Act. "It's difficult to see what would be the basis for this," he said. "The law gives a lot of protection to journalists' sources … Perhaps it's to frighten others off. "This is the first time they have sought to use [the Official Secrets Act] for quite a long time, particularly the police. They would have to have a really strong case to have any chance of success." Jean-Yves Dupeux, a media lawyer from Lussan et Associes in Paris, said he did not think the police's attempt to force the Guardian to reveal its sources would succeed in the European courts. "It's contrary to article 10 of the human rights convention," he maintained. "Perhaps it might work in something very important like a terrorist or human trafficking case, but not [against] journalists for phone hacking." Mark Harty, a barrister who specialises in media cases in Dublin, said that in Ireland using such legal tactics to force journalists to reveal their sources were unlikely to be tried. "The Guardai [police] wouldn't try it," he said. "They have attempted on occasions to muscle people but they have been very easily rebuffed. Government ministers would not have supported it."

Phone hacking: Met failed to consult before invoking Official Secrets Act DPP and attorney general not contacted prior to Scotland Yard attempt to force the Guardian to reveal journalistic sources By David Leigh, Vikram Dodd and Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 September 2011 16.01 EDT Scotland Yard officers failed to consult either the director of public prosecutions or the attorney general before invoking the Official Secrets Act to try to force the Guardian to reveal journalistic sources, it has been revealed. Keir Starmer, the DPP, said he was approached for advice by the Metropolitan police professional standards squad only this afternoon, following leading articles in all Britain's major newspapers condemning police behaviour in pursuing the Guardian's sources for their revelations about the phone-hacking scandal. Prosecutions under the section of the Official Secrets Act concerned, Section 9 (2) of the 1989 legislation, can go ahead only with the specific consent of Starmer, who is an independent professional lawyer. Other sections of the act, concerned with espionage, require the consent of the attorney general, Dominic Grieve. Grieve's office said he had not been consulted in advance. Although police are not technically required to get the DPP's permission at an early stage of inquiries, Starmer told a media law conference he encouraged sensitive police investigations to be carried out from an early stage in close consultation with the DPP's lawyers from the Crown Prosecution Service. Asked about the Guardian case, he said: "We have now been asked to advise on the Official Secrets Act … We are now engaged in providing advice." Police want a court order to force Guardian reporters to reveal confidential sources for articles disclosing that the murdered Milly Dowler's phone was hacked on behalf of the News of the World. They claim that the reporter Amelia Hill may have "incited" a source to break the Official Secrets Act. At the Metropolitan police it was being maintained the decision to plunge its new commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, into controversy was taken by relatively junior officers without his knowledge. The Metropolitan police said: "The decision to apply for the production order was an operational one made by the senior investigating officer (SIO) with the benefit of legal advice, as is normal practice. The matter was not referred to a more senior level." Scotland Yard's legal director is Edward Solomons, and the head of the professional standards department, which is bringing the action against the Guardian and its reporters, is deputy assistant commissioner Mark Simmons. Both reported directly to Hogan-Howe, according to the Metropolitan police organisational chart. Under Section 9 (2) of the 1989 act, prosecutions for leaks involving police, prisons and the justice system, normally through corrupt links with criminals, are allowed to take place with the consent of the DPP. This is less of a hurdle than imposed for the other sections of the act, which need a political go-ahead from the attorney general, who supervises the DPP. But it appears the Met did not take advice from any outsider before serving production orders on the Guardian and Hill. An Old Bailey judge is to be asked on Friday to sign off on the orders, forcing the Guardian to hand over material identifying its sources for the Dowler revelation and for stories identifying former executives from the Murdoch media empire who had been arrested for questioning, including David Cameron's former PR chief, Andy Coulson, and the former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks. The police claim a detective on the official hacking inquiry, Operation Weeting, may have leaked details to the Guardian in "a gratuitous release of information that was not in the public interest". The Guardian says its stories revealed crucial information that was entirely in the public interest and that it has a duty to protect its sources. The Guardian has not paid police officers for its information. In a statement on Monday night the Met said: "The application for a production order against the Guardian newspaper and one of its reporters is part of an inquiry by officers from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards Anti-Corruption Unit (DPS), not Operation Weeting ... The MPS cannot respond to the significant public and political concern regarding leaks from the police to any part of the media if we aren't robust in our investigations and make all attempts to obtain best evidence of the leaks." Dunja Mijatovic, the representative on freedom of the media for the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, wrote to the foreign secretary, William Hague, saying she was greatly concerned about the potentially chilling effect on investigative journalism and media freedom of the Official Secrets Act moves: "The right of journalists to protect the identity of their confidential sources has been repeatedly declared a basic requirement for freedom of expression by the OSCE." Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, wrote to Hogan-Howe asking "whether this marks a change in the Metropolitan police's approach to the behaviour of journalists who seek and receive confidential information in the public interest". The DPP's own official guidance makes it clear that police should normally proceed against reporters with caution. "Investigation and prosecution of cases involving the leaking of confidential information to journalists can present especial difficulty ... the courts have demonstrated a reluctance to order disclosure of journalistic sources ... freedom of the press is regarded as fundamental to a free and democratic society.The ability of a journalist to protect a source of information is afforded significant protection by the law." The second charge police say they are contemplating, is "misconduct in public office". The DPP's guidance also warns against unwise use of this charge: "Not every act of misconduct by a public official is capable of amounting to a criminal offence. There is a threshold and it is a high one." At the Lib Dem conference, where delegates called for tougher sanctions against tabloid misbehaviour, the party's deputy leader, Simon Hughes, said the Met's attack on the Guardian's sources was inappropriate. "That was responsible journalism," he said. He hoped the government would not allow the prosecution of such sources to proceed. Mark Lewis, the solicitor representing the family of murder victim Milly Dowler, told delegates that the "official secrets" that the Dowler family were concerned about were not the leaks to the Guardian in 2011, but the secrets kept by the Met police between 2006 and 2011, which he said prevented the family – and thousands of other victims of hacking – from knowing they were victims at all. Stephens said later: "Someone in the Met should lose their pips for the suggestion that journalists should be criminalised." Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, said: "It was brave investigative journalism that brought this matter of huge public concern to light, therefore the Metropolitan police and CPS need to take great care not to do anything that would undermine the ability of the press to shine a light on issues of public interest in the future. "The attorney general and director of public prosecutions should be seriously questioning whether any action currently proposed would be compatible with these aims." Lord Lester, the Liberal Democrat human rights lawyer, said that it seemed to be "an abuse of the Official Secrets Act" to use it to force journalists to hand over information unless "unless there's an overwhelming public interest to the contrary". He added: "I'm not aware of that overwhelming public interest in this case. I hope the Metropolitan Police will reconsider." Another prominent London media lawyer, Caroline Kean, said: " I think it's outrageous. They must be using it to prevent other leaks. It does seem extraordinarily draconian." Jean-Yves Dupeux, a media lawyer from Paris, said he did not think the police's attempt to force the Guardian to reveal its sources would succeed in the European courts. "It's contrary to Article 10 of the human rights convention," he maintained. "Perhaps it might work in something very important like a terrorist or human trafficking case, but not [against] journalists for phone hacking

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,784673,00.html#ref=nlint

September 19, 2011 For Carl Oglesby From SDS to SSDP (We are Devo) by FRED GARDNER www.counterpunch.org “Carl Oglesby dies at 76; led Students for a Democratic Society,” was the headline on the obit in the LA Times. The description of SDS seems accurate (although nobody ever called it “the SDS”): ”The SDS had been founded in 1960 at the University of Michigan, and its early declaration, the Port Huron Statement, helped embody the idealism of the early ’60s. The SDS supported civil rights and opposed the nuclear arms race. It was strongly critical of the U.S. government, and called for greater efforts to fight poverty and big business. By the mid-’60s, when Oglesby joined, the U.S. had committed ground troops to Vietnam and the SDS had expanded nationwide, with a more radical purpose.” During Carl’s time as president (the 1965-’66 academic year), SDSers helped organize “teach-ins” on U.S. campuses —an innovative tactic that he promoted and participated in to the hilt. A teach-in is basically a set of talks on a political subject, with ample time for questions and discussion. For a good account of the seminal March ’65 teach-in at UMich, click here. Carl was eloquent and persuasive. In high school in Ohio he had been a state-champion debater. Todd Gitlin correctly described him to the obit writers as “the great orator of the white new left.” Both the LA Times obit and Margalit Fox’s in the New York Times acknowledge the impact of Carl’s speech at an antiwar rally in Washington in the fall of ’65. Fox wrote, “He condemned the ‘corporate liberalism’ -American economic interests disguised as anti-Communist benevolence- that, he argued, underpinned the Vietnam War.” Backstage that day Carl had suggested to Judy Collins that she speak and he sing. “She almost went for it,” he said. 1965-66 was when millions of young, white Americans began smoking pot. “For the first time at an SDS meeting people smoked marijuana,” Kirk Sale wrote about ’65 in his history of the organization. Almost nobody regarded it as medicine or knew that extracts of the herb had been widely used in that way, legally. Carl Oglesby was the first person I knew who used marijuana consciously for medical effect. He had mild epilepsy, and dreaded the prospect of having a petit-mal episode while giving a speech. When he first smoked marijuana in the mid-’60s, he realized it would fend off seizures, and his confidence soared. When I knew him he also used mj for disinhibition, inspiration, improved mood, etc. When we talked c. 1990 he told me he had given it up, but I can’t remember why and I don’t know if he started using in later years when he was diagnosed with Crohn’s, and then lung cancer. Although our expressions of dissent grew louder and stronger, Lyndon Johnson kept ordering more and more GIs to Vietnam and escalated the bombing. A generation that had grown up in the aftermath of World War II -when all the other industrial economies were in ruins and the our role as Americans, supposedly, was to help heal and rebuild the world along just, rational lines- was ashamed to realize that “we” had taken over where the British and French and Dutch left off as imperial powers. We were humiliated by pictures of huts with thatched roofs on fire and peasant women fleeing with babies in their arms. “Who made us the cops of the world?” was a question that more and more Americans were asking. The heavier U.S. military involvement in Vietnam became, the higher the death toll, the more our shame turned to outrage. In many cases, the outrage turned to desperation and madness. In 1968 a group known as “the Weathermen” took over SDS and expelled Carl and others who dissed their efforts to initiate “armed struggle” in the U.S. Carl and I were close friends in this period as the ’60s came crashing down and our wives left us and our allies rejected our advice and we tried to find consolation in marijuana and guitars. Carl, whose dad had worked at an Akron tire plant, described his relationship to the “new left” in a song that began They called him the working-class stranger And he turned to the people just to have him a little fun Saying “What will you do my good buddies When the bosses get through telling you that you’ve won?” In the winter of 1970-71 he summed up the movement’s achievement in four words: “Cultural victory, political defeat.” I moved back to San Francisco in the fall of ’71 and we drifted apart. We would talk on the phone once in a blue moon, and stayed connected on a level deeper than ideology. In the’70s Carl did original research exposing the extent to which Nazis had been recruited as U.S. government operatives after World War Two. He wrote two books challenging the official version of the JFK assassination, and contributed to another by Jim Garrison, the ex-DA of New Orleans. He entertainingly (but incorrectly, I thought) espoused a theory about capital being split between Northeastern (“Yankee”) and Southwestern (“Cowboy”) factions. A play he’d written about the Hatfield and McCoys was produced in Boston and had a short run. It was great, but never made it to Broadway. He cut two records for Vanguard, and I gather they’ve been brought out as one CD, “Sailing to Damascus,” the title of the second record. If you want to hear that clear, intelligent voice, check out this. In 2008 Scribner’s published Ravens in the Storm, the book about SDS he’d been revising over the years. Last time we talked he said he had crossed paths with Weatherman leader Bernardine Dohrn, a key figure in the book. Bernardine had told him, quietly and seriously, the words he’d been longing to hear from her: “I’m sorry.” That was Then, This is Now Compare the names “Students for a Democratic Society” and “Students for a Sensible Drug Policy” and you see what became of the movement of the 1960s: it splintered into a thousand single-interest groups and sub-groups, each pursuing its own “issue” rather than fundamental social change. Carl Oglesby and the early SDS leaders understood and carried the message that the U.S. is controlled by corporate elites and that students have a key role to play turning it into an actual democracy. “Students for a Sensible Drug Policy” implies that America is a functioning democracy and that students can effectively pursue their interests by legislative means. SSDP has been funded since its inception in 1998 by the Drug Policy Alliance. DPA leader Ethan Nadelmann receives millions of dollars annually from George Soros to allocate as he thinks Mr. Soros would see fit. SSDP’s focus has been opposition to provisions in the Higher Education Act of ’98, which denied Pell Grants and other federally backed loans to students convicted on drug charges. This is a very laudable goal, but it’s also a tactical constraint, as if lobbying legislators was the pinnacle of activism. The appeal of a small, legislative reform like amending the Higher Education Act is that it seems achievable. But the elites are most likely to grant small, finite reforms when we, the people are making heavier demands —in other words, they throw us reforms as a sop. In early August Dale Gieringer of California NORML observed that the Israeli government led by the rightwinger Netenyahu had authorized a medical-marijuana distribution program, while the U.S. government led by the liberal Obama was cracking down on previously tolerated mmj distribution. Dale didn’t note the context in which Netenyahu acted: more than a quarter million Israelis, led by students, were camped out in “tent cities” in parks and public squares through the country to protest the cost of living and the extreme disparity of wealth and power. A rough equivalent would be 8 or 10 million young Americans camping out to demand forgiveness of their student loans —a thousand Burning Mans. Perhaps SSDP should organize teach-ins focused on the unfairness and cruelty of being made to start life with a huge burden of debt. If that would be too “off-topic” for their funders, how about teach-ins on medical marijuana, demanding that Student Health Services approve its use instead of pushing Wellbutrin, et al? The SHS director at each campus could be invited to speak… along with doctors from the Society of Cannabis Clinicians who actually understand the subject. Just an idea… ‘Bye Carl… Bleeding with whiskey I dream of my old Cherokee. Fred Gardner was once a political organizer. He can be reached at fredgardner@projectcbd.org

Phone hacking: Milly Dowler's family offered £2m-plus settlement Talks with News of the World publisher understood to be ongoing over payout that would include sizeable donation to charity By Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 September 2011 12.03 EDT Milly Dowler's family have been offered a multimillion-pound settlement by Rupert Murdoch's News International, in an attempt to settle the phone-hacking case that led to closure of the News of the World and the resignation of the company's chief executive, Rebekah Brooks. It is understood that News International has made a settlement offer estimated by sources at more than £2m, a figure that includes a donation to charity. But the publisher and media group has not reached agreement with the Dowler family, whose lawyers were thought to be seeking a settlement figure of closer to £3.5m. The seven-figure sums under negotiation are far larger than other phone-hacking settlements reached, reflecting the fact that the phone-hacking case affected a family who were victims of crime. Thirteen-year-old Milly Dowler went missing in March 2002 and was later found murdered. It emerged in July that Milly Dowler's mobile phone had been hacked after her death. Voicemails were accessed on behalf of the News of the World, and messages left for her were deleted to make room for more recordings. This gave the family false hope that she was still alive, because messages were disappearing. On Monday afternoon there was growing speculation that a deal is close, although other sources familiar with the negotiations indicated that there are still enough matters unresolved to mean that an agreement in principle had not yet been reached behind the scenes. Sienna Miller accepted £100,000 from News International after the publisher accepted unconditional liability for her phone-hacking and other privacy and harassment claims in May. A month later Andy Gray accepted £20,000 in damages plus undisclosed costs. Other lawyers bringing phone-hacking cases are privately indicated that they would be advising many of those bringing actions to try and reach a settlement rather than take their cases to lengthy and expensive trials. A handful of cases have been taken forward as lead actions by Mr Justice Vos, to establish a benchmark for settlements in future lawsuits. Murdoch met with the Dowler family in July, shortly after the original story about hacking into her phone broke, making what the family's lawyer, Mark Lewis, said was a "full and humble" apology. The News Corporation chairman and chief executive "held his head in his hands" and repeatedly told the family he was "very, very sorry".

Pressure on attorney general to block Met move against press freedom Dominic Grieve urged to stop police using Official Secrets Act to force Guardian to reveal sources in phone hacking case By Nicholas Watt and Vikram Dodd The Guardian, Sunday 18 September 2011 Article The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, is facing growing pressure to block an attempt by the Metropolitan police to use the Official Secrets Act to force journalists to reveal their sources. As senior Liberal Democrats indicated that Nick Clegg was "sympathetic" to journalists, police sources also expressed unease after Scotland Yard applied last week for an order under the 1989 act to require the Guardian to identify its sources on phone hacking. One police source said the decision to invoke the act was "likely to end in tears" for the Met. Lib Dem sources said that as deputy prime minister, Clegg was unable to express a view on what action the attorney general should take. But senior Lib Dems lined up at the party conference in Birmingham to call on the attorney general to use his powers to rule that the Yard's use of the act is not in the public interest. Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader, who is suing News International over alleged phone hacking at the News of the World, said: "Millions of people believe the Guardian has done a public service by exposing the series of scandals behind phone hacking carried out on a regular basis by individuals on behalf of other media organisations like the Murdoch empire. It is entirely inappropriate for the Officials Secret Act to be used to try to prosecute journalists who have taken these actions. "I hope that the law officers, or the government more widely, will make it clear that such an intervention and such a prosecution would not be in the public interest. The police or the Crown Prosecution Service may be able to justify on technical grounds that this is the proper thing to do. But the wider interests should prevail and the sooner a decision is made to end plans to prosecute the better." Don Foster, a veteran Lib Dem MP who advises the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, informally on media issues, called on the attorney general to block the "extremely bizarre" use of the act. "I understand the attorney general has the opportunity to use this power," Foster said after a fringe meeting, organised by the Hacked Off campaign, that was addressed by the actor Hugh Grant. "He should use it and say this is not in the public interest." Foster, who praised the Guardian for "fantastic journalism" in exposing phone hacking, found unanimous support at the fringe meeting when he asked whether the Guardian's disclosure that Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked – the revelation that prompted the police use of the Official Secrets Act – was justified. The MP said: "If it was in the public interest for the Guardian to do what they did, it is extremely bizarre, it is almost unheard of, for the Metropolitan police to have used the Official Secrets Act as the basis for seeking to get hold of the information they want. "It is absolutely vital that we find out first of all who actually signed off agreement to use the Official Secrets Act and, secondly, we have to have a very, very clear explanation of why they are doing it. A final decision is made by the attorney general as to whether to allow it to happen. The one good bit of news is that, in making his decision, the attorney general can use public interest as one of the criteria that he considers. I hope he will very seriously indeed." The Met's actions were also condemned by other newspapers: in a leader in the Times, the Met is accused of using the Official Secrets Act "not to protect the public interest but as a punitive measure to curb journalistic inquiry and pursue a sectarian and self-interested campaign". It goes on to say that the "principle and the method in the Met's action are wrong. They are not only a constraint on the Guardian's reporting, but an attack on the principles of free expression, the workings of a free press and the future of investigative journalism". The Daily Telegraph described the situation as a "direct attack on the freedom of the press" and "an intolerable abuse of power". Its leader asks if the Met are "seriously contemplating that the first prosecutions arising from the phone-hacking scandal should involve the very people who exposed it?" Tom Brake, chair of the Lib Dem home affairs committee, said: "The use of the Official Secrets Act in these circumstances is very unusual, and all the more worrying because it does not allow the defendant to argue that their actions were in the public interest. The Met need to explain why they think it is appropriate to use the Official Secrets Act in this case. While this is clearly a matter for the police and the attorney general, I do question whether this action is in the public interest given everything that has happened, or indeed in the interests of investigative journalism." The political unease was echoed in police circles. One insider asked: "When was the last time the OSA [Official Secrets Act] was used successfully against the media?" The source added that the Met had to be seen to be rigorous, but threatening to get a production order requiring the handing over of notes and the revealing of sources was a step too far: "No one was expecting us to use the OSA. Usually the use of the OSA ends in tears." With the new Met commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, not due to start his job as Britain's top police officer officially until later this month, the source added: "He is not even in office and he is facing his first crisis." Grant said at the Hacked Off meeting: "A lot of us victims and campaigners had come to the view that the new police inquiry – [Operation] Weeting under Sue Akers – were good cops. It was a new investigation. They were embarrassed by the behaviour of their predecessors and colleagues. So for them to suddenly turn on their fellow goodies in this battle is worrying and deeply mysterious." The Met said that the application for a production order was made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and did not seek to use powers under the OSA. But the police said that the OSA was mentioned in the application because a possible offence under that act might have been committed

Fox Kills Alec Baldwin's Phone Hacking Emmy Joke; Baldwin Pulls Out Of Ceremony www.huffingtonpost.com First Posted: 9/18/11 03:23 PM ET Updated: 9/18/11 03:48 PM ET Rupert Murdoch's Fox network cut a joke by Alec Baldwin about the company's phone hacking scandal out of a skit for Sunday's Emmy Awards, causing Baldwin to pull out of the ceremony. Deadline was the first to report the news, and Baldwin confirmed it on Twitter. "Fox did kill my NewsCorp hacking joke," Baldwin wrote. "Which sucks bc I think it would have made them look better. A little." Baldwin had made a reference to the omission in an earlier tweet, writing, "I did a short Emmy pretape a few days ago. Now they tell me NewsCorp may cut the funniest line. #NewsCorphumorlessaswellascorrupt." It's not clear what the joke was, but Deadline says that it came during the planned opening sketch for the Emmys, in which Baldwin was to play a fictional head of a television network. News Corp. told the site that it cut the joke because it didn't want to make light of the phone hacking scandal which has engulfed Murdoch's company. It's not the first time that a Murdoch property has been accused of going soft on the scandal. The Wall Street Journal was heavily criticized for an editorial strongly defending News Corp. RELATED VIDEO: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/18/fox-kills-alec-baldwins-phone-hacking-emmy-joke_n_968688.html

Posted on Richard Hoaglands Facebook Wall September 18, 2011: Frank Harrison: Hi Richard, sorry to jump in. I think people expected things to happen straight away. Time will tell. Richard C. Hoagland: Frank, Thanks. Now where do you suppose they got THAT crazy idea ...? Certainly NOT from me! This carefully manufactured 'drama" has been building for almost three quarters of a year; why would ANYONE think it was going to come to an end ...NOW? It has at least three more months to play out .... Starting NEXT weekend ... when we're in California, at "Awake and Aware."

I took Prof. Quigley's mandated course "Civilization" when I was an undergraduate in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in 1956-60. He was brilliant and radiated charisma. I can still see him in my mind's eye giving a lecture and can still recite his six levels of civilization under which all societies should be judged a success or failure.

Met police behaviour is worrying and deeply mysterious, says Hugh Grant Speaking at Lib Dem conference on behalf of Hacked Off campaign, Grant criticises Met police's attempt to force Guardian journalists to reveal their sources By Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 September 2011 11.18 EDT Hugh Grant has accused the Metropolitan police of behaving in a "worrying and deeply mysterious" way after Scotland Yard invoked the Official Secrets Act to demand journalists reveal their sources. As a senior Liberal Democrat called on the attorney general to block the "extremely bizarre" use of the act, Grant warned that police were turning on the "goodies" after Scotland Yard applied for an order under the 1989 act to require the Guardian to identify its sources on phone hacking. Speaking at the Lib Dem conference in Birmingham, the actor said: "It is a very worrying and upsetting development. A lot of us victims and campaigners had come to the view that the new police inquiry – [Operation] Weeting under Sue Akers – were good cops. "It was a new investigation. They were embarrassed by the behaviour of their predecessors and colleagues. So for them to suddenly turn on their fellow goodies in this battle is a worrying and deeply mysterious." Grant spoke up as Don Foster, the veteran Lib Dem MP, said that the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, should use his discretion to rule that the use of the Official Secrets Act in this case was not in the public interest. "I understand the attorney general has the opportunity to use this power," Foster said after a fringe meeting, organised by the Hacked Off campaign, that was addressed by Grant. "He should use it and say this is not in the public interest." Foster, who praised the Guardian for "fantastic journalism" in exposing phone hacking, found unanimous support at the fringe meeting when he asked whether the Guardian's disclosure that Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked – the revelation that prompted the police use of the Official Secrets Act – was justified. The MP said: "If it was in the public interest for the Guardian to do what they did it is extremely bizarre, it is almost unheard of, for the Metropolitan police to have used the Official Secrets Act as the basis for seeking to get hold of the information they want. Bizarre because what it does is it means that what you and I have just demonstrated by our vote – that the issue of public interest will not be able to be judged. "That is why it is absolutely vital that we find out first of all who actually signed off the agreement to use the Official Secrets Act and, secondly, we have to have a very, very clear explanation of why they are doing it. A final decision is made by the attorney general as to whether to allow it to happen. "The one good bit of news is that, in making his decision, the attorney general can use public interest as one of the criteria that he considers." Tom Brake, chair of the Lib Dem home affairs committee, echoed Foster's comments. "The Guardian is to be commended for the work that it has done to bring the facts of the phone hacking scandal to light. The revelation that Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked was the trigger for a political earthquake that went on to engulf the press, politicians and the police. "The use of the Official Secrets Act in these circumstances is very unusual, and all the more worrying because it does not allow the defendant to argue that their actions were in the public interest. The Met need to explain why they think it is appropriate to use the Official Secrets Act in this case. "While this is clearly a matter for the police and the attorney general, I do question whether this action is in the public interest given everything that has happened, or indeed in the interests of investigative journalism." The Lib Dem anger over the use of the Official Secrets Act came as Hugh Grant met Nick Clegg for what he described as a "delicious" seven-minute lunch in Birmingham at the start of a tour of the three party conferences to ensure that politicians continue to show "balls" on hacking after the establishment of the Leveson enquiry. Grant said he was disappointed after the deputy prime minister said it would take time for legislation to be introduced after the Leveson inquiry reports. "Nick Clegg did slightly depress me by saying that nothing could be done in terms of legislating until Leveson reports. So that is a snag. But I comfort myself with the fact that Leveson, as it progresses, will be reported. I hope this will keep the scandal in the forefront of the news. Grant added: "Ultimately it is going to be politicians who get the job done, who get the thing fixed. So I am here with Hacked Off to have a look at the politicians in all three parties and see which of those politicians who appear to have grown balls in July actually still have them and get something done." "The judgment is yet to be made. They had no choice back in July. The revelations were so shocking to the whole country that they had to talk a good game. Whether or not they will now play a good game really remains to be seen. That is one of the reasons we are going to these conferences – to put pressure on them to make sure they do as they said they'd do." Grant said Britain was shamed by two newspaper industries in Britain. One is the cornerstone of Britain while a second, which used to be interested in journalism, uses criminal means to appropriate the privileges of British citizens. "I am keen for people to stop conflating these two industries. I am keen for them to stop saying, 'we can't throw out the baby with the bathwater.' "Well to me and most sane people it is very easy to distinguish baby and bath water. It is very easy. You take the baby out of the bath and, in fact, I would argue the baby is now quite big enough to get out of the bath itself and it is high time that good journalists, broadsheet journalists, just get out of the xxxxing bath." Grant was also critical of the House of Commons culture select committee for its cross-examination of Rupert and James Murdoch. "Speaking as a bad actor myself I thought Murdoch's performance was dodgy. Many of my sources tell me he was a hell of a lot sharper than that a week before – people who had met him. I didn't buy the long pauses. Much as I adore the people on that committee, like Tom Watson … I was shocked at how unsharp and how slightly starstruck the select committee members seemed. "I bitterly regret the cream pie incident because it absolutely played into his hands. I still don't know why they had to congratulate him so much afterwards for being so brave or why my hero Tom Watson had to say your wife has a great right hook. "I mean for God's sake this was the one chance we have ever had to get the guy in the dock and suddenly everyone was slightly up his arse." Grant, who famously posed as a journalist from Horse and Hounds in the film Notting Hill to interview Julia Roberts, said that granting an interview does not give the media a right to pursue a celebrity. "The papers don't give people privacy for free. It is done as a sort of barter when it is done. If I give an interview to a magazine they get something out of it, I get something out of it. But the deal is over. If I have sold you a pint of milk for 50p you can't come to me forever after saying you once sold milk, I can help myself to your milk for free. It is patently absurd." There was a lighter moment Grant was asked how he would play David Cameron. "I only ever play one part. Don't be ridiculous."

Posted on Richard Hoagland's Facebook Wall on September 17, 2011: Derrick: Ok, I'm reaching with this, but I was just curious if anyone has tried to pair a relationship to Elenin and any of the verses in the bible? Richard C. Hoagland: Derrick, Yes, "Revelation 12." Meaning, important date for Elenin COULD be September 29th .... Google.

I had a conversation a year ago in Dallas with two women who approached me and who told me they knew and had with visited Billie Sol only a few days before. They described a legal dispute regarding guardianship between Billie Sol and his daughter, Pam, that was in the process of being resolved. Since I live in Texas and Billie Sol is a legendary character in the Lone Star State, if he were to pass away it would be front page news. I have seen no news about him in the Texas media for the past year. When he was your client were you convinced he was telling the truth about LBJ? Yes, I do believe that Billie Sol Estes was telling the truth as to what he knew personally when he directed me to write the letters to the U.S. Department of Justice in 1984 in which he sought immunity from prosecution in return for testifying. Clint Peoples, the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of Texas, also believed Billie Sol was telling the truth as to the contents of my letters. Peoples had followed the Billie Sol Estes case for over 20 years, beginning when he was a Texas Ranger. It was Billie Sol who introduced me to Marshal Peoples. I met with Marshal Peoples several times in his Dallas courthouse office about Billie Sols desire to tell what he knew and on one occasion Peoples opened up a large file cabinet and showed me various key documents on the case from numerous ones he had collected over the years. As I have written previously on the Forum, Billie Sols quest for immunity was connected to a proposed grant from the Moody Foundation of Galveston, Texas, which was to be used to underwrite Billie Sols writing of a book about what he knew. Shearn Moody, Jr., a trustee of the Foundation with whom I was professionally associated, directed me to interface with Billie Sol to get the grant approved and the book written. The grant was to be made to the Abilene Christian University, which in turn would fund Billie Sol to write his book.

Guardian says it will fight police on revealing hacking sources By Agence France-Presse Saturday, September 17th, 2011 -- 8:47 am The Guardian said Saturday it would fight "to the utmost" an attempt by police probing the phone hacking scandal to force it to disclose the sources for its reports on the affair. The Metropolitan Police is seeking to obtain a court order under the Official Secrets Act to identify "evidence of potential offences resulting from unauthorised leaking of information". The Guardian's editor Alan Rusbridger condemned the move as "vindictive", adding: "We shall resist this extraordinary demand to the utmost". The daily has been at the forefront in exposing the voicemail hacking scandal at media baron Rupert Murdoch's now-defunct News of the World. The Guardian said the police intended to go before a judge at the Old Bailey on September 23 to apply for an order under the Official Secrets Act requiring it to hand over documents relating to the source of information for a number of articles. It said the police thought the act could have been breached in July when the newspaper revealed that the voicemail of a teenage murder victim had been hacked into. The story led to a public outcry and News of the World closed shortly afterwards. In a statement, the Met said it had applied for a production order against The Guardian and one of its reporters "in order to seek evidence of offences connected to potential breaches relating to Misconduct in Public Office and the Official Secrets Act." It said it took concerns of leaks seriously "to ensure that the public interest is protected by ensuring there is no further potential compromise". The Met paid tribute to The Guardian's "unwavering determination to expose the hacking scandal", and said it recognised "the important public interest of whistle-blowing and investigative reporting", which it was not seeking to prevent. "However, neither is apparent in this case. This is an investigation into the alleged gratuitous release of information that is not in the public interest." The Guardian's reporter Amelia Hill was questioned under caution earlier this month over alleged police leaks surrounding the hacking inquiry. In August, a policeman working on the probe was arrested over the unauthorised disclosure of information. The Guardian called the latest move an "unprecedented legal attack on journalists' sources". "It seems to me an extraordinarily heavy-handed use of the Official Secrets Act which is basically about espionage and international relations and things like that to defeat the privilege journalists have to protect their sources," Rusbridger told BBC radio. "What they are trying to do is to find out the source of the embarrassment of the articles -- and no doubt The Guardian's coverage was embarrassing to the police. "It looks vindictive and it looks ill-judged and disproportionate." The hacking scandal has led to the resignation of two of Murdoch's top aides and two senior police officers, and dragged in Prime Minister David Cameron after his ex-media chief, former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, was arrested. In its editorial, The Guardian said: "It beggars belief that the Metropolitan Police -- who, for years, declined to lift a finger against News International journalists despite voluminous evidence of criminal behaviour -- should now be using the Official Secrets Act to pursue The Guardian, which uncovered the story." Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, said the latest police move was "vicious" and a "very serious threat" to reporting. "Journalists have investigated the hacking story and told the truth to the public. They should be congratulated rather than being hounded and criminalised by the state," The Guardian quoted her as saying. "The protection of sources is an essential principle which has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the European Court of Human Rights as the cornerstone of press freedom."

Phone hacking: secrecy sledgehammer If the Met succeeds in its use of the Official Secrets Act it would be a very bleak day for freedom and democracy Editorial guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 September 2011 17.24 EDT Just over two months ago the Guardian published the story of Milly Dowler's phone – and how it was hacked by a private investigator working for the News of the World after the teenager's abduction and murder. It was a revelation which caused worldwide revulsion and outrage. It led to resignations, parliamentary debates, official inquiries and humble corporate apologies. A newspaper was closed and News Corp's bid to take control of BSkyB was stopped in its tracks by a unanimous vote of parliament. The former Metropolitan police chief Sir Paul Stephenson was gracious enough to praise the Guardian's role in persisting where three police inquiries had failed. The country should be grateful, he said, that this paper ignored his own attempts to warn us off. Only this week the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, described the Guardian's campaign as "investigative journalism of the highest quality". Incredibly, the Metropolitan police are now trying to find out the source of the Milly Dowler story. To that end they are – quite extraordinarily – using the Official Secrets Act to try and force the Guardian to hand over documents which would betray our sources. Papers served on the newspaper this week demand that, within seven days, our reporters – including Amelia Hill and Nick Davies, who relentlessly covered the phone-hacking story for more than two years – hand over anything that could lead the police to identify who blew the whistle on the Dowler story and others. It beggars belief that the Metropolitan police – who, for years, declined to lift a finger against News International journalists despite voluminous evidence of criminal behaviour – should now be using the Official Secrets Act to pursue the Guardian, which uncovered the story. The Official Secrets Act is a very powerful sledgehammer and the police have no business using it to try to defeat the defences that journalists would normally rely on to prevent them – or anyone else – from trying to expose confidential sources. The only known previous attempt to use the 1989 act against a journalist – the writer Tony Geraghty – collapsed, as did a similar police threat (not using the OSA) to prosecute the Conservative MP Damian Green for "aiding and abetting" misconduct in a public office. Operation Weeting seemed finally to be doing something to restore the Met's reputation, which has been so tarnished by the handling of this whole affair. But these heavy-handed tactics will alarm every editor and reporter in the country. If the police succeeded with the Official Secrets Act in this case it would be a very bleak day for one of the fundamental freedoms that underpins democracy itself

Police attacked for using law to find sources of hacking leaks The Independent By James Cusick and Ian Burrell, Media Editor Saturday, 17 September 2011 The Metropolitan Police's decision to use the Official Secrets Act to try to force journalists investigating the News of the World phone hacking to reveal their sources was last night attacked by civil rights campaigners as a "misuse of power". Scotland Yard announced that they intended seek a hearing at the Old Bailey in London next week to force The Guardian to hand over documents that would reveal who the sources were in key articles relating to the newspaper's disclosures on "the interception of the telephone of Milly Dowler." Revelations during the summer that the phone of the murdered schoolgirl had been hacked was the tipping point that led News International to close the NOTW. Articles written by Nick Davies and Amelia Hill on 4 July disclosed the illegal Dowler interceptions. The police order demands that The Guardian hand over the documents it used in compiling the story. The formal application under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1989, claims the published material breached the Act. The Met order claims Ms Hill could have incited police on Operation Weeting – which is looking into the illegal use of phone intercepts – to leak information relating to the Dowler family, the former NOTW editor, Andy Coulson, Rebekah Brooks, News International's former chief executive, and other arrested executives. Alan Rusbridger, The Guardian's editor, said the newspaper "would resist this extraordinary demand to the utmost." John Kampfner, of the Index on Censorship, said: "This is a truly outrageous misuse of power. It's a misuse of the Official Secrets Act, which is already a very draconian piece of legislation." Tom Watson, the culture committee MP who has been prominent in exposing the scale of phone hacking, said that the police had failed to investigate wrongdoing at the NOTW for more than a decade. "It is outrageous that they are now trying to move against The Guardian." Chris Bryant, the Labour MP whose phone was among the list of numbers held by the private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, who worked for the NOTW, said "I cannot see how this is in the public interest. The Met lurch from refusing to examine material seized from Mulcaire, refusing to notify victims of phone hacking, and suddenly they try to pursue those who did the job should have done in the first place. It is extraordinary." He added: "If it hadn't been for the investigative journalism of The Guardian and The Independent we would never have learned the truth." The National Union of Journalists' general secretary, Michelle Stanistreet, described the Met's action as a "serious threat to journalists and the NUJ that will be fought." The decision to use the Official Secrets Act to force disclosure of The Guardian's source is unusual. It was last used unsuccessfully 11 years ago when a military intelligence officer and author were arrested and documents seized from their home computers. The casewas eventually dropped. The Guardian's refusal to co-operate will generate memories of the Sarah Tisdall case. In 1989, Ms Tisdall, a clerk in the Foreign Office, copied documents relating to the basing of nuclear cruise missiles in the UK and sent them to The Guardian. The Government took legal action against the paper andforced it to hand over the documents. Ms Tisdall was identified and sentenced to six months in jail.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/phone-hacking The Full Story

Phone hacking: Met use Official Secrets Act to force Guardian to reveal sources Unprecedented move sees Scotland Yard use the Official Secrets Act to demand the paper hands over information By David Leigh guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 September 2011 10.40 EDT The Metropolitan police are seeking a court order under the Official Secrets Act to make Guardian reporters disclose their confidential sources about the phone-hacking scandal. In an unprecedented legal attack on journalists' sources, Scotland Yard officers claim the act, which has special powers usually aimed at espionage, could have been breached in July when reporters Amelia Hill and Nick Davies revealed the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone. They are demanding source information be handed over. The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, said on Friday: "We shall resist this extraordinary demand to the utmost". Tom Watson, the former Labour minister who has been prominent in exposing hacking by the News of the World, said: "It is an outrageous abuse and completely unacceptable that, having failed to investigate serious wrongdoing at the News of the World for more than a decade, the police should now be trying to move against the Guardian. It was the Guardian who first exposed this scandal." The NUJ general secretary, Michelle Stanistreet, said: "This is a very serious threat to journalists and the NUJ will fight off this vicious attempt to use the Official Secrets Act … Journalists have investigated the hacking story and told the truth to the public. They should be congratulated rather than being hounded and criminalised by the state. "The protection of sources is an essential principle which has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the European court of human rights as the cornerstone of press freedom. The NUJ shall defend it. In 2007 a judge made it clear that journalists and their sources are protected under article 10 of the Human Rights Act and it applies to leaked material. The use of the Official Secrets Act is a disgraceful attempt to get round this existing judgment." The paper's revelation in July that police had never properly pursued the News of the World for hacking the phone of the missing murdered girl caused a wave of public revulsion worldwide. The ensuing uproar over police inadequacy and alleged collusion with the Murdoch media empire swept away the top officers at Scotland Yard. It also brought about the closure of the News of the World itself, the withdrawal of the Murdoch takeover bid for Sky, and the launch of a major judicial inquiry into the entire scandal. Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and assistant commissioner John Yates both resigned. David Cameron's former PR chief Andy Coulson is among those who have subsequently been arrested for questioning, along with former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks. Police now intend to go before a judge at the Old Bailey in London on 23 September, in an attempt to force the handover of documents relating to the source of information for a number of articles, including the article published by Hill and Davies on 4 July disclosing "the interception of the telephone of Milly Dowler". Documents written by both reporters about the Milly Dowler story are covered by the terms of the production order police are now demanding. The application, authorised by Detective-Superintendent Mark Mitchell of Scotland Yard's professional standards unit, claims that the published article could have disclosed information in breach of the 1989 Official Secrets Act. It is claimed Hill could have incited police working on the then Operation Weeting hacking inquiry into leaking information, both about Milly Dowler and about the identity of Coulson, Rebekah Brooks and other arrested newspaper executives. A police officer is also being investigated, Scotland Yard say, for breaching the Official Secrets Act, as well as alleged misconduct in public office, for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. An obscure clause – section 5 – of the 1989 Official Secrets Act, highly controversial at the time of its passing, allows individuals to be prosecuted for passing on "damaging" information leaked to them by government officials in breach of section 4 of the same act. This includes police information "likely to impede … the prosecution of suspected offenders". The clause is aimed at those who deliberately derail investigations by, for example, tipping off a suspect about an impending police raid. But it is being used in this case in an unprecedented way, against individual journalists for publishing a news article. The Guardian's reporters did not pay any police officers. Police claim their work might be undermined by the alleged leaks. The head of Operation Weeting, deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers, is on record deploring that some details of inquiries have apparently leaked to the Guardian. Some of the arrestees are reported to be already claiming that media publicity will prevent them getting a fair trial. Scotland Yard says it has not officially released any of the arrestees' names, none of whom has as yet been charged with any offence. But they do not assert that anyone was "tipped off" by the arrest disclosures in the Guardian or other papers. Most of those questioned were arrested by appointment. The only previous attempt to use the 1989 Official Secrets Act against a journalist collapsed 11 years ago after a public outcry. Lieutenant Colonel Wylde, a former military intelligence officer, and author Tony Geraghty were arrested in December 1998 by defence ministry police after early morning raids at their homes. Both had computers and documents seized. This followed the publication of Geraghty's book The Irish War, which describes two British army computer databases in Northern Ireland used to identify vehicles and suspects. Expert reports were produced by the defence showing the information was not damaging. After consultations with Labour attorney general Lord Williams of Mostyn, both cases were finally dropped in November 2000. Wylde's lawyer, John Wadham, then of Liberty, said: "This case should never have got off the ground … This case is another nail in the coffin of the Official Secrets Act. The act is fundamentally flawed and needs to be reformed." In the same year, police failed in a similar attempt to get a production order for journalistic material from the Guardian and the Observer, over correspondence with renegade MI5 officer David Shayler. The appeal court, led by Lord Justice Judge, ruled: "Unless there are compelling reasons of national security, the public is entitled to know the facts, and as the eyes and ears of the public, journalists are entitled to investigate and report the facts … Inconvenient or embarrassing revelations, whether for the security services, or for public authorities, should not be suppressed. "Legal proceedings directed towards the seizure of the working papers of an individual journalist, or the premises of the newspaper … tend to inhibit discussion … Compelling evidence would normally be needed to demonstrate that the public interest would be served by such proceedings. "Otherwise, to the public disadvantage, legitimate inquiry and discussion, and 'the safety valve of effective investigative journalism' … would be discouraged, perhaps stifled." In 2009 the police threatened to prosecute Conservative MP Damian Green for "aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office". The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, intervened in that case, saying he did not consider that the damage caused by the leaked information outweighed the importance of the freedom of the press. Only last week the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, told MPs: "There is an important difference between off-the-record briefing and the payment of money by or to the police in return for information. "Journalists must operate within the law, but … we must be careful not to overreact in a way that would undermine the foundations of a free society." At a speech at the Royal Television Society this week, Hunt praised the Guardian's coverage of the hacking scandal, describing it as "investigative journalism of the highest quality". The former Met commissioner Stephenson admitted to MPs that he had tried to talk the Guardian out of its phone-hacking campaign in December 2009. He added that "we should be grateful" to the Guardian for ignoring his advice and continuing its campaign.

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-carl-oglesby-20110914,0,7270001.story

New Met chief orders inquiry into force's hacking investigation Bernard Hogan-Howe drafts in Durham police chief to review Operation Weeting, and vows to 'reset boundaries' with press The Independent By James Cusick Friday, 16 September 2011 The newly appointed head of the Metropolitan Police, Bernard Hogan-Howe, has ordered an independent review of his new force's investigation into the News of the World's phone-hacking scandal. The decision to call in Durham Police to examine the evidence currently being gathered by Scotland Yard in Operation Weeting brings to 11 the number of formal inquiries that have focused on the illegal interception of phone messages by the now defunct News International title. Jon Stoddart, Chief Constable of Durham, will head the latest review. The review team will not, however, be restricted to Durham. Officers from forces outside London will be drafted in to assist and boost the independent credentials of the examination. Scotland Yard revealed yesterday that Mr Hogan-Howe had taken the decision to review Operation Weeting when he was appointed Acting Deputy Commissioner during the summer following the departure of the Assistant Commissioner, John Yates, and the Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson. In an interview with London's Evening Standard newspaper, Mr Hogan-Howe said he had asked for the independent review to "reassure us we are going in the right direction, though I think we are." Scotland Yard emphasised that nothing unusual should be read into the review. A formal statement from the Met stated it was "considered best practice in a sensitive inquiry of this nature". Operation Weeting was begun in January this year. It is headed by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Sue Akers, with almost 50 officers involved in the investigation. Ms Akers is also involved in overseeing another linked inquiry which is focusing on the alleged bribing of police officers. The Met's directorate of professional standards is leading this examination with supervision by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The review of Weeting's operations will accompany another directive from Hogan-Howe, who yesterday announced that he intended to "reset the boundaries between the police and the media" which have been in the spotlight throughout each revelation of the phone-hacking scandal. He told the Metropolitan Police Authority that the police's relationship with the media had "gone too far". This was the new Met chief's first address to the MPA at City Hall in London. He also called for a new era of transparency. It is understood that he has already laid the foundations for a new set of guidelines for dealing with the media that will be issued to Met officers. Mr Stoddart became Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary in 2005 after two years as his force's Deputy Chief Constable. A graduate from Northumbria University, his police background experience includes time in uniform and the CID. Although the Stoddart-led review will concentrate specifically on Weeting, around 120 police officers throughout the UK – in London and Strathclyde – are currently involved in investigations linked to the News of the World hacking scandal. Those hacking investigations in full * Operation Motorman (2003) Information Commissioner's Office investigation into the illegal trade in personal information by the British Press. * Commons' Culture, Media, and Sport Select Committee (2003, 2011) The first inquiry into media intrusion; the second to into allegations of phone hacking at the NOTW. * Original investigation into hacking by Metropolitan Police. (2005/6) * Press Complaints Commission investigation into hacking at the NOTW. (2009) * Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police John Yates conducts "one-day" review of evidence from original police investigation into phone hacking. * Operation Weeting (January 2011) British police investigation into allegations of phone hacking at the NOTW. * Operation Tuleta (June 2011) Metropolitan Police investigation into allegations of computer hacking. * Leveson Inquiry (July 2011) Judge-led inquiry to look into the specific claims about phone hacking at the News of the World, the initial police inquiry and allegations of illicit payments to police by the press, and a second inquiry to review the general culture and ethics of the British media. * Operation Rubicon (July 2011) Scottish police investigation into allegations of phone hacking, breach of data protection and perjury. * Operation Elveden (July 2011) British police investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments to police. IPCC investigations into the conduct of several senior police officers in relation to phone-hacking scandal. (2011)

This post makes no sense. Carl and Hillary were not "good friends". His work changed her politically thinking in the 60's and he may have met her once in passing when she was at Wellesley college. She visited him ONCE in Camdridge in 1994. Period. What the hell does "if you define truth as a coup d'edat" mean? Dawn http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/18/AR2008051802101.html

£375 for Jeremy Clarkson, £655 for JK Rowling: the private eye's lucrative trade Vast range of activities revealed in second part of Independent investigation The Independent By Ian Burrell, Media Editor and Mark Olden Thursday, 15 September 2011 The tabloid press hired private detectives to investigate Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, when she was still a student in Scotland, and Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of the former US President, when she was studying at Oxford. The same detective agency was hired to investigate Philippa Middleton, the Duchess's younger sister, when she was a teenager, and to carry out a "blag" for information on the hen and stag parties of Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex. The Independent has examined files seized as part of Operation Motorman in 2003 and been told by the lead investigator on that inquiry that his team were forbidden from interviewing journalists from a wide range of media organisations who hired a private detective agency to track down personal information. More than 17,000 searches were carried out, many of them in breach of data protection laws. In a signed witness statement given to this newspaper, the former police detective inspector who led Operation Motorman, accused the authorities of serious failings. "We weren't allowed to talk to journalists," said the investigator, who was working for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). "It was fear – they were frightened." The files show that JK Rowling, who was named yesterday as one of the core participants in the Leveson Inquiry into media standards, was targeted by the private investigator Steve Whittamore in the summer of 2000, at the time that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the record-breaking fourth book in the Harry Potter series, was published. The private detective charged £655 for his unspecified inquiries. Whittamore was asked to obtain confidential information on the Duchess of Cambridge in April 2002, when she was known simply as Kate Middleton, a 20-year-old student at St Andrews University who had been linked with her fellow student Prince William. The "yellow book" file, one of four colour-coded A4 books kept by Whittamore detailing his business dealings with journalists, reveals that the private eye was given her mobile phone number and asked to locate her family home. He was then required to provide the "Family & Friends" numbers for the Middleton home address in Berkshire and returned with 10 numbers. He charged £500 per number to obtain, using those details, the names and addresses of the family's close circle. The book then records separate inquiries for "Catherine Middleton" and her 18-year-old sister Philippa, known as Pippa. Both jobs are listed as separate Family & Friends searches, presumably made on their mobile numbers. Some of the work was recorded in the files as being carried out by one of Whittamore's associates, a former Hells Angel based on the South Coast. At the time, Kate Middleton had just come on to the media's radar after appearing at a university charity fashion show in a sheer dress that revealed her underwear. Prince William, who attended the fashion show, had previously played tennis with his fellow student and speculation focused on his future living arrangements. In total, the operation to target the Middleton sisters would have involved more than 50 breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998, Section 55, which covers the unlawful disclosure, procurement and selling of personal information contained within a database. Each time a number is passed on or converted, another breach of the law is committed. To justify its actions, a newspaper would have to demonstrate that its inquiries were in the public interest. Whittamore was also hired to conduct something he listed as the "Hen & Stag Blag" ahead of the marriage of Prince Edward to Sophie Rhys-Jones in 1999. The luxury Lanesborough Hotel near Hyde Park, which hosted both the hen and the stag party, was targeted by the private investigator to obtain details of the events. A report later emerged comparing the two parties and giving details of guests, cocktails and canapés. Chelsea Clinton was subject to a Whittamore investigation while studying for a Master's degree in international relations at University College, Oxford. In October 2002, the investigator was hired to locate Ms Clinton and her boyfriend Ian Klaus, a Rhodes scholar at Jesus College. Searches focused on Jericho, a historic neighbourhood of the city. The private investigator was then hired to conduct something he recorded in his files as the "Peak Fitness Blag", which is understood to have been an attempt to procure information from the Oxford gym where the couple were members. Jonathan Ross was investigated in 1999 when Whittamore's company, JJ Services, demanded a fee of £480 for inquiries which were simply headed "wife". At that time, the tabloids were reporting that the couple had briefly split up and that the television presenter's wife had been suffering from depression. Jeremy Clarkson, now a tabloid and broadsheet columnist himself, was targeted in 1997 for £375-worth of private information as he became a rising star on the BBC's Top Gear and details were emerging of his wild times as a public schoolboy. Papers asked the detective agency to access the Police National Computer in order to satisfy their suspicions about the pasts of popular entertainment stars. The singer Ms Dynamite, at the height of her fame after winning the Mercury Prize in 2002, was promptly made the subject of a criminal record check, as was her manager, Desmond George. Also checked for a possible criminal record was Sada Walkington, a housemate in the Channel 4 reality show Big Brother who was characterised as a hippie with a taste for yoga and eating tofu. Peter Salmon, the head of BBC North and currently being tipped as a possible future director-general of the BBC, was the subject of a Whittamore operation dubbed the "Belair Beverly Hills Blag", after the former Granada television executive's marriage break-up and subsequent relationship with Coronation Street actress Sarah Lancashire (who was herself the subject of a £130 Whittamore invoice). Other Whittamore blags on various targets included the "Montego Bay Blag", the "Hillgrove Cat Farm Blag", the "Equity Blag", the "Amanda Barrie Blag" and the "Dawn's Massage Parlour Blag". The heart surgeon Sir Magdi Yacoub was subject to an operation described by Whittamore as "2 blags and find about". The jockey Kieren Fallon, whose private life was under investigation by the tabloids in 1999, was the subject of the "GPO Blag Fallon" and a series of ex-directory searches. The former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone was the subject of an invoice from JJ Services, first under the heading "love child", when rumours of his earlier children surfaced in 1999, and then in 2002 under the heading "Com Cab blag". At the time, in 2002, the mayor was being criticised for his use of taxis and the Greater London Authority had an account with a firm called Computer Cab. The BBC Match of the Day presenter Mark Lawrenson was the subject of at least three vehicle checks and a bizarre attempt to discover if the former Liverpool defender had any business dealings with the television presenter Lionel Blair. Whittamore was asked to conduct ex-directory searches for various papers on such well-known figures as Jeremy Paxman, John Cleese, Elizabeth Hurley and Linford Christie. The award-winning charity worker Camila Batmanghelidjh, founder of Kids Company, was similarly targeted. One paper spent around £2,000 investigating the actress Tamzin Outhwaite, obtaining her ex-directory number and the names and addresses of the six numbers listed as her Friends & Family. Whittamore's company received £250 for its inquiries into Sir Paul McCartney, £300 for an investigation into the "ex" of actress Anna Friel, £250 for a probe into a "hotel" associated with Mick Jagger, £120 for a job linked to the "daughter" of John Major and £250 on the "exes" of David Beckham. Some "research" on the comedian Frank Skinner generated a further £67.50. Wayne Rooney was a money-spinner even before Whittamore was raided in 2003. Whittamore was asked to trawl addresses in the young footballer's Liverpool neighbourhood of Croxteth for numbers of relatives and friends. The vast amount of Whittamore's work came from the tabloids but broadsheets also used his services. One title hired him to make inquiries into bank payments as part of an investigation into renovations at the home of a government minister. The private investigator came back with details of a private company's bank balance and overdraft facility. Television companies were also among Whittamore's clients. He lists business transactions with two television programmes and with a Wales-based production company. The Information Commissioner Christopher Graham defended the ICO's Motorman investigation. "The ICO has always been clear that our decision not to pursue legal action against any of the journalists linked to the Operation Motorman investigation was based on a lack of evidence that the journalists who had received information from Mr Whittamore had directly asked him to obtain the information illegally," he said. "Without this evidence the ICO could not justify chasing every possible prosecution as this would have taken a disproportionate amount of time and resource and was unlikely to lead to any meaningful results." The Whittamore investigation Steve Whittamore was grilling sausages at his family bungalow near the New Forest when the knock on the door came in 2003. The stocky private detective in his mid-Fifties was spending a rare moment outside of the small office he had set up between his home and garage, a room crowded with paper work. On the top of a cabinet were a series of hardback A4 note books, colour-coded blue, red, green and yellow. They contained details of his work for journalists working in national newspapers, magazines and television. When investigators arrived from the Information Commissioner's Office, in the company of a couple of local police officers whose services were not required, Whittamore was amiable but quite adamant from the outset he would not talk about the journalists who were his clients. But the files that were seized from his home offered unprecedented insight into the media's secret dealings with private detectives, revealing for the first time a vast, lucrative trade in illicit personal data. The ICO investigation had begun into two DVLA employees who were selling the private details of registered car owners to private detectives and others, hence the name: Operation Motorman. The evidence led back to Whittamore. The private eye was shown a warrant and an ICO search team accompanied by an independent forensic computer analyst entered his home in New Milton, Hampshire. The investigators later began to uncover how Whittamore's operation ran, unravelling his network of associates. Whittamore himself was a seasoned 'blagger': adept at conning information out of the unwitting. But if he wasn't able to get something himself, he had sources who could. One of the most prolific was an ex-soldier and Hells Angel in Sussex who specialised in posing as a phone engineer to prise confidential records out of phone companies. For criminal records, Whittamore would contact a third party who in turn would contact Paul Marshall, a civilian police worker in south London who trawled police databases for payment. If there was a 'blag' he couldn't do himself, he might turn to another private investigator, John Boyall. Whatever it was - vehicle registration numbers, bank statements, tax records – somewhere along the chain someone could get them. The ICO investigators started pulling together 30 bundles of evidence – linking Whittamore's invoices to named journalists and their victims, whose privacy had been breached. They wanted to bring a conspiracy charge against both the journalists and the private detectives. Three reporters were spoken to by the police investigating the illegal accessing of criminal record databases but the ICO officers never spoke to a single journalist. In April 2005 Marshall, Whittamore, Boyall and a retired policeman called Alan King were given conditional discharges. Whittamore and others still faced charges from the Information Commissioner, but within two months they had been dropped.

Phone hacking: Durham police called in to review evidence New commissioner of Metropolitan police, Bernard Hogan-Howe, calls in force to examine evidence from Operation Weeting By Sandra Laville guardian.co.uk, Thursday 15 September 2011 14.51 BST Durham police have been called in by the new commissioner of the Metropolitan force to review the ongoing phone-hacking inquiry, Scotland Yard confirmed on Thursday. Bernard Hogan-Howe made the decision to ask for another force to examine the evidence gathered in Operation Weeting when he was appointed acting deputy commissioner of the Met in the summer following the departure of assistant commissioner John Yates and commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson. His role on this appointment was to take charge of the Operation Weeting inquiry and it was revealed on Thursday that he had decided as a result of the sensitive nature of the investigation that a review should be carried out. The Guardian understands the review was not commissioned as a result of the arrest of a 51-year-old officer on the inquiry on suspicion of leaking details. The officer remains on police bail on suspicion of misconduct in a public office. Talking to the Evening Standard on Thursday Hogan-Howe said: "I have asked another force to have a look at the inquiry to reassure us we are going in the right direction and I think we are." Scotland Yard added: "We can confirm that the Metropolitan police service has asked an outside police force to conduct a review of Operation Weeting. A review of this kind is considered best practice in a sensitive inquiry of this nature and was instigated by Bernard Hogan-Howe as acting deputy commissioner during the summer. The review team is led by Durham chief constable Jon Stoddart who will report to the Metropolitan police service in due course." A spokesman for Durham police said: "The Metropolitan Police Service has requested that an independent review of Operation Weeting be undertaken and we can confirm that Jon Stoddart, chief constable of Durham constabulary, has agreed to undertake the review. The review team will be taken from a number of forces outside the MPS." Operation Weeting was begun in January and is investigating claims into the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. The senior detective leading the phone-hacking inquiry, deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers, told the home affairs select committee in July that there were 4,000 possible victims of phone hacking listed in the pages of private eye Glenn Muclaire's notebooks. She said these individuals were being contacted "as quickly as possible". Akers's investigation team consists of 45 officers, many of whom have been seconded from homicide teams. Akers is also overseeing a separate investigation into alleged bribes of police officers. This is being shared with the Met's directorate of professional standards and overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

£375 for Jeremy Clarkson, £655 for JK Rowling: the private eye's lucrative trade Vast range of activities revealed in second part of Independent investigation The Independent By Ian Burrell, Media Editor and Mark Olden Thursday, 15 September 2011 The tabloid press hired private detectives to investigate Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, when she was still a student in Scotland, and Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of the former US President, when she was studying at Oxford. The same detective agency was hired to investigate Philippa Middleton, the Duchess's younger sister, when she was a teenager, and to carry out a "blag" for information on the hen and stag parties of Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex. The Independent has examined files seized as part of Operation Motorman in 2003 and been told by the lead investigator on that inquiry that his team were forbidden from interviewing journalists from a wide range of media organisations who hired a private detective agency to track down personal information. More than 17,000 searches were carried out, many of them in breach of data protection laws. In a signed witness statement given to this newspaper, the former police detective inspector who led Operation Motorman, accused the authorities of serious failings. "We weren't allowed to talk to journalists," said the investigator, who was working for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). "It was fear – they were frightened." The files show that JK Rowling, who was named yesterday as one of the core participants in the Leveson Inquiry into media standards, was targeted by the private investigator Steve Whittamore in the summer of 2000, at the time that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the record-breaking fourth book in the Harry Potter series, was published. The private detective charged £655 for his unspecified inquiries. Whittamore was asked to obtain confidential information on the Duchess of Cambridge in April 2002, when she was known simply as Kate Middleton, a 20-year-old student at St Andrews University who had been linked with her fellow student Prince William. The "yellow book" file, one of four colour-coded A4 books kept by Whittamore detailing his business dealings with journalists, reveals that the private eye was given her mobile phone number and asked to locate her family home. He was then required to provide the "Family & Friends" numbers for the Middleton home address in Berkshire and returned with 10 numbers. He charged £500 per number to obtain, using those details, the names and addresses of the family's close circle. The book then records separate inquiries for "Catherine Middleton" and her 18-year-old sister Philippa, known as Pippa. Both jobs are listed as separate Family & Friends searches, presumably made on their mobile numbers. Some of the work was recorded in the files as being carried out by one of Whittamore's associates, a former Hells Angel based on the South Coast. At the time, Kate Middleton had just come on to the media's radar after appearing at a university charity fashion show in a sheer dress that revealed her underwear. Prince William, who attended the fashion show, had previously played tennis with his fellow student and speculation focused on his future living arrangements. In total, the operation to target the Middleton sisters would have involved more than 50 breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998, Section 55, which covers the unlawful disclosure, procurement and selling of personal information contained within a database. Each time a number is passed on or converted, another breach of the law is committed. To justify its actions, a newspaper would have to demonstrate that its inquiries were in the public interest. Whittamore was also hired to conduct something he listed as the "Hen & Stag Blag" ahead of the marriage of Prince Edward to Sophie Rhys-Jones in 1999. The luxury Lanesborough Hotel near Hyde Park, which hosted both the hen and the stag party, was targeted by the private investigator to obtain details of the events. A report later emerged comparing the two parties and giving details of guests, cocktails and canapés. Chelsea Clinton was subject to a Whittamore investigation while studying for a Master's degree in international relations at University College, Oxford. In October 2002, the investigator was hired to locate Ms Clinton and her boyfriend Ian Klaus, a Rhodes scholar at Jesus College. Searches focused on Jericho, a historic neighbourhood of the city. The private investigator was then hired to conduct something he recorded in his files as the "Peak Fitness Blag", which is understood to have been an attempt to procure information from the Oxford gym where the couple were members. Jonathan Ross was investigated in 1999 when Whittamore's company, JJ Services, demanded a fee of £480 for inquiries which were simply headed "wife". At that time, the tabloids were reporting that the couple had briefly split up and that the television presenter's wife had been suffering from depression. Jeremy Clarkson, now a tabloid and broadsheet columnist himself, was targeted in 1997 for £375-worth of private information as he became a rising star on the BBC's Top Gear and details were emerging of his wild times as a public schoolboy. Papers asked the detective agency to access the Police National Computer in order to satisfy their suspicions about the pasts of popular entertainment stars. The singer Ms Dynamite, at the height of her fame after winning the Mercury Prize in 2002, was promptly made the subject of a criminal record check, as was her manager, Desmond George. Also checked for a possible criminal record was Sada Walkington, a housemate in the Channel 4 reality show Big Brother who was characterised as a hippie with a taste for yoga and eating tofu. Peter Salmon, the head of BBC North and currently being tipped as a possible future director-general of the BBC, was the subject of a Whittamore operation dubbed the "Belair Beverly Hills Blag", after the former Granada television executive's marriage break-up and subsequent relationship with Coronation Street actress Sarah Lancashire (who was herself the subject of a £130 Whittamore invoice). Other Whittamore blags on various targets included the "Montego Bay Blag", the "Hillgrove Cat Farm Blag", the "Equity Blag", the "Amanda Barrie Blag" and the "Dawn's Massage Parlour Blag". The heart surgeon Sir Magdi Yacoub was subject to an operation described by Whittamore as "2 blags and find about". The jockey Kieren Fallon, whose private life was under investigation by the tabloids in 1999, was the subject of the "GPO Blag Fallon" and a series of ex-directory searches. The former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone was the subject of an invoice from JJ Services, first under the heading "love child", when rumours of his earlier children surfaced in 1999, and then in 2002 under the heading "Com Cab blag". At the time, in 2002, the mayor was being criticised for his use of taxis and the Greater London Authority had an account with a firm called Computer Cab. The BBC Match of the Day presenter Mark Lawrenson was the subject of at least three vehicle checks and a bizarre attempt to discover if the former Liverpool defender had any business dealings with the television presenter Lionel Blair. Whittamore was asked to conduct ex-directory searches for various papers on such well-known figures as Jeremy Paxman, John Cleese, Elizabeth Hurley and Linford Christie. The award-winning charity worker Camila Batmanghelidjh, founder of Kids Company, was similarly targeted. One paper spent around £2,000 investigating the actress Tamzin Outhwaite, obtaining her ex-directory number and the names and addresses of the six numbers listed as her Friends & Family. Whittamore's company received £250 for its inquiries into Sir Paul McCartney, £300 for an investigation into the "ex" of actress Anna Friel, £250 for a probe into a "hotel" associated with Mick Jagger, £120 for a job linked to the "daughter" of John Major and £250 on the "exes" of David Beckham. Some "research" on the comedian Frank Skinner generated a further £67.50. Wayne Rooney was a money-spinner even before Whittamore was raided in 2003. Whittamore was asked to trawl addresses in the young footballer's Liverpool neighbourhood of Croxteth for numbers of relatives and friends. The vast amount of Whittamore's work came from the tabloids but broadsheets also used his services. One title hired him to make inquiries into bank payments as part of an investigation into renovations at the home of a government minister. The private investigator came back with details of a private company's bank balance and overdraft facility. Television companies were also among Whittamore's clients. He lists business transactions with two television programmes and with a Wales-based production company. The Information Commissioner Christopher Graham defended the ICO's Motorman investigation. "The ICO has always been clear that our decision not to pursue legal action against any of the journalists linked to the Operation Motorman investigation was based on a lack of evidence that the journalists who had received information from Mr Whittamore had directly asked him to obtain the information illegally," he said. "Without this evidence the ICO could not justify chasing every possible prosecution as this would have taken a disproportionate amount of time and resource and was unlikely to lead to any meaningful results." The Whittamore investigation Steve Whittamore was grilling sausages at his family bungalow near the New Forest when the knock on the door came in 2003. The stocky private detective in his mid-Fifties was spending a rare moment outside of the small office he had set up between his home and garage, a room crowded with paper work. On the top of a cabinet were a series of hardback A4 note books, colour-coded blue, red, green and yellow. They contained details of his work for journalists working in national newspapers, magazines and television. When investigators arrived from the Information Commissioner's Office, in the company of a couple of local police officers whose services were not required, Whittamore was amiable but quite adamant from the outset he would not talk about the journalists who were his clients. But the files that were seized from his home offered unprecedented insight into the media's secret dealings with private detectives, revealing for the first time a vast, lucrative trade in illicit personal data. The ICO investigation had begun into two DVLA employees who were selling the private details of registered car owners to private detectives and others, hence the name: Operation Motorman. The evidence led back to Whittamore. The private eye was shown a warrant and an ICO search team accompanied by an independent forensic computer analyst entered his home in New Milton, Hampshire. The investigators later began to uncover how Whittamore's operation ran, unravelling his network of associates. Whittamore himself was a seasoned 'blagger': adept at conning information out of the unwitting. But if he wasn't able to get something himself, he had sources who could. One of the most prolific was an ex-soldier and Hells Angel in Sussex who specialised in posing as a phone engineer to prise confidential records out of phone companies. For criminal records, Whittamore would contact a third party who in turn would contact Paul Marshall, a civilian police worker in south London who trawled police databases for payment. If there was a 'blag' he couldn't do himself, he might turn to another private investigator, John Boyall. Whatever it was - vehicle registration numbers, bank statements, tax records – somewhere along the chain someone could get them. The ICO investigators started pulling together 30 bundles of evidence – linking Whittamore's invoices to named journalists and their victims, whose privacy had been breached. They wanted to bring a conspiracy charge against both the journalists and the private detectives. Three reporters were spoken to by the police investigating the illegal accessing of criminal record databases but the ICO officers never spoke to a single journalist. In April 2005 Marshall, Whittamore, Boyall and a retired policeman called Alan King were given conditional discharges. Whittamore and others still faced charges from the Information Commissioner, but within two months they had been dropped.

Politicians could be barred from ruling on media mergers, says Jeremy Hunt Culture secretary says move would stop people questioning ministers' motives in takeovers such as News Corp's BSkyB bid By James Robinson guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 September 2011 19.00 BST Politicians could be barred from making decisions on media mergers under measures to be included in a new communications bill, the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has said. The proposal would end the arrangement under which the business secretary can block the acquisition of media companies on public interest grounds. Hunt told the Royal Television Society convention in Cambridge that the proposed takeover of BSkyB by News Corporation, which was abandoned at the height of the phone-hacking scandal that engulfed Rupert Murdoch's media company in July, raised questions over the role politicians played in approving such deals. "I was very conscious in the recent BSkyB bid that however fairly I ran the process, people were always going to question my motives," he said. Hunt was handed the power to rule on the BSkyB bid after the business secretary, Vince Cable, told undercover Daily Telegraph reporters he had "declared war" on Murdoch. "I tried to deal with this by seeking and publishing independent advice at every stage of the process," Hunt said. "But in competition law, we deal with this more robustly by removing politicians from the process altogether. This ensures justice is seen to be done as well as actually being done. We should ask whether the same should apply for the protection of media plurality." The shadow culture secretary, Ivan Lewis, earlier this year called for ministers to have their powers to block media bids removed. Hunt also confirmed that regulators, including Ofcom and the Competition Commission, could be allowed to launch investigations into media plurality without the trigger of a takeover bid: "I believe media plurality should mirror competition policy more closely, with independent regulators given the right to start investigations into media plurality and propose remedies to protect plurality even in the absence of corporate transactions." . He said newspapers would not fall under the jurisdiction of broadcasting regulator Ofcom even as they produce more video content on their websites, a move that will be welcomed by the press. Hunt challenged the industry to put forward proposals about replacing the Press Complaints Commission, saying its successor was likely to cover newspaper and magazine content across all platforms, including audio and video on the internet. "It cannot be sensible to regulate newsprint through the PCC, on-demand websites through Atvod and IPTV through Ofcom," he said. As expected, Hunt laid out plans for a crackdown on piracy, detailing a range of proposals designed to make it more difficult for illegal websites to carry pirated films and movies. They include forcing advertisers to remove their content from websites carrying illegal material and making banks and credit card companies responsible for removing their payment services. He said internet service providers should force their customers to opt in or out of parental control safeguards when they sign contracts in order to better protect children from offensive content. The measures outlined by Hunt are likely to be included in a green paper to be published by the end of the year. A draft communications bill is expected by April 2013, with a new act expected to be passed by 2015.

September 12, 2011 The New York Times Rockefeller on the Attica Raid, From Boastful to Subdued By SAM ROBERTS Hours after 1,000 New York State troopers, sheriff’s deputies and correction officers stormed Attica prison to crush a four-day inmate revolt in 1971, Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller telephoned President Richard M. Nixon to claim victory unambiguously. At the time, it appeared that State Police sharpshooters who had fired on the prison yard had killed mostly inmates, not some of the prison guards who had been held hostage inside. And because the inmates were black and the guards white, the governor and the president seemed to suggest, the American public would undoubtedly endorse the state’s assault on Attica. “They did a fabulous job,” Rockefeller told Nixon. “It really was a beautiful operation.” In a follow-up conversation the next day, as grimmer details began to emerge about the assault, in which 29 inmates and 10 hostages were killed, a more subdued Rockefeller acknowledged that his initial boast about the sharpshooters’ precision was premature. “Well you know, this is one of those things,” Rockefeller said. “You can’t have sharpshooters picking off the prisoners when the hostages are there with them, at a distance with tear gas, without maybe having a few accidents.” “Well, you saved a lot of guards,” Nixon replied. “That was worth it.” Recordings of the conversations, which are being published in full for the first time, provide insights into the nation’s bloodiest prison uprising, which remained an indelible blot on Rockefeller’s 15-year record as governor, and ended 40 years ago Tuesday. In the recordings, the governor speaks with seeming candor about some unexplained elements of the episode, including his decision not to go in person to the prison, in western New York, to broker a peaceful resolution, as the inmates and their negotiators had asked. Rockefeller is also heard striking an ingratiating tone with the president, predicting to Nixon, who was preparing his re-election campaign, “You’re going to have a great year.” The revolt began on Sept. 9, 1971, precipitated by unaddressed inmate complaints about grievance procedures, educational opportunities and other issues, investigations concluded. Though an agreement appeared near on many of the inmates’ demands, Rockefeller approved the assault when negotiations over amnesty had stalled and it appeared that the hostages’ lives were in danger. (Inmates were found to have killed one guard and three fellow inmates during the uprising.) “Nixon’s strategy for dealing with the Attica massacre was to minimize press coverage, to spin the story in favor of the government, and to assail members of the press,” said Theresa C. Lynch, an adjunct professor of history at the University of New Hampshire at Manchester who is writing a book about Attica and discovered the tapes at the National Archives in Washington. “I think the tapes reveal that. “He also began a campaign to convince the American public that Rockefeller had acted correctly in not going to Attica to quell the uprising and in retaking the prison by storm. This campaign was based on racism and lack of concern and callous disregard for the lives of prisoners.” Rockefeller reveals in the tapes that he proceeded with the assault even as state officials had figured that an armed assault might cost the lives of all the 39 hostages and hundreds of inmates. And he discusses his refusal to consider granting amnesty or going to the scene — a gesture recommended by his own correction commissioner — suggesting that he did not want to capitulate to the inmates and set a precedent. “This separated the sheep from the goats,” Rockefeller declared. Sixty-two inmates and one guard were charged with crimes stemming from the revolt, and eight inmates were convicted. Charges against the guard were dismissed. A state commission criticized the governor for not going to Attica, while acknowledging that his presence might not have prevented the violence. The commission found that the riot was driven by black inmates unwilling to bow to the “petty humiliations and racism that characterize prison life” and that guards inflicted brutal reprisals after the prison was retaken. In 1976, Gov. Hugh L. Carey pardoned seven former Attica inmates, commuted the sentence of an eighth and said no disciplinary action would be taken against 20 state troopers and guards involved in the assault. Inmates who were beaten sued the state, which settled in 2000 for $8 million. Five years later, the state settled for $12 million with surviving guards and the families of slain hostages. Richard Norton Smith, who is completing a biography of Rockefeller, said of the governor’s version of the events: “Some of this is tailored, clumsily, to impress Nixon. But it also, sadly, reflects the fact that Rockefeller by this stage of his governorship bore little resemblance to the eager, straight-talking, ambitious yet principled rookie of 1959-60.” Professor Lynch shared the tapes she had discovered with Scott Christianson, a former New York criminal justice official who has written on Attica and who made the tapes available to The New York Times. The first conversation came when the president returned a call from the governor, who wanted to brief him. Nixon knew the call was being recorded; Rockefeller apparently did not. “The courage you showed and the judgment in not granting amnesty, it was right, and I don’t care what the hell the papers or anybody else says,” Nixon said. “If you would have granted amnesty in this case, it would have meant that you would have had prisons in an uproar all over this country.” Rockefeller also told Nixon that seven guards who had been taken hostage had been killed and that “quite a few of those were killed prior to this.” Both conclusions proved to be wrong. The next day, even after it was becoming clear that hostages had also been killed by sharpshooters, Nixon told Rockefeller: “You just stand firm there and don’t give an inch. Because I think in the country, you see, the example you set may stiffen the backs of a few other governors that may have a problem. But also in the country, too, I think that it might discourage this kind of a riot occurring someplace else.” “Tell me,” Nixon asked, “are these primarily blacks that you’re dealing with?” “Oh, yes,” Rockefeller replied, “the whole thing was led by the blacks.” Later that afternoon, Nixon asked H. R. Haldeman, his chief of staff, whether reports from the prison included “the fact that it’s basically a black thing.” “That’s going to turn people off awful damn fast,” Nixon said, “that the guards were white.” Years later, Rockefeller, who had run against Nixon for the Republican nomination in 1968 and would become vice president in 1974 after Nixon resigned, expressed regret about not retaking the prison sooner and with less-lethal force. But to Nixon, he suggested that the revolt was part of a nationwide conspiracy and was characterized by cruelty on the part of the inmates. “We’re really developing this in a way,” he said, “that I think will give a lesson to all of us.” This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: September 14, 2011 Because of an editing error, an article on Tuesday about conversations between Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller and President Richard M. Nixon about the Attica prison uprising characterized incorrectly, in some copies, Rockefeller’s decision not to go to the scene. His refusal suggested that he did not want to capitulate to the inmates, not that he did want to capitulate to them. -------------------------- September 14, 2011, 9:21 am The New York Times The Somber Shadows of Attica By CLYDE HABERMAN There was talk of crucifixion and resurrection Tuesday night at Union Theological Seminary, not a surprising topic for that setting. The context was unusual, though. The speakers weren’t referring to Calvary. They had in mind a muddy cellblock yard at Attica state prison where the blood had flowed freely 40 years earlier to the day. The Day Clyde Haberman offers his take on the news. “I was resurrected that day — my life was changed forever,” said Albert Victory, who was one of nearly 1,300 Attica inmates in that yard on Sept. 13, 1971. Tyrone Larkins was also there. He, too, felt transformed. “The indignities we went through 40 years ago motivated me to be a new man,” he said. Long ago, the word “Attica” entered the language as much more than a prison town roughly midway between Buffalo and Rochester in western New York. You could say, depending to some degree on your politics, that it was where prisoners rioted on Sept. 9, 1971, then held guards and other prison employees hostage for four days in the yard of Cellblock D until state troopers moved in with force to regain control for the lawful authorities. Another way to look at it is that the inmates’ spontaneous burst of rioting turned instantly into something more substantial: a full-blown revolt against miserable prison conditions, a seething that had been building for a long time because of ignored grievances about overcrowding, rigid censorship, bad food and shabby medical care. To Mr. Victory, it was about even more than that. “It was about our human dignity,” he said. But what turned “Attica” into a cry of rage — think of Al Pacino screaming the word to fire up a crowd in the 1975 film “Dog Day Afternoon” — was not what the inmates did. It was what the sovereign State of New York under Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller did when it sent armed troopers to storm that yard on Sept. 13. Through shrouds of tear gas, the officers fired at will, so indiscriminately that a disenchanted state prosecutor named Malcolm Bell described it later as “a turkey shoot.” A state investigating panel known as the McKay Commission concluded that the assault was terribly conceived, even more poorly executed and utterly unnecessary. Within minutes, the troopers shot 39 people to death: 29 inmates and 10 of their hostages — the state’s own workers. Eighty others were wounded. Adding in a guard and three inmates who had been killed over the previous four days, the death toll was 43. “With the exception of Indian massacres in the late 19th century,” the McKay Commission wrote, the trooper assault produced “the bloodiest one-day encounter between Americans since the Civil War.” So wanton was the police shooting that Larry White, another former Attica inmate who spoke at the seminary, summed up the state’s attitude toward the prisoners this way: “We will kill our own before we let you win anything here.” As if what happened wasn’t grim enough, state officials then lied about it. They announced that inmates had killed hostages by slitting their throats and even castrating one man. Totally untrue. Within a day, autopsies showed that all the deaths on Sept. 13 resulted from police fire. The lies contributed to a deepening mistrust of government in that era of Vietnam, Kent State and, soon enough, Watergate — a sense that it was capable of just about anything. (It wasn’t journalism’s shining hour, either. The first news accounts told of inmate atrocities on Sept. 13 as if they were fact, without sufficiently ascribing the claims to officialdom. That was the case with all three major New York City newspapers — The Times, The Daily News and, in an article written by me, The Post. It was a lesson in the importance of attribution, learned the hard way.) So Attica endures. It is why a dozen former inmates gathered Tuesday at the seminary, in Morningside Heights. It is why a huge crowd — 1,000 people or more, many of them born well after 1971 — filled Riverside Church Friday night on the anniversary of the start of the uprising. And it is why it was fascinating to learn this week of recorded phone conversations held on Sept. 13 and 14, 1971, between Rockefeller and President Richard M. Nixon. “Well, you know,” Rockefeller told Nixon after the scope of the disastrous assault became clear, “this is one of those things.” One of those things. ________________________________________